The "global war on terror" is over

[Rainbow]

Quote by: RickSp Even discussing energy policy with you is a waste of time. You claim : I suppose you are unaware that in the US electricity is generated primarily with coal or nuclear power. Only about 3% of electricity generation is from oil. (The largest single use of oil is of course transportation.) Oil is roughly between a quarter and a half of the source of energy consumed in the United States, depending how you categorize natural gas. So justifying wars of empire on the magical oil you go on about is simply absurd. The oil we need is far better acquired in the world oil markets rather than by waging war, which tends to reduce available supplies as our foray into Iraq has demonstrated.

#1
Your sacrifice is noted :-)))

#2
Here, it is the link to the oil consumption in U.S. (for 2004) :
- http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

In other words, you want U.S. economy to disappear, and American people to enter Middle-Ages, so whatever is going to be created and/or manufactured to be distributed by "natural technology and scientific devices" like : foot ? :-)))

#3
According to your solutions and informations, the whole world offers U.S. excellent prices for the oil, but that stubborn Bush rejects their bids.
(Remove Bush, and install RickSp as the U.S. President, please).
Read #2

[RickSp]

Yup, a waste of time. Oh well.

[Hermes]

Quote by: Matt W Al-Jazeera? You think that's radical? Oh dear. And you obviously associate Islam with just the Middle East. Get a clue and stop stereotyping. It'll only turn into an anti-Islam battle if the radical Right makes it one. Right now, the majority of Islam is united in denouncing the London bombers, 9/11 and other sickos who target innocents - regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Source for the assertion that the "majority of islam is united in denouncing the London bombers..."

[Sonart]

Quote by: Rainbow Bush lies and you do not. The difference : Bush is the U.S. President and you are not. Am I to understand you want to become the U.S. President ?

Beg pardon? Is this meant to be a point of debate? Let me guess... you NEVER criticized, say, Bill Clinton because, after all, he was President and you were not. {Pfffft!!} :rolleyes:

Quote by: Rainbow Bush : - "hey Folks, we face economy and energy-related problems. Let us suffer, in the name of Democracy" U.S. Nation : - "that is great Mr. President. We give up all the energy-related technologies, enjoy $1.00/week business and employment, so we switch for candles and move (in)to caves."

Well I'm certainly glad you declared this to be 'fictional example' because otherwise you be both a fool AND a liar. You seem convinced that Americans haven't a lick of Yankee ingenuity, American know-how or can-do spirit. Yep, by golly, if we hadn't invaded Iraq we'd right now be back to outdoor plumbing, washing our laundry in the creek and hitching up 'Ol Paint to the buckboard for town.

Meanwhile, by 1980 Jimmy Carter led America on an energy conservation program that eventually reduced our net imported energy by over 25%, leading to the collapse of OPEC, the price of oil dropping by half ($40/bbl to $20/bbl) and the Reagan economic boom. Are you really telling us that George Bush can't lead America to successfully cut imports while Jimmy Carter could?

Quote by: Rainbow What is your solution, then ?

It certainly wouldn't have been to invade and occupy Iraq. What I probably would do is address the nation on the realities of petroleum based energy; that A) we're dependent on untrustworthy and unstable foreign governments for our vital petroleum energy, and B) that same petroleum energy is causing global warming and poses a potentially catastrophic global threat, and C) that there's forturnes to be made out their in creating new energy, and therefore...

(insert Kennedyesque flourish here)

..."I propose that, by the end of this decade, we increase our national security through American ingenuity, and reduce our dependence on foreign energy by 50%."

As to the rest of your dark, dreary scenerio of what happens if the U.S. doesn't go around invading and taking what it needs...

-- you have not enough oil resources - inflations rules - unemployment rules - business completely unstable - According to your ideas, U.S. is a Peaceful nation and the American people live in misery and poverty.

... where do you get this? Do you really give Americans so little credit in being able to innovate and adapt to changing conditions? What would you have Americans do 50 years from now when oil starts disappearing on it's own, the resources exhausted? Throw up our hands and wail? Or invade every oil producing nation on earth and take over their industries to insure enough imports for us?

.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart Beg pardon? Is this meant to be a point of debate? Let me guess... you NEVER criticized, say, Bill Clinton because, after all, he was President and you were not. Meanwhile, by 1980 Jimmy Carter led America on an energy conservation program that eventually reduced our net imported energy by over 25%, leading to the collapse of OPEC, the price of oil dropping by half ($40/bbl to $20/bbl) and the Reagan economic boom. Are you really telling us that George Bush can't lead America to successfully cut imports while Jimmy Carter could? It certainly wouldn't have been to invade and occupy Iraq. What I probably would do is address the nation on the realities of petroleum based energy; that A) we're dependent on untrustworthy and unstable foreign governments for our vital petroleum energy, and B) that same petroleum energy is causing global warming and poses a potentially catastrophic global threat, and C) that there's forturnes to be made out their in creating new energy, and therefore... As to the rest of your dark, dreary scenerio of what happens if the U.S. doesn't go around invading and taking what it needs... ... where do you get this? Do you really give Americans so little credit in being able to innovate and adapt to changing conditions? What would you have Americans do 50 years from now when oil starts disappearing on it's own, the resources exhausted? Throw up our hands and wail? Or invade every oil producing nation on earth and take over their industries to insure enough imports for us? .

#1
It seems you missed my expression, completely.

(Here, we go again, then).
You are suprized that Bush lies ? :-)))
(Less or more, but) We all lie. There is nothing extra-oridinary in it, since it is a part of our (read : Mankind) characteristic(s). Wether a person lies or not, that is your task to figure it out, instead of posting complaints on that subject and/or use it as an argument.
That (read : lies) is exactly what makes me laugh.
Are you going to replace Mankind ? :-)))

#2
The data on Carter's solution(s) concern the time past. One can not make comparison(s), since completely different conditions apply.
You can follow the link and read the information on the data posted for 2004, instead :
- http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

#3
Go ahead and tell your concepts to the People.
Good luck :-)))
I think that overwhelming majority of the People in U.S. are well familiar with your points.
However, the very same People have a little idea on potential consequences, including yourself.

#4, #5
If U.S. follows your solutions, then life-conditions go down, drastically. As the result, people start complaining (at least).

U.S. can not sit and wait for those next upcoming 50 years to come, but react to it today.
There are appx. 300 million people, who are not going to demand, request, ask, ect. for anything then, but take whatever they need. That is the point when a state's fundaments start to shake, with unpredictable consequences.
You can afford it ? No U.S. President (regardless of a political party's shades it represents) would go for your solution(s), unless mentally unbalanced.

[Sonart]

Quote by: rainbow #1 It seems you missed my expression, completely. (Here, we go again, then). You are suprized that Bush lies ? :-))) (Less or more, but) We all lie.

Then please, PLEASE tell me you weren't one of the baying hounds calling for Bill Clinton's impeachment because he lied about an affair. This is a first... rationalizing Bush out of misleading us into an unecessary war by saying we all lie. How about his misleading us through the war, as in leading us badly.... what, we all screw up, too?

Quote by: rainbow #2 The data on Carter's solution(s) concern the time past. One can not make comparison(s), since completely different conditions apply.

Of course, how silly of me. Entirely different... difference being that Carter wasn't in the pocket of the oil lobby and actually believed Americans could conserve. Bush and his entire cabinet are oil lackey's, with no desire whatsoever to conserve energy. Yet, no comparison.

Quote by: rainbow I think that overwhelming majority of the People in U.S. are well familiar with your points.

Y'know, that's interesting... when Bush launched us into this war, he made a bunch of 'point' about what the situation was and how things would turn out. I, on the other hand, suggested the Bush was wrong on his situational analysis and wrong about how things would turn out. Guess what... he was dead wrong and I was dead right.

So if it's all right with you, rainbow, I'll stick to my points, and let the rest of the "majority of the People in U.S." eventually figure it out, just like they're now eventually figuring out what a boondoggle invading Iraq was.

Quote by: rainbow #4, #5 If U.S. follows your solutions, then life-conditions go down, drastically. As the result, people start complaining (at least).

If you say so, rainbow. Gotta tell ya, tho... we've been following LBDubya's and Rumsnamara's advice so far and things aren't turning out that well. Perhaps it's time to try something else.

.

[lily]

Quote by: Zeebadee Oops, seems that the "global war on terror" is back. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/po...gewanted=print This could get interesting if Bush is really going against his handlers, and pushes the issue of how to characterize his administration's policies.

Quick comment on the original topic..I think there's just a tad more that they can be doing in Washington, besides arguing about what this fiasco is called. You'd think the unholy trio could put their minds to better use...........or maybe this is the best they can do? Depending on the day of the week, or how the campaign was going, Bush decided/or not to use the title War President. Last throes anyone?

By all means.........change the name.........great war strategy

``````````````````````

Just another quick comment on who's fault it is..........Clinton's or Bush's. Does it really matter? Bush is the commander in chief NOW.