Right on, man. But I don't think we'll get anywhere with alternative fuel research with this administration. If you're banking on hydrogen fuel cells, you'll be waiting for a long time. We had an electric car less than 10 years ago...but that was quickly stamped out by a combination of the oil industries, auto manufacturers, and the US government. Maybe 5-10 years from now we'll start seeing more vehicle options, but that's still about 25 years too late, in my opinion.
Jay Leno Asks Why - OT
- Thread starter Wesley
- Start date
Right on, man. But I don't think we'll get anywhere with alternative fuel research with this administration. If you're banking on hydrogen fuel cells, you'll be waiting for a long time. We had an electric car less than 10 years ago...but that was quickly stamped out by a combination of the oil industries, auto manufacturers, and the US government. Maybe 5-10 years from now we'll start seeing more vehicle options, but that's still about 25 years too late, in my opinion.
I would agree with you that a democracy may not work there, if you are saying that.
The General question you have asked has no answer. Most positive outcome has already occured. Saddam out of power more rights for Iraqis. Now can the Muslims in the area get along and allow those rights to stay?? I for one doubt it.
Does it bother you that all of the powers that be, the ones pulling the strings on this grossly mismanaged war, are the same type of people that weren't willing to fight for our country? Most of them were the right age when we were at war.
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and Rice have never seen a day of combat in their lives. They're no better than the press. In fact, there are probably more people in the press who are bashing this story that have served, or at least been present, in combat.
Last edited:
Deposing Saddam was not that great if in doing so we touch off a civil war that destabilizes the region. Rights are also not a lot of good if it is not reasonably possible for you to exercise them.
Hope you have put your money where your mouth is on that. Buy Gas and Oil stocks if you really believe that. I think you've lost it but that's ok. Oil prices are in the mid to upper 60s. A far cry from the upper 70's, and certainly a farther cry form the doomsday predictions of $100/barrel from last summer, and the summer before. Stockpiles are good. Refineries are down right now for maintenace and will be back up over the next few weeks. Look for prices to follow minus the Memorial day weekend gouge.
This post has been getting a lot of responses so I feel the need to address this part of it, because it is wrong.
Many people who never served support going to war when there is a good reason. Conversely, many who have served are some of the most vocal critiques of war because they have seen it firsthand.
Not all wars are the same. No one I know wants to wage war on everyone. Conversely, very few people oppose going to war in all situations. Many people supported going into Afgahnistan but not Iraq, because doing one made a lot more sense than the other.
This is completely untrue. Please name a war where there were not many people against it? People didn't want to go to war in WWII when Hitler was killing millions of Jews! If you really want us to be the nice big brother of the world, surely saving millions of innocent people classifies as being nice, right? There were protests then, just like there are now. It will always be like that.
No. I do think he was right about the general trend for wealth to consolidate in the hands of a very small number in capitalist economic systems though.
Oh yeah...Tennet is certainly an "unbiased" third party. Frankly, he appears to be trying to cover his *** because his "intelligence" (you may recall Bush kept him on...he was head of CIA under Clinton as well) was lousy.
And just to refresh your memory...nearly all of the politicians in DC were pro Iraq war based upon this intelligence...a point many now conveniently forget.
Your phrase about my post being completely untrue is completely untrue. Of course there are always people against any war, that is not contrary to what I said at all. My point was that those who are against a war are not always those who would be unwilling to fight in or endorse a different war.
I'd say "what the heck is all this political crap doing on here?". But then...someone would say "if you don't like it, don't read it!".
I'd agree, but contend "if you don't like my opinion/question, don't read it as well".
We'd tussle, call one another names, even toss around some red-rep. Posts would be reported and the heavens would come down upon us. Pretty standard really.
Alas, instead I'll dream of TD catches being ruled TDs instead of inappropriately called out-of-bounds, footballs going through uprights, pressure on the quarterback and offensive linemen blocking longer than .24 seconds. It's really quite breathtaking...
I'd agree, but contend "if you don't like my opinion/question, don't read it as well".
We'd tussle, call one another names, even toss around some red-rep. Posts would be reported and the heavens would come down upon us. Pretty standard really.
Alas, instead I'll dream of TD catches being ruled TDs instead of inappropriately called out-of-bounds, footballs going through uprights, pressure on the quarterback and offensive linemen blocking longer than .24 seconds. It's really quite breathtaking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
It's pretty easy, ala World War II, to sit around and hope the threats aren't real. Confronting Germany when they reoccupied the Ruhr would have been very unpopular at the time. It also would have saved millions of lives.
Wow, with that logic, we had better start a draft. Let's invade everyone in the world that might have a perceived beef with us. We wouldn't want to give them a chance to cool their heads, or for a reasonable government to control their own extremists.
Nobody knew about the genocide aspect of WWII until well after we were involved. That is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
It's pretty easy, ala World War II, to sit around and hope the threats aren't real. Confronting Germany when they reoccupied the Ruhr would have been very unpopular at the time. It also would have saved millions of lives.
Wow, with that logic, we had better start a draft. Let's invade everyone in the world that might have a perceived beef with us. We wouldn't want to give them a chance to cool their heads, or for a reasonable government to control their own extremists.
Nobody knew about the genocide aspect of WWII until well after we were involved. That is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.
Who do you blame for improperly funding our intelligence gathering forces? You compare the deaths on 9/11 to a five year war?
Frankly, our actions are reducing the number of terrorists. We are killing many and I don't think the existing ones have a whole lot of time to be out recruiting these days because they are running for cover. There will always be the element that wants to harm us no matter what we do (see 9/11). By the way, you can't "buy" friends.
Wow, there's a reversal of what he said - TWO points and Cael would be proud! :wink0st:
He said he can't think of anything that Bush has done right - Anything! Not just "completely" or "100%" right. Anything. And I'm inclined to agree.
This presidency has been a complete and utter disaster. The list of fiascoes is endless and continues to grow.
Today he actually stated that US troops leaving Iraq would allow the county to turn into a "cauldron of chaos". Hey george, try turning on a news report or get info not pre-prepared, pre-reviewed by Cheney, Rove and Haliburton. Turn into? We're there, oh great one. Have been since about 2005.
Never said Clinton was perfect.
Yes. Thousands of American deaths in each case. If thousands of American soldiers died for the sake of preventing, say 500 American deaths here, we've come out behind. I think we probably could have had the best of both worlds, as I don't buy the "fighting them over there instead of here" line.
Frankly, you're wrong. A large portion of the people we've killed did not pose any threat to us before we invaded. Additionally, most terrorists are not in Iraq and hence aren't running from anything. Saudi Arabia is the breeding ground for a large percentage of terrorists and our actions in Iraq have only aided their recruitment.
Meaning that our "war on terror" is one that really can never be won. Our best hope, through military or any other means, is to reduce the size and effectiveness of that element. I suggest that military force is one of the least effective ways of reducing its size. Small surgical strikes have a role in reducing its effectiveness, as does better intelligence so that we know how to utilize those strikes.
I addressed this previously. Perhaps calling them "friends" is not accurate, but money certainly can and does buy power, influence, information, and allies. The typically Iraqi would tell you a lot more about what is going on if you give him a few thousand dollars. It works the same way with the tribal leaders. When we went into Iraq we took the riches of many Sunni tribal leaders, thus pissing them off, when we could have bought them off for relatively little.
Korea was won?
Hmm, last I new, there technically still wasn't peace. Probably a big reason for all those US bases and thousands of troops still over there.
Why do people still wish to compare the reasons for fighting WW II to that of Iraq. Both battle fronts are more than 10 miles away from the US, that's about where the comparison ends. Oh, and Japan, Germany and Iraq all have an "A" in their spelling.
Hmm, last I new, there technically still wasn't peace. Probably a big reason for all those US bases and thousands of troops still over there.
Why do people still wish to compare the reasons for fighting WW II to that of Iraq. Both battle fronts are more than 10 miles away from the US, that's about where the comparison ends. Oh, and Japan, Germany and Iraq all have an "A" in their spelling.
