Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini
Calm2Chaos said:
I was being sarcastic... And stating a simple fact... never said that I wanted to nuke them
Thank you for clearing that up. I hope Scaredcrow is being sarcastic, but I doubt it.
Calm2Chaos said:
What national values are you talking about?
Those detailed in the 1st and 4th amendments for starters.
Calm2Chaos said:
your lack of concern over the security of the country would be whats weakening it. There is a faction out there that wants to kill anyone that does not agree with them. We have a border and security that is poris to say the least. we have those within our borders that would love to do harm to us. Do you feel any of these statements are untrue?
Those are true statements, but the faction that wants to kill you doesn't want to do it because you don't agree with them - they are being radicalized by people twisting the perception of what American foreign policy has done to them. If the US stopped empowering dictators, occuping lands, selling weapons to corrupt governments, and making deals with bad people for oil access, then potential for the mass population to be radicalized would diminish. Instead, you have a policy that only increases the potential for radicalization.
Calm2Chaos said:
SO i was fooled into thinking we have security concerns? Attacks on our own soil and our interests and people overseas seem to bear out those concerns
First, the American people are being fooled that by allowing the executive branch to collect more power, disable the check and balances so thoughtfully placed into this wonderful system, and do things like monitor complete streams of communication in voliation of the constituional rights of its citizens - all in the name of "homeland security" that can't even bring water to its own citizens during a hurricane, or tell for itself that contracting out border control to a country that aided the very 19 people we are talking about - is a stupid idea!
[sorry about the run-on sentence]
Calm2Chaos said:
I don't want to nuke the ME. I see no usefull purpose in it.
What do you think about Scaredcrow's wanting to do it? What do you think about sharing the same side of the debate table with someone who wants to nuke the disease clean?
Calm2Chaos said:
Our industries are pretty tied into petrolium. Ten years to break from oil would cause a catastrophy IMO. I am assuming your an econims and science guru from your above statement. Your going to flush a multi billion dollar industry and millions of jobs down the toilet and the economy will just hum along. ....OK .. you got me.... I'm not an econmist so maybe you know something I don't
Yes they are tied to petro. And economic theory would suggest that in a freemarket economy with little government regulation, and low government funding of innovation, they will continue to be tied to petro until another alternative comes into play that has an equal or lessor perceived cost from the consumer. How do you get there?
1) invest more in alternative research (already being done)
2) artifically and slowly, increase the cost of oil based prodcuts in the market, and items that consume such produces (taxation)
3) artifically and more rapidly, decrease the cost of lower-than-normal-oil-usage prodcuts in the market (tax breaks)
Items 2 and 3 have been purposely avoided in this administrations tenure, because it reduces the economic strength of those who hold oil assets, and those who make devices that are used to secure those assets (defence companies).
Hell, the US still has houses heated on heating oil! That is the dirtyest and wasteful method I could think of. The whole refining industry has been designed to amplify uncertainity and market ripples, because in the today's global oil market, the more unstable it is, the more money the oil companies make.
How about having a government that creates policy to make the country safer, cleaner, and more technologically competitve for the day when oil runs out?
(instead of doing the opposite to keep the oil companies and the defence contractors required to maintain access to oil for those oil companies as rich as possible)
Calm2Chaos said:
And if you think it was only 19 people then you're a fool on a fools errand. There was a whole lot more then 19 people involved in this attack.
Multiple attacks on the wtc. Atacks on warships and military basis and embassies.. this isn't a shot in the dark, these are acts of war
Good point. But the war is against those who push idea that America is evil. And when the execution of the war helps that idea persist and grow - all the technology in the world isn't going to allow the US to win.
The US needs new leadership and a new plan if it is going to win the "war". GWB could still do it, but evidence to date shows that he is gonna "stay the course" cause that is what people like about him.
I'd settle for just a little congressional oversight - just a taste. Cause right now it looks like the US is one terrorist attack away from having elections cancelled and the constituion being through out the window.