Nobody is laughing. Just disgusted.
I'm used to Cowboys now. Been here awhile.
Reminds me of the Neil Young lyrics:
"Your Cadillac has got a wheel in the ditch And a wheel on the track"
olddog
er: "similarly inclined"
Similarly inclined to do what? What did Sadaam do to the US that others might be "similarly inclined" to do?
You used the words "fight back". What did Sadaam do that we were "fighting back" against?
********************************************************He had our oil?
That's not what the U.S. intelligence estimates say at all. But obviously, you know better than they do.
Iraq is nothing more than a terrorist recruitment and training ground. The techniques developed there are now being used in Afganistan (by the terrorists).
Oh, I get your point. Other proper examples for the same point would be.........
It's time for change
It's time for a change
and.........
Under George Bush's economic plan
Under Bush's economic plan
To a large degree, I agree. On the plus side, Iraq can be considered as a "flypaper tactic." Many of the wannabe terrorists flocked to Iraq where we killed them at a prodigious rate. We killed them by the thousands. As for Afghanistan, who cares?
Some ancient worthy said "The penis is mightier than the sword." By that he meant that your enemies can breed faster than you can kill them - and that's probably true. But it takes a generation to grow new goblins and who knows how things can change in fifteen or twenty years.
For example, evolution may take over in that we've removed a goodly portion of the 'stupid gene' (i.e., attacking an Abrams tank with a pickup-mounted .50 caliber machine gun) from circulation.
Nate Nagel wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news6.newsguy.com:
long before Bush got into office. don't forget WTC I.
I don't want fire ants in Michigan. I don't want everybody who got flooded out or burned out or whatever moving here. I don't want this place to turn into Hong Kong (or even California).
Luckily, things will probably hold together well enough until I'm gone, and I don't have any children to worry about. But that's no excuse for me to say "I got mine--screw you."
We're going to have to cut back AND pursue other technologies. Everybody is looking for a single answer, and there isn't one.
And so what if climate change isn't caused by human activities? It's a worthy goal to not use up every damn thing we can. I'd be giddy if we never sent another dollar to buy oil from unfriendly countries.
Cindy Hamilton
Oh, yes, if I want examples of functional, intelligent foreign policy, I'm going to turn to people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
Couldn't you come up with some examples of people who have not been dismal failures?
nate
I wholeheartedly agree that we should keep looking. Some things actually help a bit: Walmart is putting skylights in its stores and reducing lighting costs during the day. Almost anybody can erect a solar water heater and save a few bucks a year.
A couple of points about "using up" every damn thing. Starting with the Romans, much of Europe was denuded of trees and North Africa was turned into a desert over the need for wood - mainly for charcoal. When the wood essentially ran out, coal was developed. The industrial revolution was run on coal.
Just before coal got scarce, oil was found to be a viable substitute.
If the oil runs out, we'll find something else.
The problem with being self-sufficient in oil is: we can't be. Oil is fungible. Oil from here is much like oil from there, the only difference being price. If we drill for oil in ANWAR, it'll probably be more profitable to ship it to Japan than to the lower 48, one reason being the states of Washington, Oregon, and California won't allow tankers to dock, so the oil will have to be off-loaded in Mexico then piped through Texas. But that's okay, because the oil Japan currently buys from Sri Lanka (or wherever) is now available to us.
Another aspect of this fungibility problem is the malovelence of foreign suppliers. Suppose a domestic company has to get, oh, $30/bbl delivered to justify the development of a field. Nigeria or Iran could cut their price to $25/bbl delivered and put a domestic supplier out of business.
What we COULD do in the short run is develop enough domestic oil supplies to offset boycotts by mid-east countries. We currently get about 15% of our oil from Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, so we could remove them as a threat by relying on domestic production (if we had to). We get most of our foreign-supplied oil from Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria.
Regarding other technologies: It's possible that alternate forms of energy can nibble at the margins but many don't stand a chance of doing more. For example, reliance on solar power is doomed by the laws of physics. The earth receives about 700 watts/sq meter of energy from the sun. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. The only way to increase that value is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.
Accounting for latitude, cloud cover, hours of daylight, and efficiency of solar collectors, it would take a "farm" the size of the Los Angeles basin (about 1200 square miles) to provide enough energy for California. During the daylight hours. Not counting the immense cost of such a contraption (and its ongoing maintenance), everybody in Los Angeles would be in the dark!
Which, when you think on it, may not be such a bad idea.
Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who claims to be a neoconservative.
I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition, foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death (preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings on some imaginary "Love Meter."
To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill terrorists. Kill terrorists. Kill more terrorists!"
But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."
I get it. You voted for Bush so it's impossible for him to be a failure. Why that would be a "flip-flop" and you can't have that.
It's your pride that is fouling your logic Cowboy.
olddog
What metric do you use to describe the neocons' "success?"
I can't think of a single one that works.
They certainly have been responsible for the deaths of some terrorists and potential terrorists. they have also been responsible for the deaths of many of our young men and women, and those of our allies, and destabilizing an already volatile country. they have also been responsible for the creation of many more terrorists. they have also bankrupted our country and destroyed our moral standing in the international community.
If that's success, I want less of it. I find it hard to even speak the word "neoconservative" without using the same tone of voice that they use when speaking the term "liberal." More than anything else they have destroyed the conservative movement or at least gravely wounded it and have assured a Democratic victory in the upcoming Presidential election.
nate
We could (theoretically) be self-sufficient, because that is solely a function of how much we pump. As long as we pump the same amount (or more) as we consume we are self-sufficient. The fungibility is beside the point unless there is some kind of major dislocation and we want to keep it all at home. In that case, the above is likely the least of our problems.
That is largely what happened in the past. HOwever, most experts suggest that most of the ability of OPEC to open the spigots and play games to that extent is largely over as their oil fields have peaked. Russia might be in a position, but they really don't have enough of their oil fields open and flowing yet to do much damage.
But the fungibility issue also works to our favor. Oil prices are based on a WORLD market. So, to the extent that additional pumping from US sources messes with the supply/price equilibrium point, oil prices could come down. Which could impact on another kind of threat.
ONly by the Democrats. Low approval hardly equates to hate or certainly desire to kill, outside of certain rabid circles, olddog.
Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel are deserving of same?
nate
Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel are deserving of same?
****************************************************************8Everyone I know who's been overseas in the last several years has indicated that the people they've talked to are appalled by the actions of the Bush administration.
Us citizens abroad are certain less safe than they were before. But then, who can afford to travel anymore?
Much of the claimed benefit of "the surge" is not directly related to it. The Anbar awaking, and the policy of paying off of groups to stop them from shooting at us have been a significant part of the improvement.
John McCains explanation of the connection between the awakening and the surge display a confused understanding of the reality of the occupation of Iraq.
Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are killing by our actions. People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the hundreds of thousands.
Regardless, it was to Obama's advantage that the focus shifted from the war in Iraq to the economy. The public was buying McCain's story: Less deaths equal "we're winning".
what a fu#king mess!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.