Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Hmmmm… the “Continue Reading” link is broken again. Shucks. I like hearing about Peak Oil.

I am all for becoming energy independent. If we could convince the tree huggers to step aside; I think we could. There are ways to drill and persevere together.

With that said, I think your/Kerry’s solution has a problem. Unless the whole world quits buying the Arab oil they will still have the funds and the drive (hatred) to take their jehad to America. Remember 9/11? Remember the USS Cole? I think it is better to be proactive instead of sitting back and waiting for the next attack. What do you think?

I think we should end our dependence FIRST, then worry about what other countries do or do not do. I’m sick of being held up, personally at the gas pump, and politically by threats of terrorism. By all means, WE should turn off the flow of money to those who hate us and our nation.

While it may be true John Kerry has proposed a “Manhattan Project” style solution, (admittedly, I’m not up on Kerry’s latest panderings), I find it incredible he will actually support any of the initiatives possibly, and probably, derived and posited from such an endeavor.

Aside from resulting in accelerated development of alternative fuel sources which, I believe, the President’s current energy plan supports; any “Manhattan Project” style would, I believe, have to address our curtailing of dependence on foreign crude oil sources, (Yes, Virginia, drilling in ANWR and exploring other domestic reserves), increasing refining capacity in the short-term, and providing tax relief to fuel consumers to drive down prices at the pump.

All of these “drastic” measures would, necessarily, require the federal government and Congress to behave counter-intuitively by relaxing federal environmental regulations and cutting taxes.

Sounds to me like this “Manhattan Project” is more likely to be a product of a conservative administration than a liberal one.

All we have to do is look at the difference between the way we deal with issues in the Middle East and elsewhere (Sudan, North Korea). Clearly, it’s not about WMD’s or saving people from genocide.

For too long, the developed world has sit back and simply fed its oil addiction. It was easy and cheap, both because we had the technology and the resrouce itself was cheap. So why spend money on R&D? But now we’re hitting a the point where the combination of dwindling supplies of oil and political instability in the countries sitting atop the oil require us to seek other sources of fuel.

And I don’t mean drilling the Arctic or elsewhere—that’s a short-term, election-cycle action that only prolongs the enevitable. We need to spend money on new, hopefully renewable energy sources.

The sad thing is, had we spend the money and time on energy R&D that we’ve spent on military operations in the Middle East, we’d probably be pretty damn close to weaning ourselves off oil…

“If we could convince the tree huggers to step aside”

what do you mean? are the “Tree Huggers” making it hard to stop using oil? I am no hippie tree hugging protesting crazy, but I think they would welcome any move in the direction of energy independce. unless of coarse you want to destroy the air while doing it. so let’s use cleaner technoligies, quit trying to drill were we still have virgin untouched land and start using and funding new tech.
Can you imagine what would happen if we spent some real money on alternitive energy soures?

No they aren’t making it hard to stop using oil; they are interfering with the drilling for oil in many places. That forces us to be dependent on imported oil.

You say use cleaner technologies – bring them on – but I don’t think the drivers are there yet; otherwise there would be a mushrooming business out there somewhere and gas prices would be dropping. Until then we can become energy independent by drilling our own oil wherever we find it.

martiniwitz,
I hope you don’t expect the federal government to come up with a solution.

I agree that our oil dependance is the indirect cause of most of our mideast problems. If we had invested all of the time and money that went into the Iraq War into alternative energy source R&D, we would be setting ourselves up for a much easier future.

> Unless the whole world quits buying the Arab
> oil they will still have the funds and the
> drive (hatred) to take their jehad to America.

Charlie, you’re missing the point. They would have no need to “take their jihad to America” if we cease to have entanglements with the dictators and oligarchs who the jihadists ultimately are trying to destroy.

People keep seeing this in terms of it being Islam versus the West, as if Al Qaeda cares about whether or not Joe Sixpack worships Allah or not. It’s really Islamic factions fighting for control of their own countries. It’s old fashioned 20th century nationalism. They attack us because they realize that if America wasn’t heavily backing their real enemies (Fahd, Mubarek, Musharraf, Assad, Hussein, etc.) they could easily seize power within their own nations (and yes, enforce fundamentalist Islam within their nations). They figure it’s easier to drive America away from their local dictators with some high-impact terrorist attacks and with scary jihadist rhetoric than it is to actually fight their local dictators.

-Cf

Until then we can become energy independent by drilling our own oil wherever we find it.

You need to switch tracks there, Charlie. We’re not talking about finding more oil somewhere. We’re talking about not using any more oil than we already produce domestically, and eventually not using oil as an energy source at all.

You say use cleaner technologies – bring them on – but I don’t think the drivers are there yet

You’re right about that, but if we had waited for market drivers, we’d never have built an atom bomb. Project Bioshield would never happen because (thank God) there’s no thriving market for anthrax antidotes.

Kerry calls his energy plan a Manhattan Project because it’s a national defense measure. Some of you may be old enough to remember the disruption caused by the OPEC embargo of gas to the US and Europe in the 70s. We’re far more dependent on oil now than we were then.

The US consumes 25% of the world’s oil supplies, but we’re sitting on only 3% of all known oil reserves. We’re not going to become energy independent by drilling for oil here. The only two alternatives are to secure oil supplies from other countries, or stop using so much oil.

BTW, if acheiving energy independence means throwing the Republicans a profitable but strategically useless bone and letting Halliburton drill in the ANWR, I say consider it.

Christopher,

Do you think “It’s really Islamic factions fighting for control of their own countries”?

I’ll give you a “what if” scenario. Say Saddam was successful in taking Iran and Kuwait then he took over Turkey and Saudi Arabia and eliminated Israel(and the US did nothing). Then he decided to cut the oil supply to the United States. Do you think Joe Six-Pack would be affected or not?

Let me ask you a question. What do you think The Nazi movement had in mind when they exploited anger and xenophobia in Germany in the 20s and 30s?

American Pundit,

There might not have been a market for the A-bomb or anthrax antidotes but the drive was and is there, its called National Defense and Safety.

“Say Saddam was successful in taking Iran and Kuwait then he took over Turkey and Saudi Arabia and eliminated Israel(and the US did nothing)”

yea REAL likely scenario, since those things happened ten fifteen twenty years ago. Saddam was presantly harmless when we decided to go to war.

Charlie, your examples are completely full of holes.

First of all, 1930’s Nazi Germany was the greatest military power on the face of the Earth, the most powerful the world had ever seen, in fact. They stood a reasonably good chance of actually taking over Europe and subjugating the rest of the world through proxy alliances. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, on the other hand, was nothing like Nazi Germany in terms of their actual ability to wage war and threaten the world. I would venture to say that the entire Muslim world combined, when compared to the other great powers in the world today, isn’t even as great a power compared to Germany in the 1930s.

Saddam was widely considered the greatest military power in the Middle East, and his whole war machine proved to be a house of cards compared even to a fraction of America’s might. Pakistan has, what, a dozen nuclear weapons and no ICBMs? Russia and the USA have tens of thousands, most perched atop missles capable of wiping out the Muslim world in minutes.

In short, let’s not get carried away with the degree to which Saddam or any other Middle Eastern tyrant is capable of seriously threatening our country (most of whom, by the way, would rather keep the USA on their good side since we pretty much pay for their GDPs and their military protection). Fighting Terror is important, but it’s not a matter of protecting America from conquest or even from crippling sporadic attacks. Hell, it seems to me that the primary beneficiary of the War on Terrorism won’t be the USA but would be, in fact, the nations of the Middle East who are most threatened by fundamentalist movements.

Okay, now, second: If Saddam even came close to taking over Kuwait or Iran (which, from 1992 to today was totally preposterous and totally impossible) I would absolutely advocate kicking his ass - as would a broad coalition of other countries. Your “what if” scenario is just ludicrous and, even if were possible, doesn’t prove anything except to show the great chasm of difference between the real-world Saddam and your imaginary Saddam-as-a-plausible-threat-to-us-and-to-his-neighbors.

Third, and this is the whole point of this thread which you are completely missing, if America wasn’t reliant on Middle Eastern oil then a severing of the oil supply wouldn’t make a damn difference to Joe Sixpack. The point is that our reliance on Middle Eastern oil is the reason that we are entagled in the region in the first place (that and protecting Israel) - and that severing our reliance on the oil will sever our relationships with the corrupt regimes that are, in fact, the real target of Al Qaeda and their ilk.

Let me ask you a question: Is it your contention that Osama bin Laden’s goal is to forcably convert the USA to Islam? Is the world really that much like a comic book where evil supervillians seek world domination from secret lairs?

-Cf

Full of wholes?

You guys are looking at Saddam with hindsight. You need to read House Resolution 114 to see Saddam as the world saw him before his ousting. True as it turned out he was “just a house of cards” but then we didn’t know that did we.

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
[Report No. 107-721]
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. —

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

At the very least I knew that saddam wasn’t the biggest threat to the u.s.a. when we invaded Iraq, and as it turns out, I am pretty sure that the pres. and the his admin. knew it too.

They did???

Pentagon Orders 77,000 Body Bags
February 11, 2003
“Fears that Iraq will inflict heavy casualties on British and American troops intensified yesterday when it emerged the Pentagon had ordered almost five times the number of body bags it requested before the last Gulf War. “
Fears that Iraq will inflict heavy casualties on British and American troops intensified yesterday when it emerged the Pentagon had ordered almost five times the number of body bags it requested before the last Gulf War.
Within weeks it will have more than 77,000 bags at the ready, compared with 16,000 in 1991.

right i agree charlie, when we invaded Iraq it then became a danger to america, but before we made that decision, it most definetly was not the most dangerous threat before that.

edit the last two words from the last post:)

Christopher,

You ask: Is it your contention that Osama bin Laden’s goal is to forcably convert the USA to Islam?

I believe that thought has crossed his twisted mind more than once.

You also said that I am missing the point of this thread. True I did stray a bit.

Getting back to the original point total energy independence and Iraq. I believe with my whole heart that if we could stop buying their oil today and didn’t give another dime to Israel they would still hate us with a passion. They hate every thing about our way of life. They call us “the great satin”. Even the Koran teaches HATE.
The Dinner Table
1. [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
2. [5.81] And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors.
3. [5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.
Found this interesting, nothing to do with our conversation.
Read the part about woman and the outhouse.
The Women
4. 4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
5. [4.43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, nor when you are under an obligation to perform a bath— unless (you are) travelling on the road— until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.

Well, this is the real problem, isn’t it. On the one hand, we have people who believe that we’re at war with a few wackos who are twisting Islam to further their nefarious goals. On the other, we have people who believe that all Muslims are out to kill Americans.

Being in South East Asia currently, I have an interesting perspective on the situation. I’ve been travelling around Malaysia and Indonesia for the last year, and I know first hand that the vast majority of the hundreds of millions of Muslims here are peace loving people. They don’t hate Americans. They watch the Disney Channel with their kids in the morning before starting their workday, they talk about sports over lunch, and they come home at the end of the day to a loving wife and help the kids with their homework. Sound familiar?

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah was recently elected on a “progressive Islam” platform, beating his rival who espoused a more radical form of Islam based on Sharia law. Most Muslims, at least in SE Asia, are not interested in radical Islam. They want to see their children, boys and girls, get a good education and become responsible, successful adults.

In short, that whole “they hate us for our freedoms” thing is a bunch of BS. Islam is not at war with the United States. But if we keep poking them in the eye, they will be - and rightly so.

At the Shangri-La Dialogues in Singapore, where Rumsfeld is speaking right now, Singapore’s Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, just made the goal of our “war on terror” crystal clear. He said,

The terrorists are driven by an ideological desire to force their strain of Islam on others, but their goals and methods are geopolitical. The war against terrorism must therefore be simultaneously fought on both fronts: the ideological as well as the geopolitical.

While the United States cannot lead the ideological struggle, only it has the capacity to lead the geopolitical fight. In this contradiction lie the complexities.

The United States can kick ass anytime - anywhere, but that’s not going to stem the flow of new al Qaeda recruits; it’s going to make more. The “ideological struggle” will need to be won from inside Islam. Abdullah’s “progressive Islam” victory is proof that victory can be achieved.

Conversely, President Bush’s failure to suppress Islamic radicalism by invading Iraq, and his failure to impose his Greater Middle East Initiative reforms on that region hammer home the point that the ideological struggle cannot be won by forcing progressive Islam on the region from the outside.

Further incursions and overt medling by the United States in the Middle East will only encourage radicalism. The only way to prevent that from happening is to reduce the strategic importance of the region.

We face the choice of forceably stabilizing the Middle East in order to increase investment in oil production, or ending our reliance on Middle East oil and letting the “progressive Islam” reformers get to work without being seen as an arm of US foreign policy.

asdf

test

I did not mean to say all Muslims hate us. I was speaking about scum like Osama bin Laden and ones like him who have the power and money to deceive the masses into believing that every one not of their faith are infidels and that it pleases Allah when they kill us; (you and me) the infidels.

Is the question about alternative energy or progressing to an “oil free” country? 10 years sounds a bit optimistic given all the Gulfstream Jets and SUV’s…

I don’t know where our government was during the “prosperous” 90’s as far as R&D, but since this is no longer a factor we are once again dependent on tax cuts and entrepreneurship.

Let us not forget that greatness, is not created in a vacuum and oil requires a semblance of world order.

Dan

Kerry’s plan will make the United States independent of foreign oil in ten years. Since everyone buys a new car every five years, that should be plenty of time for most people to own hybrid SUVs. :)

As for the 90s, I would have liked to have seen more research on alternative energy, but it was a golden age of peace and plenty. There was no urgency. I mean, we elected Bush on the assumption of, ‘sure he’s not very bright, but how hard could it be to be President’, right?

And let me just say, tax cuts don’t spur entrepreneurs. Confidence in the economy does that. If budding corporate founders are comfortable putting their homes and cars up as collateral on a business loan, new companies and jobs will be created.

You’re right that oil requires a semblance of world order - at least in the OPEC world. The corollary is, countries that require oil must actively create a semblence of order in the Islamic OPEC world. Whether or not you think that’s a good idea, or even possible, is part of what this election is about.

That must be the filthy rich conservatives who buy SUV’s every 5 yrs…and those electric planes are coming along just fine…golden age of impurity…collateral…ramble ramble…D-

Ok. Now you’ve lost me. :)

See how Turkey does it. Try “Country Watch” web site.

John Kerry proposes a “Manhattan Project” of alternative energy to cut off our dependance in the Middle East, reducing the amount of money funding terrorists, national security, etc. A quick reality check is in order. First of all the Manhattan Project was SECRET!!! Not just secret, SUPER SECRET!!! No leaks, no press, nothing. Or is this one of those, “I promised being for alternative energy before I was against it, because I didn’t realize it would hurt our friends.” Mr. Kerry.

Wake up!!! The only thing holding Syria back is that their country would be turned into a sea of molten glass if they tried anything out in the open with their weapons of mass destruction and they have NOTHING to do with OIL.

Do you think our enemies or even our friends will look kindly on us as we strive to become energy independant? If you thought the seventies were bad, that is all she wrote if Kerry went ahead with that kind of plan. Our enemies would say they were defending themselves as they cut us off and our friends would suddenly have a million technical difficulties in getting us oil or just come out and say we are not friends any more.

People say that George W. Bush is stupid, but I say stablizing the Middle East is the smartest thing we can do as a world community. John Kerry is a fool if he thinks that the rest of the world would let us control an alternative power source. A bigger fool if he thinks that the Middle East will just let us destroy their economy. Also just ignoring the problems in the Middle East will not make them go away.

Islam (as a world body) HATES the United States of America. There are Muslim Americans who agree that 1)the US should not support Israel. 2)give all our power, money and weapons to the World body, the UN. The majority of nations in the UN are Islamic. It is an open secret there and most people in America have no clue. One and two not being enough 3) a world court to try and procecute nations, military, and citizens. Laws that would in effect shift power from the Security Counsel to the World Court.

(It has worked so well in the United States Supreme Court, state courts, and appeals courts, overturning law created by the people, why not a world court.) Talk about BIG GOVERNMENT. I thought the US court system now was a headache, imagine a world court.

The policy of President Bush is messy, bloody, and difficult, but WINNABLE. What is the alternative? There is no real alternative, except surrender(You first). We try something, like alternative energy policy we are toast economically. We attempt to pull out of Iraq without staying the course, we are dead. Snipers like the one in DC and the East Coast would be everywhere. A typical day in Israel. Not domino, real effects of cowardace, weakness in our enemies eyes.

I vote option one. Stablize the Middle East or at least keep the fight on their soil as long as possible. Sooner or later the Middle East will see that we are not backing down. They will try to hurt us again like in Spain. One more attack to break the American Spirit.

Will it?!

I vote option one.
The Manhatten Project was SECRET Weapon. Not a political tool. Changing energy sources would be a WEAPON. If you attack someone with a weapon do you think they won’t defend themselves? No one would mention the seventies anymore in gas prices as a bad time in the economy if such a policy was pushed forward.

Or was this one of those, “I was for Alternative Energy, before I was against it when it hurt the Economy”. Alternative energy will happen. An idea turned into practical everyday. Maybe even clean NUCLEAR power. It is worth a shot.

Our own back yard is an energy source!! Pretty simply “Waste to Energy” “Mother Nature’s Battery”. There is so much waste that could be utilized for various reasons! Heat, electricity.
Why are we not looking more towards a most obovious resource?
Visit our Web-Site: www.naturesfurnace.com
and give us a call for discussion!