Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

11 Nov 2005, 11:16 pm

toddjh wrote:
The environment is fine, and alternative fuel sources are not economically viable at this time. When the price of oil starts to rise (apart from short-term fluctuations like we've been seeing), then we'll see some real momentum in alternative energy research.

"America's military budget is almost $400 billion dollars. Less than ten percent of that would be more than enough to perfect existing alternative fuel sources and leave oil, with the greed, torture, and murder it brings, in our past. The money spent on this unprovoked invasion alone would have been enough to make significant strides in the technologies."

--The Boy Who Cried Iraq

The environment may be "fine" at the moment, but it's not going to sustain the current level of exploitation for long. The government should have and could have begun fixing the situation a long time ago.



AbominableSnoCone
Cybernetic Vampiric Werewolf Ninja
Cybernetic Vampiric Werewolf Ninja

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,691
Location: Jersey

11 Nov 2005, 11:18 pm

Agree, for all the reasons the main poster brought up


_________________
Join the ASAN social groups in NYC & NJ!
http://aspergers.meetup.com/309/
http://aspergers.meetup.com/318/


Klytus
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 259

12 Nov 2005, 5:32 am

irishmic wrote:
History will record George W. as one of the worst presdients ever.
He is already the worst president in recorded history.


No way. Bush defeated the Taliban in five weeks. He defeated Saddam in three weeks.
The war in Iraq is probably the greatest American victory since World War 2.

What will people remember Clinton for? Clinton was a guy who wasted his time thinking he could talk peace with vile, terrorist thugs like Yasser Arafat.



Nomaken
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,059
Location: 31726 Windsor, Garden City, Michigan, 48135

12 Nov 2005, 8:11 am

Seems like this is more appropriate for the entertainment forum.


_________________
And as always, these are simply my worthless opinions.
My body is a channel that translates energy from the universe into happiness.
I either express information, or consume it. I am debating which to do right now.


toddjh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 277
Location: Champaign, IL, USA

12 Nov 2005, 8:56 am

ghotistix wrote:
"America's military budget is almost $400 billion dollars. Less than ten percent of that would be more than enough to perfect existing alternative fuel sources and leave oil, with the greed, torture, and murder it brings, in our past. The money spent on this unprovoked invasion alone would have been enough to make significant strides in the technologies."


The problem is that these alternative fuel sources (I assume he's talking about things like ethanol, biodiesel, and hydrogen fuel cells) are energy intensive. It takes more energy to create them than you get from burning them. They could still reduce oil use somewhat (since coal and nuclear power could be used to create them), but the real problem is economic: oil is dirt cheap. Really. Gasoline in the U.S. is cheaper than milk, and an order of magnitude cheaper than bottled water, and that's after huge taxes have been slapped on the price.

No alternative fuel we have right now can compete with that. Just look at the ruckus caused by the latest oil price fluctuations, and think how people would react if they were told it would now cost $10/gallon (or equivalent) to fuel their cars. Nobody would use them while oil was still available for $2.50, and any politician who tried to ban the sale of oil would be committing political suicide.

The sad fact is that there is no way alternative fuels will become the norm until oil becomes prohibitively expensive. That could be in 20 years, or 50, or 200. Nobody really knows.

Quote:
The environment may be "fine" at the moment, but it's not going to sustain the current level of exploitation for long. The government should have and could have begun fixing the situation a long time ago.


The government can't fix the situation by fiat. Human behavior is economic behavior. There has to be a huge economic incentive for something as fundamental as oil consumption to change. The bad news is that this means things will continue to get worse for a while. The good news is that they will eventually get better.

Jeremy



Endersdragon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,666

12 Nov 2005, 11:48 am

Lincoln went down as a good president despite all the illegal things he did in office (if you dont believe me just look it up.) And just the AP poll has Bush in the 30s both Rasmussen and Gallup have him in the 40s last time I checked (still not the best but better), and people say there is no liberal bias.


_________________
"we never get respect ... never a fair trial
[swearing removed by lau] ... as long as we smile"
Im tired of smiling.

Vote for me in 2020 :-D


irishmic
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 405
Location: Los Angeles

12 Nov 2005, 12:23 pm

Klytus wrote:
No way. Bush defeated the Taliban in five weeks. He defeated Saddam in three weeks. The war in Iraq is probably the greatest American victory since World War 2.
What will people remember Clinton for? Clinton was a guy who wasted his time thinking he could talk peace with vile, terrorist thugs like Yasser Arafat.

I really hope that you are joking.
I really really hope that you are joking.

The United States is still fighting insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
American soldiers are still dying in both regions.
Violence in Iraq continues to escalate not deescalate.

Clinton's Military Legacy
Quote:
The first Bush defense budget went into effect on Oct. 1, 2002. ...
During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns. But more significant than the budget increases was the shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. That shift involved much greater emphasis on precision weapons, sensors, robotics, advanced communications, training, readiness, and orienting the intelligence community toward direct support of military operations. It was that shift that produced the superb military that not only swept through Iraq at a rate that defied historical precedent, but used its awesome force with unprecedented precision and effect, unprecedented low collateral damage, and unprecedented low casualty rates. It was the American Revolution in Military Affairs begun in the Clinton administration that was unveiled in Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom... The Clinton administration also tried to maintain the quality of military personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health benefits for military retirees.


What has George W. done
Quote:
During his presidential campaign Bush charged that the Clinton administration had overburdened the U.S. military with too many deployments overseas, and he promised to pare those military obligations. "Resources are overstretched," he said. "Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life."

Yet in the name of fighting terrorism, Bush is expanding the U.S. military presence overseas faster than Clinton ever dreamed of doing. U.S. forces are not only deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Bush administration has sent advisers and support to the Philippines, Indonesia, Kuwait, Djibouti, Qatar, Yemen, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. The extra $70 billion a year that the administration has pumped into the Pentagon has bought more smart bombs and bigger paychecks, but it has not brought about a significantly larger force. Despite our expanded global war on terrorism, only about 27,000 troops have been added to our 1.4 million active-duty force.

Even with these troop additions, the military is more overstretched now than it was when Bush took office. During the first three months of 2003, the United States had more than twice as many troops on overseas missions at any given time as it did in 2000. This has made it harder to recruit and keep the soldiers, sailors, and airmen we already have. Bush did not create military overstretch, but he did campaign on fixing it. Instead, it has gotten worse.



Last edited by irishmic on 12 Nov 2005, 2:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mattbits
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 36
Location: virginia

12 Nov 2005, 12:45 pm

george bush is nly helping this nation if he did not start a strike on terroism alquieda could have probably attack us again. gerorge busch is a wonderful leader of this country. i will bet you by the end of buschs presidency this war will be history billclintion was nothing but a big jerk and a big idiot :lol: anyone agrre with me


_________________
may the force be with you i am a beliver in jesus christ and i worship him


vetivert
gagged, but never silent
gagged, but never silent

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

12 Nov 2005, 1:48 pm

please can we keep the debate civil, and not resort to personal attacks.

thanks.

Vivi
(as Mod)



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,352
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

12 Nov 2005, 2:26 pm

irishmic wrote:
The United States is still fighting insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

That doesn't detract from the military significance. In fact, that situation is not exactly unique. After WW2 the allies had to deal with Nazi insurgents for a number of years. And the tactics they (the allies) used were far more brutal, including summary execution of prisoners, as a reprisal, under certain circumstances.

As for casualties, tragic as any loss may be to an individual family, they are extremely light considering what's been achieved.



irishmic
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 405
Location: Los Angeles

12 Nov 2005, 2:29 pm

It also does not detract from the fact that the military campaign is not over, or that military victories gained were done so with technology developed under the Clinton presidency.

Ok, I have edited out the personal attacks from the above post, and shall strive to refrain from making such comments in the future.



ajs_line_of_silver
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 355
Location: Adelaide

12 Nov 2005, 2:43 pm

I think that any one that inherits office is not suitable but that’s just because I don’t believe breeding to be a suitable indicator of ability
Have some people forgotten the reason for going to war wasn’t it something about weapons of mass destruction boy where they wrong there it has some of the same ring as ealeat communist guard was not that his dads reason for going to war they were wrong to


_________________
S?cuse me my reason is currently on holiday


irishmic
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 405
Location: Los Angeles

12 Nov 2005, 2:50 pm

Oh, I just saw mattbit's post.
Can I retract my previous statement and make just one persoanl attack.
No! Ok!

Mattbit I really appreciate your patriotic stance.
You must consider yourself a very fine American.
However, most of the world does not agree with your statement.
I have posted elsewhere the dismal approval rating of George W. (37%).
I have posted elsewhere the fact that at least one recent poll shows that 54% of Americans do not trust George W.
I have even posted elsewhere the fact that his own party is beginning to distance themselves from him in preperation for next years election.

But, hold on to your beliefs.
There are those here who agree with you.



Klytus
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 259

13 Nov 2005, 5:58 pm

irishmic wrote:
We didn't need to invade Iraq to provide security in the region or for American safety.
Fact is the region is far more insecure now that we are there, it's also costing a whole lot more.


It was the security of the Middle East that was allowing terrorism to flourish. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq before the invasion. The links between Saddam and Al Qaeda have been well-established, though rarely reported by the leftist media in the West. Saddam and Al Qaeda had an agreement whereby Al Qaeda would refrain from attacking Iraq in return for Iraq sponsoring Al Qaeda's worldwide terror campaign.

The Iraq war isn't creating more terrorists. But it will hopefully get rid of a few! It's not warfare or poverty that's to blame for Islamic terrorism. The backwards culture of the Islamic world has much to do with it. Iraq is now the most democratic country in the Arab world. It would obviously be better for the world if every Arab country was democratic.

Anyway, now that Saddam has gone, American troops don't need to bother defending that craphole country, Saudi Arabia anymore.



Last edited by Klytus on 14 Nov 2005, 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Klytus
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 259

13 Nov 2005, 6:00 pm

Ok, this is a message to Britain, but it's still relevant to the coalition war effort.

Quote:
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 67,00.html

Iraq's message to Mr Blair: we still need the troops that saved us from tyranny
Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq

EVENTS OF recent weeks have reaffirmed the need for the alliance between the new Iraq and Britain. The lesson of the ghastly drumbeat of terrorism, the rioting in Basra and the vile murder of the leadership of the Iraqi Anglican Church is that the battle of Iraq cannot be won by retreat or compromise, but by the vision and determination for which Britain is renowned. Above all, Britain owes no apology for delivering the enslaved people of Iraq from the hands of a callous tyranny.
The challenge is to show fortitude in the face of horror so that we can finish the job that began in 2003 of uprooting dictatorship and implanting a democratic government. Reforming Iraq, restoring a society distorted by fascism, was never going to be easy.

The alternative — to pretend that sanctions were working and that Saddam Hussein was contained — was an illusion. As has now been established, the United Nations Oil-for-Food programme was corrupt in root and branch. Saddam manipulated Oil-for-Food to become his personal chequebook for a campaign of international bribery and a trough from which his psychopathic progeny supped. Saddam’s regime openly declared in August 2001 that the sanctions had collapsed. Indeed, in 2003, as Saddam proclaimed his innocence to the world, his envoys were in Syria to negotiate the purchase of North Korean long-range missiles.

The Baathist regime, guilty of aggression and genocide, was overturned because Britain and the United States had courageously enforced the UN Security Council resolutions that others would barely support with words. Today the painstaking effort to enable Iraqis to express their views freely is also grounded in international legality. Foreign troops are in Iraq on the basis of a Security Council resolution, just as Iraq was liberated through the enforcement of 17 such resolutions that Saddam chose to flout.

Those who preferred the stability of the mass grave to liberation, and who raised their voices to save Saddam, but not his victims, have spuriously claimed that the war was fought to discover stocks of weapons of mass destruction. But Rolf Ekeus, the first head of the UN weapons inspectors, has argued that stocks were not the issue. Saddam could always re-create his stocks and until the end he could restart mustard gas production within months and nerve gas production within a couple of years. Moreover, Saddam used chemical weapons casually, gassing 5,000 Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988 and then using chemical bombs against Shia Arab civilians in 1991 — after the Gulf War ceasefire.

It is from this perspective, of the need to rebuild Iraq after decades of being run by a criminal state, that I have come to ask Tony Blair to keep British troops in Iraq. There are very few countries whose armed forces have the broad range of skills that Britain’s do, skills vital to the sometimes volatile situation in Iraq and skills that have been evident in your troops’ impressive performance.

While Iraq has often proved unpredictable, substantial progress has been made in rehabilitating a country that from the moment of its British colonial creation in 1921 was a failed state. Unfortunately, many in Britain are unaware of the advance of Iraqi democracy and of the desire of its first democratically elected government to have British and other foreign troops remain. Instead, some parts of the media have elevated the hooligans of Basra into tribunes of the people.

The stone throwers of Basra do not speak for the 8.5 million Iraqis who defied terrorist violence to vote on January 30, 2005. Nor do they speak for the vast majority of Iraqis whose democratically chosen representatives negotiated a final constitution in record time. That constitution reflects the realities of today’s Iraq and is, like the March 2004 interim charter, a remarkably progressive document. No constitution elsewhere in the Islamic Middle East is as democratic.

Similarly, those who attack mosques and churches, who murder schoolchildren and labourers, who behead foreigners and who kidnap humanitarian workers are not engaged in “resistance”. Those sabotaging Iraq’s first democracy bear no resemblance to the resistors of foreign occupation in wartime Europe. Rather, they are, in their ideology and record, contemporary representatives of the fascism that wreaked such havoc 60 years ago in Europe. They are supremacists and racists, as worthy of our contempt as those who practised apartheid in South Africa.

Nor do these terrorists have a popular base. They are drawn from a minority within Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority. They have no political wing and no manifesto beyond punishing their fellow Iraqis for welcoming British and American liberation and for daring to vote. Many of the suicide terrorists are not even Iraqis, but foreigners driven by religious fanaticism and al-Qaeda’s death cult — the poisonous gift of the Arab world that supported Saddam and now vilifies our nascent democracy.

There are occasional immoral voices that call for a new dictatorship to be installed in Iraq as, they claim, a less laborious means of imposing order. Order is certainly important, but so is freedom. A restored dictatorship in Iraq will be neither friendly nor benign. Animated by vengeance and fed by oil, a new dictatorship will again seek to make Iraq into the Arab Prussia and the overlord of the Gulf, goals that Iraqi regimes before Saddam aspired to.

To abandon us now would be murderously irresponsible and cynical. The resulting devastation would outstrip that of the spring of 1991, when the Kurdish and Shia Arab uprisings were encouraged and then betrayed. Even Saddam’s regime conceded that during those few weeks in 1991 that some 30,000 were killed. The true number was many times higher.

Building democracy in Iraq is not a fanciful quest, but a recognition that all other approaches have failed. True stability comes from consent, not from the illusory “stability” of dictatorships. It is therefore in our mutual interest that we pursue the cause of democracy. We may falter, we may tire, but if we persevere, we shall not be defeated.