Iraq cuts oil for 30 days *UPDATED* Now with 50% more missiles!

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>If the government poured money into research for alternative fuel sources and efficiency research we could see huge changes in extremely short times.



    What exactly is the hold up? Do they not want to free themselves of the middle eastern oil ties once and for all?



    I don't get it. We are so close to having some viable alternatives. All we need is a push from the government.



    :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, that is not what we need. More government mandates and programs...



    What we need is for those who are already working on the problem to keep doing so. There has been a few major leaps forward and the technology and it has begun to be adopted by some major manufacturers. For one, Freightliner LLC is going to be putting fuel cells in their rigs to allow drivers to shut the engine off over night while it powers their fridge, tv, radio, lights, etc... Supposed to save hundreds of gallons of fuel a week. Money saved for the drivers. Fuel saved for the environment. A new technology gets a foothold. And there are many other examples of this catching on with smaller vehicles in other major manufacturers. The government does not need to make it happen. People need to buy things that use it to show that there is interest in it.
  • Reply 22 of 31
    robertprobertp Posts: 139member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>If the government poured money into research for alternative fuel sources and efficiency research we could see huge changes in extremely short times.



    What exactly is the hold up? Do they not want to free themselves of the middle eastern oil ties once and for all?



    I don't get it. We are so close to having some viable alternatives. All we need is a push from the government.



    :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

    I beleive the hold up is strictly money. Let's face facts here, if an alternate AND cheaper fuel source were to be invented the oil companies would be the ones to lose billions. What other use would we have (on this scale of automotive fuel) for the amount of oil we import? The oil industry has probably squelched all attempts at new fuel sources because they would not be the inventors and would not reap the monetary rewards.

    Just my input.
  • Reply 24 of 31
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Well not only is Saddam again calling for an oil embargo on Israel and the US, but he's moving missiles into the no fly zones.



    What are you thoughts on:



    1) An invasion of Iraq led by the US. Is it right or justified?



    2) The chokehold we impose on Saddam's regime. Is it justified or are we (the West) just being bullies?



    3) If Saddams regime falls, what will replace it? A democracy? Something like what they have in Saudi Arabia? Something worse than the present regime (Ala Iran)?
  • Reply 25 of 31
    thttht Posts: 3,241member
    <strong>Originally posted by Outsider:

    Well not only is Saddam again calling for an oil embargo on Israel and the US, but he's moving missiles into the no fly zones.



    What are you thoughts on:



    1) An invasion of Iraq led by the US. Is it right or justified?



    2) The chokehold we impose on Saddam's regime. Is it justified or are we (the West) just being bullies?



    3) If Saddams regime falls, what will replace it? A democracy? Something like what they have in Saudi Arabia? Something worse than the present regime (Ala Iran)?</strong>



    Hmm..., thinking unusual thoughts:



    1) Let Saddam do whatever he wants to do.

    1a) If he does something really bad, we can destroy him without guilt.

    1b) I submit the idea that Saddam invading Saudi Arabia as not a really bad thing.



    2) Justification is irrelevant now. It's really what works. Revolution through impoverishing the people, ie sanctions, doesn't seem to work.



    3) The Iraqi people should decide what sort of government they want. If they want an Islamic Police State, let them have it. If they want another dictator, let them have it. If they want an Islamic Democracy, let them have it.
  • Reply 26 of 31
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    1) Let Saddam do whatever he wants to do.

    1a) If he does something really bad, we can destroy him without guilt.

    1b) I submit the idea that Saddam invading Saudi Arabia as not a really bad thing.




    The scary part about that is what if we went back in time to September 10, 2001 and replaced the word 'Saddam' with 'Osama bin Laden'. It sound like we are just waiting to be attacked before we do anything.
  • Reply 27 of 31
    thttht Posts: 3,241member
    <strong>Originally posted by Outsider:

    The scary part about that is what if we went back in time to September 10, 2001 and replaced the word 'Saddam' with 'Osama bin Laden'. It sound like we are just waiting to be attacked before we do anything.</strong>



    Let's not replace "Saddam" with "Osama bin Laden" and just discuss "Saddam" on its own merits.
  • Reply 28 of 31
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    If Saddam starts activity that looks like he is mounting an offensive should we pre-emptively attack them? I think we should for our own interests and the greater interests of that region. In the middle east he is like the child molesting uncle they turn a blind eye towards. They don't like what he does but he's family.



    The middle east is in bad enough shape with out having this idiot goading the terrorists.
  • Reply 29 of 31
    thttht Posts: 3,241member
    <strong>Originally posted by Outsider:

    If Saddam starts activity that looks like he is mounting an offensive should we pre-emptively attack them? I think we should for our own interests and the greater interests of that region.</strong>



    An offensive towards what and what are our interests in the region?



    Israel? Let Iraq attack first. Oil? We can mitigate with increased production from South America and Central Asia and the preferred method, alternative energy sources and conservation.



    <strong>The middle east is in bad enough shape with out having this idiot goading the terrorists.</strong>



    Always remember that 15 of the 19 terrorists in the Sept 11 bombings were from Saudi Arabia, not from Iraq. Always remember that.



    Not to mention the Cole bombing, the Riyadh bombing, the Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings, and Somalia were done by non-Iraqis either. The terrorist organizations forming the al Queda matriculated in Egypt and the Arabian peninsula.
  • Reply 30 of 31
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I know none of the 911 terrorsts were iraqi. That wasn't my angle. My angle is that Saddam is offering the families of suicide bombers $25000 as an incentive.
  • Reply 31 of 31
    thttht Posts: 3,241member
    <strong>Originally posted by Outsider:

    I know none of the 911 terrorsts were iraqi. That wasn't my angle. My angle is that Saddam is offering the families of suicide bombers $25000 as an incentive.</strong>



    That's not an offensive.



    Think of it this way, those Saudi terrorists have killed more American citizens, probably close to an order of magnitude more, than Saddam's forces or his proxies ever have. That's 3000+ American citizens, and all we do is give Saudi Arabia more money who in turn promote a culture that seems to breed Islamic extremists of al Queda's ilk. All Saddam is doing is taunting.
Sign In or Register to comment.