Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest - View Single Post - BILL CLINTON's MILITARY CAREER
View Single Post
Old October 26th, 2006, 10:30 PM   #29
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,463
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesann View Post
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.
I'm definatly thinking long term here. I think that part of our problem is we keep trying to make short term fixes rather than trying to fix the problem. Even if we put our full effort into hydrogen powered car right now it'd probably be 5 years at least before you see even limited production, another 5 before you see sales to the general public, and yet another 5 years before they're out there in significant enough numbers to reduce oil consumption. But if we don't start it'll never happen. Once they're avalible though they'll be avalible world wide so demand for oil will drop everywhere. It may not reduce conflict in the region but it will reduce the effect those conflicts have on our lives and allow us to deal with them without worring about our oil supply.

I'm not a big fan of all the investment we're putting into China, but thats a whole other topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesann View Post
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.
I agree. And if they want to keep fighting I have no problem with letting them fight. Why should we get involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesann View Post
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.
Probably not anytime real soon, but again, I'm thinking long term. Most of the power plants built lately are natural gas fires which i think is stupid. Natural Gas makes such a good home heating and cooking fuel I hate to see us use it up making electricity. Again, short term thinking. I'm guessing that they're probably the cheapest type of power plant to build, so I see it as power companies trying ot make a quick buck with minimal investment. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is moving ahead with nuclear power. Eventually we'll realize that if some 3rd world country can safely run them then so can we.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesann View Post

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" ??? ).
I never said that we shouldn't use trade embargos or military might as encouragements. Treat them like little kids, give them a cookie when they behave and make them sit by themselves in the corner whan they don't. If they really piss us off we whomp thier ass. But I'm not buying the "worlds policemen" role that some people think we should play. I just don't think we should get involved between groups that have been fighting since the begining of time.

And yes, trying to decide what was an "unprovoked" attack is never easy and will have to be decided on a case by case basis.

BTW what "repercussions" are we dealing with from Iraq attacking Kuwait? That war ended in 1992. This current war had little to do with that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesann View Post
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.
I agree that "steming the growth" would be a win. But as long as we keep messing with the politics of that part of the world they'll keep coming at us.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.15111 seconds with 20 queries