ha screw you CMUJEEPER i agree with much of what brewman said, its not all that different then what i said as to why we are targets/THE TOP TARGET. All three scenarios brewmann brought up could happen, and his political foresight to what the potentential candidates will say is completely reasonable. I happen to like brewmans posts and think he is a smart guy.
I do agree about reducing dependance on oil, but thats not realistic in the short term. I dont see any major major difference occuring in the next 20 years. Maybe USA consumption per capita would go down a tiny bit, but china alone will make world wide consumption spike so i dont know what effect it would have. It wont reduce conflict in the region if our oil interests are reduced. Henry ford for all his anti semetic quackery rightfully believe to a degree that trade could bring peace (much like the old european monachs entra-marrying helped reduce warfare, when our economies are so related .... hopefully we dont just jump and fight over silly shit.) Because of the relationships in the global economy, reducing our oil comsumption will not help if our interests in china are met with resistance in oil rich countries. Our allies that are worth two shits fight for their interests here, and our tens/hundreds of billions of investement going into china every year isnt going to be let just fade away cause of some oil embargo or sqauble.
The muslims and jews will fight for control of jeruslaem to the end of time. Our relationship has nothing to do with that. Their could be no one left on earth but 10 jews and 10 muslims and they would all fight to the death.
Originally Posted by brewmenn
1. Work to find an alternative to oil. We're going to have to do this eventually, we may as well start now. The only viable option I see using current technology is nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen for transportation..
I dont see nuclear taking off, even thought its safe, we have to much ignorance, we cant even transport the waste with out the news people getting everyone worked up about it. Its one of those not in my back yard things. People think great "ill use nueclear power" but most folks want the generation to be 2,000 miles away. And not a drop of waste to EVER pass through their state.
Originally Posted by brewmenn
2. try to encourage the different religious and ethnic factions to settle thier differences peacefully and let them know that if they both insist on fighting that we'll let them fight and not support either side, but if some country launches an unprovoked attack on another we'll destroy thier military.
Sounds good an all, but with out trade embargos or our military might and flexing how do we "encourage" them. First of all they get off on telling us no, and second with out starving 'em or lobbing a shit ton of missiles they have really no reason to listen.
The retailiation for unprovoked attach a la Iraq attacking Kuwait ? We are still dealing with the repercussions, and i dont see how you can agree with that part CMUjeeper
or you mikeL? Or unless you guys meant you agree with FUTURE unprovoked attacks and we will use bill clinton english and debate what unprovoked
is for years before we react(like what the meaning of the word is "is" ???
duuuuuur ! i know we cant kill all the radicals, thats as realistic as mikeL not being happy untill there is zero terrorism. My point was you cant, and i know it. :tonka: Not that we should try to literally kill every radical but steming the growth is a win in my book.
MikeL you didnt answer when then last time there was zero terrorism ????