Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda

mammasan
mammasan Posts: 5,656
edited October 2007 in A Moving Train
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071008/ts_nm/britain_iraq_afghanistan_dc
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    we damned if we do, damned if we dont.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we damned if we do, damned if we dont.

    Not necessarily. There are other ways to combat terrorism that would be more effective. Our government just refuses to take that path.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mammasan wrote:
    Not necessarily. There are other ways to combat terrorism that would be more effective. Our government just refuses to take that path.

    like what? diplomacy? I think the war in Iraq is fueling more terrorism then the war on terror.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    like what? diplomacy? I think the war in Iraq is fueling more terrorism then the war on terror.


    No not diplomacy. A complete reworking of our foreign policy would be a great start. Ridding ourselves of our dependency on foreign oil, specially oil for the Middle East. Reducing, if not entirely cutting off, our support of oppressive Middle Eastern regimes like the Al Sa'uds. Once we stop meddling in their affairs and stop pumping billions of dollars into the region islamic terrorism will slowly wither away.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mammasan wrote:
    No not diplomacy. A complete reworking of our foreign policy would be a great start. Ridding ourselves of our dependency on foreign oil, specially oil for the Middle East. Reducing, if not entirely cutting off, our support of oppressive Middle Eastern regimes like the Al Sa'uds. Once we stop meddling in their affairs and stop pumping billions of dollars into the region islamic terrorism will slowly wither away.

    great plan sign me up. sadly we still depend on oil. I don't see us loosing that for maybe 10-20 years from now.

    rework of our foreign policy is a great start though, I agree. come nov 08 that will begin.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    mammasan wrote:
    No not diplomacy. A complete reworking of our foreign policy would be a great start. Ridding ourselves of our dependency on foreign oil, specially oil for the Middle East. Reducing, if not entirely cutting off, our support of oppressive Middle Eastern regimes like the Al Sa'uds. Once we stop meddling in their affairs and stop pumping billions of dollars into the region islamic terrorism will slowly wither away.

    You raise a good point. Your post got me thinking about this whole Iran mess and our foreign policy. If you look at a map of Iran, you will see that the US occupies territory along both the eastern (Iraq) and western (Afghanistan) border. We have them in a classic pincer movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement) and we could (if we had the will) squeeze them like a zit until they popped (yucky analogy, I know). That's why I think Iran is so freaked out, and can you blame them. I am not a fan of Iran, but how would the US feel if the former Soviet Union simultaneously attacked and occupied Canada and Mexico while stopping to search all of our sea traffic just outside our jurisdictional waters? If we didn't already have nuclear weapons, we would find a way to get them... and quick.

    As far as your point of catering to other oppressive Middle Eastern regimes; Iran is a huge source of instability in the middle east and their rising influence has their arab neighbors quite uneasy. It seems to me that that the US is acting the part of the mercenary on behalf of wealthy arab states to check Iran's rising power. How many anti-american protests do you see on the streets of Jordan, Saudia Arabia, UAE and Kuwait?

    Thus the 'status quo' needs a war with Iran to keep the good times rolling. I can hardly wait until the US is free of the influence of Middle East oil....Tis but a dream, I'm sure..........
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    great plan sign me up. sadly we still depend on oil. I don't see us loosing that for maybe 10-20 years from now.

    rework of our foreign policy is a great start though, I agree. come nov 08 that will begin.

    I agree that our dependancy will last at least another 2-3 decades, but that did not need to be the case. Just think about it from the time our government decided to put a man on the moon to the point where we actually accomplished the task was about 10 years. Back in the 1970's during the oil shortages we knew that depending on the Middle East for oil was going to be problematic. Had we started then in developing alternative fuel source we would not be in the mess we are in now. I mean for Christ's sake Brazil runs on sugar ethanol. No offense to Brazil but when did they surpass the US in technological advancements. Our government knew of the impending problems with the Middle East but did nothing. You have to ask the question, why in 30 years did we not come up with a way to ween ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil when we knew that it would bring us nothing but headaches. Why today do we still continue down the same path of foreign intervention when we know the catastrophic results it has had.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mammasan wrote:
    I agree that our dependancy will last at least another 2-3 decades, but that did not need to be the case. Just think about it from the time our government decided to put a man on the moon to the point where we actually accomplished the task was about 10 years. Back in the 1970's during the oil shortages we knew that depending on the Middle East for oil was going to be problematic. Had we started then in developing alternative fuel source we would not be in the mess we are in now. I mean for Christ's sake Brazil runs on sugar ethanol. No offense to Brazil but when did they surpass the US in technological advancements. Our government knew of the impending problems with the Middle East but did nothing. You have to ask the question, why in 30 years did we not come up with a way to ween ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil when we knew that it would bring us nothing but headaches. Why today do we still continue down the same path of foreign intervention when we know the catastrophic results it has had.

    that whole issue with not having an alternative to oil boggles my mind. there is so much money to be made with finding one even if the government doesnt help. I'm hopeful that the next decade will spur on some great innovations. many in part from the automobile industry. if we cant find an alternative, maybe we can start with cars that use less gas and are appealing to the masses.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Aggression begets aggression.

    Idiocy is also somehow contagious.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    I'd love to sell my shitty gas guzzling Explorer if anyone wants it. its 11 years old but runs well. i want a regular car.
  • FredFlintstone
    FredFlintstone Posts: 193
    jlew24asu wrote:
    that whole issue with not having an alternative to oil boggles my mind. there is so much money to be made with finding one even if the government doesnt help. I'm hopeful that the next decade will spur on some great innovations. many in part from the automobile industry. if we cant find an alternative, maybe we can start with cars that use less gas and are appealing to the masses.


    no administration will divest the country from Middle East oil.
    Waaaaaay too much money and influence in that game.
    Someone will come in and fill that economic and global politic vacuum.

    Do you think we would cede control to China? Russia? never ever ever ever.
    "Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago"- Stephen Colbert
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    FredFlintstone wrote:
    no administration will divest the country from Middle East oil.
    Waaaaaay too much money and influence in that game.
    Someone will come in and fill that economic and global politic vacuum.

    Do you think we would cede control to China? Russia? never ever ever ever.

    Exactly. If America invented cars tomorrow that run on CO2, and produce a minty pine fresh pure oxygen exhaust, they'd still be tits deep in the Middle East dropping bombs, and drilling bullets into civilians for leverage of the region.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    FredFlintstone wrote:
    no administration will divest the country from Middle East oil.
    Waaaaaay too much money and influence in that game.
    Someone will come in and fill that economic and global politic vacuum.

    Do you think we would cede control to China? Russia? never ever ever ever.

    thats bullshit. oil is a limited resource. it will eventually run out. then there will be no more oil to be dependent on.

    like I said, there is too much money to be made in an alternative. no matter who is in washington.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jlew24asu wrote:
    thats bullshit. oil is a limited resource. it will eventually run out. then there will be no more oil to be dependent on.

    like I said, there is too much money to be made in an alternative. no matter who is in washington.

    yes, oil is a limited resource, which drives up the price, which drives up profit...

    those profiting on oil don't have much time left, therefore, make all the money they can now...so, kill things like the electric car...work to keep fuel economy requirements low...

    keep the oil and money flowing...
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    jlew24asu wrote:
    thats bullshit. oil is a limited resource. it will eventually run out. then there will be no more oil to be dependent on.

    like I said, there is too much money to be made in an alternative. no matter who is in washington.

    yep, there's money to be made with an alt...but everything runs on oil now....so that's where the cheese is now, not with an alt.
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    yes, oil is a limited resource, which drives up the price, which drives up profit...

    those profiting on oil don't have much time left, therefore, make all the money they can now...so, kill things like the electric car...work to keep fuel economy requirements low...

    keep the oil and money flowing...

    what are you talking about? the government gives nice tax breaks and other incentives to those who buy electric cars. how do you explain that?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jlew24asu wrote:
    what are you talking about? the government gives nice tax breaks and other incentives to those who buy electric cars. how do you explain that?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

    you should dig a little deeper when posting your own propaganda ;)

    * GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.

    * Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.

    * No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.

    * A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.

    * Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    If the US doesn't control it (oil), someone else will...

    So they invade and drop bombs on people to make it so.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    If the US doesn't control it (oil), someone else will...

    So they invade and drop bombs on people to make it so.

    the US doesnt control oil now. that someone you speak of is OPEC.

Categories