If this guy gets in

McCain does at least have a somewhat realistic look at alternate fuels. I heard him recently say he is for stopping the subsidies for corn ethanol. Other then those in the corn business most agree it is not a good direction to keep going. We need to cut our loses and try something else. I believe he is for working on hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear power...about the same as Hillery but I think she is shying away from nuclear and likes subsidies a little more. Obama, there is really not a coin flips difference between he and Hillery on this. At least for what you can tell from his short time in the senate.

I don't see anyone with a clear vision on energy. Seems like they all hope if they throw enough darts one will stick and be a good idea.

Tim
Click to expand...


I think we should drill offshore in the new oil fields found in the gulf, off the coast of Florida and Cuba. The reason I say this is because if we don't, the chinese will, and I would much rather have our technology off the coast of Florida than that of the chinese. I trust our oil people and their concern for our environment much more than the trust the chinese and their concern for human life let alone our environment. I certainly don't think we should drill in the Everglades, as Thompson once suggested during his short campaign, and I would fight against that happening. I think we should build the crap out of Nuclear Power plants. It is the safest and cleanest source that can provide the huge amounts of electricity we need. And I really like Hydrogen although it's probably down the road a little.

Hitch
 
McCain does at least have a somewhat realistic look at alternate fuels. I heard him recently say he is for stopping the subsidies for corn ethanol. Other then those in the corn business most agree it is not a good direction to keep going. We need to cut our loses and try something else. I believe he is for working on hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear power...about the same as Hillery but I think she is shying away from nuclear and likes subsidies a little more. Obama, there is really not a coin flips difference between he and Hillery on this. At least for what you can tell from his short time in the senate.

I don't see anyone with a clear vision on energy. Seems like they all hope if they throw enough darts one will stick and be a good idea.

Tim
Click to expand...


I think we should drill offshore in the new oil fields found in the gulf, off the coast of Florida and Cuba. The reason I say this is because if we don't, the chinese will, and I would much rather have our technology off the coast of Florida than that of the chinese. I trust our oil people and their concern for our environment much more than the trust the chinese and their concern for human life let alone our environment. I certainly don't think we should drill in the Everglades, as Thompson once suggested during his short campaign, and I would fight against that happening. I think we should build the crap out of Nuclear Power plants. It is the safest and cleanest source that can provide the huge amounts of electricity we need. And I really like Hydrogen although it's probably down the road a little.

Hitch
Click to expand...


Hasn't Cuba already sold the drilling rights in their waters to China?
I have never understood why environmentalists get strict environmental regulations on drilling in the USA and then fight it here while countries who don't care drill wherever they want. Oil based fuels are still cheap to produce if the supply of oil is large enough.

Tim
 
Last edited:
Well, that's fair enough, and I respect your position.

As for Iraq, I personally wish we had taken care of Afghanistan in totality prior to anything else, but I also know that situations change, and war does not move in a logical progression according to the timetables and plans we carve in stone. It was the decision of all involved, with the knowledge they had available at the time, dating back even to the Clinton administration in 1998 and before.

Has the situation in Iraq run longer than most Americans wanted? I'm sure. But, to be honest, in the modern world of instant gratification, is that really a significant question? We will wait an hour or two at a restaurant to eat supper, but five or six years to depose a dictator and help re-establish a nation's and people's sovreignty and restore their ability and desire to self-govern is too long.

Has it generated more casualties than most Americans thought? I don't know. My guess is probably, partly because journalism is a different creature now than it has been in previous wars. We get pelted with 4,000 dead, x killed today in ______, X more wounded. Comparatively, though, when you consider that number against the number killed in the Pacific or European theater in WWII, technology and training have greatly reduced the number of American KIA. And, as long as one person is willing to strap a bomb to himself and run into a crowd, I don't know that you can totally prevent American soldiers from being killed. Also, until the Iraqi people are willing to stand on their own, no amount of prodding on our part will help...we can show the way, but until they want to take responsibility, they won't. It just becomes a question of how long we are willing to hang around and wait for them to do so.

Should we bear the entire financial burden? Dunno that one, either. We pretty much rebuilt Japan and parts of Europe; I guess we just don't know any better than to try to help, even if the other nations don't want it. With oil and gas bouncing against the limits of sanity, it sure would be nice if GW could "persuade" a few billion barrels of oil out of the Iraqis as payment for some of the war debt.
 
I sometimes wonder if the American people would have seen the carnage and death on D-day whether their would have been shrieks about why we were there and not in Japan since the Germans didn't attack us. Fighting wars not to win really grinds me. I believe we should have went in, occupied the hell out of Iraq and Afganistan and shut them right down. Occupy them for 20-30 years while paying for it with their resources and when we had a generation of them that grew up under our way of life...slowly turn it back over to them. I just deleted a paragraph or two where my plans for world domination were explained....I'll save that for later.
 
Harker for President!!! I'm affraid there's a sad truth to what you wrote. Our county has become completely self absorbed with no backbone and no willingness to make the tough choices. Can you imagine George Washington trying to get a revolution started in today's world? The headlines would read "No war for tea".
 
I guess that's one of the main reasons I get so pissed and prone to diatribe. How is our military supposed to manage a war when the US gets reamed every time somebody dies? The old adage "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" is more like "Kickin' Butt and Apologizing" now. What a joke! I've spoken with soldiers and they've explained to me how difficult it is to actually pull the trigger...you have to have permission to shoot back for gods sake!

We get reamed for Gitmo and yet some of our so-called allies and many of our critics have committed and sponsored atrocities far beyond anything in our play book(yes, I believe it). The Soviets dropped toys with explosives embedded in them to the children of Afghanistan. JUST IMAGINE IF WE DID THAT! But for chriminy sakes why would we? It's against the doctrine, the very being of the American phylosophy.

When we really need to shake down a terrorist what do we do? We send them to Germany or France or Italy or Saudi etc.....where they can plug the bastard into the Euro 220 through a regulator and get the answers. Water boarding would seem like tea and cucumber sandwiches. Hey, I'm fine with that. The way I see it, just because I'm a Christian American the guy and his cronies would like to rape my wife and daughter and slaughter my other children in front of me. I don't think there is any mortal way of making him suffer enough for that thought alone. I believe that he should seriously contemplate his fate and do it in a way that is agonizing and painful beyond anything any man should ever endure or imagine right before he is given the priveledge of being snuffed and sent to burn in hell for eternity. And furthermore, it should be done in front of the other scumbag terrorists. Why? Because we don't feel that way about other religions or cultures....these extremists can't get along with others...they are sub-human and need to be culled quickly from our planet. The Joe Average Muslim better get on board with that concept real quick or they're going to find that they are permanantly lumped in with the real bad guys.

Like Colonel Hunt said a couple years ago,"We aren't killing nearly enough of these bastards".
 
Last edited:
So you're saying we should attack every country that harbors muslims in an attempt at total islamic eradication?
Click to expand...


What would be the purpose of asking something so ridiculous, other than to continue to dodge answering my substantive questions?

Hitch
Click to expand...


Because I thought your reference to the Barbary wars in trying to validate the war in Iraq was equally rediculous.

If you haven't noticed, a faction of muslims are not the only group to hate westerners. And to paint all "muslims" as western-hating and looking for total eradication of us is equally rediculous. There are nut-jobs everywhere and only a small percentage of them of muslim. I don't think Timothy McVeigh was muslim. To think cleaning up a few of them in Iraq is making the world demonstrably safer for us is just wishful thinking.

Back to the point- if you thing the Bush administration has done such a good job, it oughta be easy to at least hit the high points. I think it's only fair to give you first dibbs on taking a crack at giving me proof of his wonderful accomplishments before I discuss the downsides.
 
Harker! Hail Harker! This would be a good time for all of us to watch the movie "The Man Who Would Be King"....my father's favorite movie of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/..._Would_Be_King_(film)

Of course you could also read the book by Rudyard Kipling but I like the movie better.
Click to expand...


If we are going to recommend movies I'd like to also suggest "Lawrance of Arabia". A very good look at what we generically called Arabs and how hard it is to merge the different people even against a common enemy. I'm sure some will see Bush as a modern day Lawrence and that might be true to a point.
It is amazing how little has changed in 90 years... almost makes you wish there were a Prince Faisal to take over as King of Iraq now.
 
"Back to the point- if you thing the Bush administration has done such a good job, it oughta be easy to at least hit the high points. I think it's only fair to give you first dibbs on taking a crack at giving me proof of his wonderful accomplishments before I discuss the downsides. "


He didn't prolong the assault weapons bill.
 
I sometimes wonder if the American people would have seen the carnage and death on D-day whether their would have been shrieks about why we were there and not in Japan since the Germans didn't attack us. Fighting wars not to win really grinds me. I believe we should have went in, occupied the hell out of Iraq and Afganistan and shut them right down. Occupy them for 20-30 years while paying for it with their resources and when we had a generation of them that grew up under our way of life...slowly turn it back over to them. I just deleted a paragraph or two where my plans for world domination were explained....I'll save that for later.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with you and the occupation of Iraq. It was never gonna be over in a few years, but once again I blame the Bush admin for selling us a pipe dream. He knew if they said we were gonna hafta be in Iraq for a couple generations the american public wouldn't have bought it hook, line and sinker like they did.

One of my points of opposition to the war was that I knew such an undertaking was never gonna be only a few years (unless we totally go our butt kicked which wasn't very likely). And it was gonna need an open checkbook to fund, the other point that I vehemently oppose. It gripes me that conservatives talk about dems wanting to give all our money away, what do they think is happening in Iraq? Why the hell should we care about building new/better schools, powerplants and water sources for Iraqis when we have a need to update these things in the U.S.?

I understand it's a tricky situation for Bush to start demanding oil for repayment since the main defense of the bush admin was that this was NOT about oil, but I'm to the point where I don't care about impropriety anymore. I just want what's fair to us since we've already blown a $3B wad over there and we're far from done yet.

So far all we Americans have received from the Iraq occupation is a lot of dead soldiers, a huge debt, and the only thing to show for it is the fantasy that we've stopped terrorism. I guess I don't understand why that makes sense to anyone.

But I disagree with you in comparing the Iraq war with WWII. I hear this mentioned often, especially when trying to make anyone opposed to the war look like liberal panty-waists. Iraq is about as diametrically opposed to WWII as it's possible for two wars to be. If you wanna compare something in the realm of similarity, at least compare Iraq to Vietnam. And we all know how that ended.
 
"Back to the point- if you thing the Bush administration has done such a good job, it oughta be easy to at least hit the high points. I think it's only fair to give you first dibbs on taking a crack at giving me proof of his wonderful accomplishments before I discuss the downsides. "


He didn't prolong the assault weapons bill.
Click to expand...


That actually made me laugh and then I realized that I didn't think you meant it to be funny.

Actually it was "sunsetted", but I'll agree he didn't try to extend it. On the other hand neither did anyone in congress so I'll give Bush 1/2 credit for that one. But I also thought the AWB was much ado about nothing. The only negative thing it did from a practical perspective was make hi-cap mags more expensive. I certainly didn't suffer too much from being restricted to closed-pistol-grip AK's with 10-rounds mags and no flash hider. At least the ducks didn't seem to notice.
 
Last I checked the Vietcong didn't fly planes into an international landmark and economic icon or the most powerful country in the world's military headquarters and bomb discos and torture individuals from religions different from their own all over the world and spread the doctrine of hatred into dozens of other countries through their network of madrasses and places of worship or conspire to destroy the infastructure of other countries on different continents or destroy other cultures far removed from their own geographically etc etc etc the list goes on and on.

Saddam Hussein and his sons tortured, raped and killed hundreds of thousands(if not millions)of men, women and children. They funded countless terrorists and rewarded the killing of our soldiers. They created a safe zone for bad guys. If you want to pick a place for the "OK Corral" of the Middle East you couldn't have picked a better place to do it. It was like setting up for migrant ducks on the Mississippi or Lake St Clair.....it's where the action is. Makes sense to me. Take the time sometime to read about Uday Hussein's favorite passtimes. One in particular that made my blood boil and my stomach turn.....he'd take his security detail and go into the streets and find an attrative young girl and go to her family and blackmail the father into doing things like murder or they'd rape and torture and kill the daughter. If the father did agree to do it, they'd only torture and rape the daughter...while he watched and often times do it in his infamous torture chamber which included a "rape chair" which had sexual prothestics installed that were electrified and included ways to actually split the girl from the groin area to the neck if she resisted. Then the body would be dumped in the street to shame the family(due to the effed up muslim beliefs of course...she was a sinner now) or left crippled, pregnant and full of STD's for the family to deal with. Nifty eh. There are so many shocking anecdotes that it seems like sick horror flick.

Now I ask you, was there ever a better use for military force? No, I didn't fight there and I have never fought in a war. I recognize the waste of human life that war is and certainly am fully against using US and allied forces as sacrificial lambs. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the volunteer forces and their families.

Afghanistan may be slipping in some regions but they had a free election and in many areas the new schools and infrastructure is a great success. Depending on the sheeple of Iraq...that may be a success someday too. If not, then we'll probably end up killing legions of them and destroying a culture in the process. This is the "great experiment" of the modern age and it's up to the Islamic societies to make it work. My bet is, it ain't gonna and this was all for naught. Sadly, it had to be done sooner or later or we'd never know what kind of world this could be.

Simply retreating and pulling out of Iraq sets a precedent that will last forever. You want Iraq to be like Vietnam...that's what will fullfill your wish. The fact is, Bush haters everywhere want this war to fail so they can say I told you so.
 
Jay,

Just for fun, why don't we invade China, Cuba, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Bolivia and all the other folks that like to play fast and loose with personal freedoms.

We have the moral high ground right?

We dont torture people like those Husseins. Oops, I guess we do. But that's okay, they're eneimies of the state, proven in a court of law with due process like everybody gets. Oh wait, no that isn't true either. Well at least they have the right to a trial by jury (habeas corpus). Hmm, no that isn't right either. Well, at least we have a president freely elected by the majority of our citizens in a democratic free and fair election! Doh, not that either...

Well, they're bad and we're good so we ought to kick their butts. They attacked us at home!! Geesh, not that either, I guess that was the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But Iraq had terroist training camps! Oh wait, we also trained them to fly planes into buildings right here in the good ol USA. How about all that yellowcake uranium... Nope, not true either.

At least we have a justification under international law to go invade them to prevent future acts of terrorism. No, not so much, the doctrine of premeptive strike was a bush administration creation...

Oh well, back to the informative debate. I'm trying to figure out who to vote for based on these postings. So far I think it must be McCain since he was a prisoner of war and is honorable.

Charlie
 
Last edited:
Because I thought your reference to the Barbary wars in trying to validate the war in Iraq was equally rediculous.

If you haven't noticed, a faction of muslims are not the only group to hate westerners. And to paint all "muslims" as western-hating and looking for total eradication of us is equally rediculous. There are nut-jobs everywhere and only a small percentage of them of muslim. I don't think Timothy McVeigh was muslim. To think cleaning up a few of them in Iraq is making the world demonstrably safer for us is just wishful thinking.

Back to the point- if you thing the Bush administration has done such a good job, it oughta be easy to at least hit the high points. I think it's only fair to give you first dibbs on taking a crack at giving me proof of his wonderful accomplishments before I discuss the downsides.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I tried to "paint all "Muslims" as western-hating". Where did you read that part? I’m sorry if I gave that impression. I also apologize to all the innocent Muslims out there that read this forum.

And I have no doubt there are more than enough people that hate America here and elsewhere; like the Reverend Wright for example. The ones who accuse Bush of being responsible for this hatred fail to recall attacks during other administrations. Those who blame Bush also fail to have any answers of there own other than to blame Bush. They seem to lack suggestions for solutions for anything for that matter. They just seem to enjoy bitching.

The characters in history that attacked us first were Islamic terrorists…Muslims. They were also responsible for the attacks on our trading vessels (also unprovoked) during the timeframe that led up to the Barbary wars. They were all Islamic terrorists of one form or another. Call them what you like. Ironically, now that you mention it, there has been significant evidence that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols spent time in the Philippines and trained with Islamic terrorists there where they learned bomb making techniques. In addition to that they could be linked to an Iraqi trained military group in Oklahoma City. There’s a very good book on this: “The third terrorist”. Have you read it?

“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”

You should turn off CNN and read more. It may improve your vision of politics and improve your spelling skills.

Hitch
 
I knew my war monger comments would flush you out of that liberal fen of doom sooner or later. Based on your comments it's obvious that you hate Bush and that you think that we are the enemy. That is the basic crux of the left-wing extremist view that is so sickening to me-if only you and the others had the balls to actually say it and not use such double speak and falsehoods to try and make your point. It pisses me off actually and I don't want to play nice with somebody as backward thinking as you. Because, in essence I believe you and your ilk are the problem with this country and that eventually the cancer that you are infected with will spread to the point that there is no hope. Twist and turn it anyway you want but your beliefs are not American-like nor are they the musings of somebody that understands the big picture.

The only compelling point you make is the idea that if we justify the "qaugmire" in Iraq(and by the way your liberal gods did support the invasion)that the same justification is valid for the invasion of the other countries you mentioned-among others I might add. That would be called "Imperialism" wouldn't it now? Of course, you are against that as am I so in that regard we just may agree on something.

But when you say something like this: "We dont torture people like those Husseins. Oops, I guess we do." Well, it's really hard to take you seriously. Because that is one of the most obtusely stupid things I've heard anybody say in a long time. I think my 8 year old daughter gets it better than you do.

And yes, I do want you to be insulted and mad.

"We have the moral high ground right?".....Yes Charlie, actually we do whether you like it or believe it. It's tough to be on the A-Team if you strive to be a loser.
 
By the way, if you ever get out this way I highly recommend attending one of Rev Wright's sermons in Chicago...you will find lots of like-minded individuals there.
 
Jay,

Sorry to rain on your parade, but that is the centrist, realist point of view held by the vast majority of Americans.

It is okay to make mistakes, but the idea is to learn from them. We ought to learn form the mistake of invading Iraq, and grow from it, not hide behind it and continue to justify it.

Yes, we do torture. It is not debatable. Our president and his lawyers authorized it, and we stand by and condone it. If you don't believe that, you are sadly mistaken. What may be a point of debate is whether it is okay to torture people. I say no it isn't, but others think it is okay (the ends justify the means).

I'm not mad. I'm not surprised either. These things always turn into name calling and bullying, and this is no exception.

Hardy har har har, don't understand the big picture. I'd call that the pot calling the kettle black...

Charlie
 
Well, at least we have a president freely elected by the majority of our citizens in a democratic free and fair election! Doh, not that either...
Click to expand...

We are not a democracy per se, we are a Representative Republic. This is clearly outlined in our Constitution if you read it. The majority does not always rule. An example of when the majority does not rule is with respect to our individual rights, like gun ownership or free speech, or freedom of religion. In a pure democracy, as you suggest, where a majority always rules, individual rights often get overlooked and get voted out (by a simple majority) and you end up with mob rule or socialism. The founding fathers clearly defined this, and wrote much about it. John Adams articulated this point clearly, and it's the reason we have the "Bill of Rights". It's also why we have an electoral college. Small states and states w/o many people would be ignored during elections and thus not fairly represented.

Hitch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top