• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Economic battle?

NCPilot

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Currently, terrorist is being funded by oil. The rest of the world, including the US buys the majority of their oil from the mid east. While we are fighting a physical fight in Afghanistan and Iraq (maybe Iran soon), shouldn't we also be fighting a economic battle? Shouldn't we lessen our dependency on oil, and have this current administration fund the reasearch for alternative fuels? What do yall think?

I personally would LOVE to see alternative fuel become a big factor in the near future. That way we can start cutting down on our oil depencey, thus sending less money to the Mid East.
 

millsy

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Of course money should be put into alternative fuels. But it isn't going to happen. Why? Because the public isn't willing to suck it up for a little bit and suffer the pain of changing away from a petrol based society.

Both sides of the War on Terror are being funded by the American public. So is the War on Drugs. Wanna know how the War on Terror is going to go (as long as we are addicted to oil) just look at how the War on Drugs is going (more users than ever, prisons full of simple drug users, lots of rich "terrorists" in Columbia)
 

NCPilot

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
millsy said:
Of course money should be put into alternative fuels. But it isn't going to happen. Why? Because the public isn't willing to suck it up for a little bit and suffer the pain of changing away from a petrol based society.

Both sides of the War on Terror are being funded by the American public. So is the War on Drugs. Wanna know how the War on Terror is going to go (as long as we are addicted to oil) just look at how the War on Drugs is going (more users than ever, prisons full of simple drug users, lots of rich "terrorists" in Columbia)

I agree with you on all points.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
To say that terrorists are fueled by oil (ah, I made a funny!) is a bit of a stretch. That would imply that the Governments of most OPEC country is that of a terrorist regime. I disagree with that whole-heartedly, I think the terrorists do have a dramatic impact on the politics of a certain country, but they do not own them.


Terrorists could become leaders of countries with the snap of a finger, they decide not to place a huge target on their backs. (With the execption of Afghanistan's Taliban Regime)
Let us not forget that (by the more common definition of "terrorist") terrorists appeal to the minority, for the support this minority could provide. Building up the desire for reform in the minority will spread like wild-fire to others who have sympathy for them. Just like Hitler's Labor(ish) Party in Germany, they could bring reform on a grand scale and rule the country.
 

millsy

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Arch Enemy said:
To say that terrorists are fueled by oil (ah, I made a funny!) is a bit of a stretch. That would imply that the Governments of most OPEC country is that of a terrorist regime. I disagree with that whole-heartedly, I think the terrorists do have a dramatic impact on the politics of a certain country, but they do not own them.


Terrorists could become leaders of countries with the snap of a finger, they decide not to place a huge target on their backs. (With the execption of Afghanistan's Taliban Regime)
Let us not forget that (by the more common definition of "terrorist") terrorists appeal to the minority, for the support this minority could provide. Building up the desire for reform in the minority will spread like wild-fire to others who have sympathy for them. Just like Hitler's Labor(ish) Party in Germany, they could bring reform on a grand scale and rule the country.

I think you are bang on.

Let me ask one question. Where do terrorists get their money?
 

LogicalReason

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Actually the US doesn't buy the majority of its oil from the mideast. Not even close.


But I agree with you on what you're saying.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
millsy said:
I think you are bang on.

Let me ask one question. Where do terrorists get their money?


I don't think you can actually point to ONE source where all terrorists get their money. It is in my belief that where and how the terrorists get their money depends on the location of the terrorist organization.

The Taliban, for example, got a majority of its money from the ransacking/invasion of Afghanistan's country.

What do you mean by "bang on"?
 

millsy

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Arch Enemy said:
I don't think you can actually point to ONE source where all terrorists get their money. It is in my belief that where and how the terrorists get their money depends on the location of the terrorist organization.

The Taliban, for example, got a majority of its money from the ransacking/invasion of Afghanistan's country.

What do you mean by "bang on"?

"Bang on" means sort of the same thing as "hitting the nail on the head". I believe your points about the terrorist organizations not forming governments and therefore not directly profiting from oil was accurate.

I also realize that Canada and Mexico are the top two providers of oil for the U.S.

But, indirectly everything that moves in most of the middle east moves because of oil. I believe if you're in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and you have money, it is because of oil, even if it's indirectly through another source.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I still seriously doubt a majority of the money made by the Middle Eastern terrorists is DIRECTLY from the sale of Oil and the likes. It seems reasonable enough to believe that the money is made from a sort of "we won't hurt you" or "we will protect you" offer. The Terrorist cell offers no hostilities, as long as they are funded.


Hm... maybe.
 
T

The Real McCoy

LogicalReason said:
Actually the US doesn't buy the majority of its oil from the mideast. Not even close.

True. Our #1 supplier is.... ourselves. #2 is Canada and #3 is Mexico IIRC.
 
Top Bottom