A Taste of Terrorism – Crudely Bitter

Putting aside all the lies, all the deception,the trillions of dollars, all of the death, destruction and displacement for a moment, I have a question.

Has there been any kind of study done on just how much oil is being consumed in waging this needless war? Seriously, all those tanks and jeeps and planes etc....... require massive amounts of oil. Don't you wonder just how much oil is used in making all of those bombs, and bullets, and uniforms, etc.... How about how much oil is burned to transport all of those weapons and tents and Marines and Rangers and medics and MP's etc.........

Surely if we weren't busy invading and occupying and displacing other people we wouldn't need quite so much oil. Somebody should do a study on this.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Appearantly you don't understand how important oil production in Iraq is, not only to US consumption, but world consumption as well and how important of a role it plays in getting Iraq stable.

I did not say that it was not important. I said that it is not important enough to just barge in and "stabalize" Iraq (which was more "stable" under Saddam than it is now, btw), and under the faux guise of ridding Iraq of WMDs, and while even still continuing to deny that it is about oil. If oil is important, then all America should have an honest discussion about it- and including determing how much American and Iraqi blood a barrell of Iraqi oil is worth.

I've NEVER said oil was justification enough for going in. You know what I've said about the invasion many, many times so why would you imply that I've said otherwise?

And you really do need to study up on what a constitutional republic is and how it works. You've got a BADLY mistaken idea that before our government does anything, they have to obtain the permission of "ALL" America.

Stephanie wrote:Putting aside all the lies, all the deception,the trillions of dollars, all of the death, destruction and displacement for a moment, I have a question.

Has there been any kind of study done on just how much oil is being consumed in waging this needless war? Seriously, all those tanks and jeeps and planes etc....... require massive amounts of oil. Don't you wonder just how much oil is used in making all of those bombs, and bullets, and uniforms, etc.... How about how much oil is burned to transport all of those weapons and tents and Marines and Rangers and medics and MP's etc.........

Surely if we weren't busy invading and occupying and displacing other people we wouldn't need quite so much oil. Somebody should do a study on this.

Somebody has, at least on how much we're spending on oil and gas in Iraq. I was reading about it a couple of days ago on yahoo. I also read an article about 3 weeks ago of how many private sector jobs Iraq was creating as well. That one was pretty interesting. I'll try to find the link to both and post them.

Stephanie,

I still think that your strongest point is how much good we could have done with alternative fuels with the money being spent over there. Sure we've used up a lot of oil, but oil is in crisis and would have been with or without the present war.

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

You disagree with Ziggy on this issue. You also disagree with me. If we all agreed on everything I doubt anyone would post here very much.

Stephanie, big difference between my 99.7% disagreement with Ziggy and my 35%+- disagreement with you. Steph, at least two (2) persons must be engaged in a discussion of a subject before there can be any said disagreement such as you refer to. Ziggy does not engage in such discussions, …….. he attempts to “control” the discussion for the sole purpose of venting his anger and/or disagreement with just about everything posted by other members. And Steph, my above post was not a “subject disagreement” with what Ziggy posted, …….. it was a “critique disagreement” for the tripe and piffle he posted ……. as noted in my post.

It is my opinion that Ziggy is little more than a hate-filled antagonist with a sole purpose to “vent his anger” upon or against anyone that he thinks wronged him or disagrees with his hate induced rhetoric. Ziggy doesn’t agree with anyone EXCEPT those whose posts disagree with someone that he hates …… or those that post a supportive statement to his disagreement with another poster.

Stephanie wrote:Are you suggesting I'm on meth? I'm serious.

Now Stephanie, ……. that was not a “serious question” …… because you know better than that.

Stephanie wrote:I don't agree we invaded Iraq to stop the spread of terrorism. If that was the intent, it failed miserably.

Steph, and I disagree with you on that and I do so because I look/looked at “the big picture” in forming my opinion. And in my opinion, the Invasion of Iraq addressed two (2) potentially dangerous and devastating “problems” that the US would sooner or later have to deal with. And those two problems were/are: 1), more terrorist attacks within the confines of our Borders or against US holdings or persons outside of our Borders, ….. and 2), more terrorist attacks against the US’s “vital interests” that are provided by and/or the “supply” of said is subject to the socio-economic status and governmental control of the country from which said “vital interest” goods are obtained.

Stephanie, Iraqi oil in or by itself is not a “vital interest” to the US, ……. but Middle East oil is, ....... is a “very vital interest” to the US ……… and if that supply is abruptly terminated due to “terrorist activity” ……….. we are in deep shidt. And that Stephanie is what you and Ziggy refuse to address, consider, comprehend and/or understand the significance of.

4,000 US Military dead in Iraq is a small price to pay if it prevents 100,000 – 200,000+ dead here in the US.

Stephanie wrote:I'm not at all sure (we) are there for oil. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to take the trillions of dollars we're spending in Iraq to set up drilling and refining operations in whichever Dakota is sitting atop all of that black gold?

Steph, that is good hindsight, ……… something Ziggy is overflowing with.

Nuclear generators is another one, which if they had been built 30 years ago our “electric power” would now be “dirt cheap” and which would have assuredly fostered “electric powered vehicle” development and we would not now be so dependent on gasoline and diesel fuel.

Whether it is new domestic oil supplies, bio-fuels or nuclear, their effect on sustaining our economy is 10 to 20+ years from now …….. whereas terrorism is here and now ...... and you damn well better address that fact ……… or suffer the consequences.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron thinks it's acceptable to invade and occupy another sovereign nation for its natural resources. I do not. It is Iraqi oil, not American oil. We shouldn't be in the business of forcing any nation to fork over to the US that which is theirs.

Steph, me thinks that was somewhat of a disingenuous statement.

Stephanie wrote:IMHO what is FUBAR is doing the same things over, and over, and over again and expecting a different result. We keep screwing around with the Arab people and they keep fighting back. Time to try a new course of action.

Steph, I can say the same thing about a LARGE segment of the American populace.

Many Arab countries are not mandating and/or providing a “book learning” education for their citizens and neither is the US mandating said for their LARGE segment of citizens. Instead, they are engrossed in providing/permitting a Religious and/or Cultural education which is guaranteed to cause their “students” to …….. keep fighting back, …….. no matter what.

cheers

ziggy wrote:OK. I can accept that. "Subjective analysis". My subjective analysis brings forth the question: How many American lives is a few barrells of Iraqi oil worth? And my "subjective answer" is not very damn many.

Because the cost of acquiring that oil, in terms of how many lives and how many pints, quarts or gallons of blood it costs, is more than it is worth.

Right Zigster, just like you don't think the "social cost" of extracting the coal out of the hills of West Virginia is worth the electricity that keeps your home "warm n' bright" and your PC functioning so you can bitch about those "social costs".

You are just like the Muslim fanatics/terrorists who are bitching and fighting those who have provided them the money and means which permits them to conduct their bitching and fighting.



.

ziggy wrote:Discussion? Insight? The Bush administration still denies that the U.S. war in Iraq is about oil.

See, here I thought you was trying to discuss this with me. As such, I thought it would be best if you would gain some knowledge on the subject. But as all you want to do is whine and complain about GWB, I can see you're not going to bother.

I'm not suprised.

ziggy wrote:Yeah, yeah, sure. Five years ago Donnie Rumsfeld told us that the Iraq war would cost the U.S. maybe $50 billion, would last "6 days, maybe 6 weeks, surely not 6 months", and that it would be paid for with Iraqi oil. So now 5 years later, 4011 American and countless Iraqi lives and trillions of dollars later, even the "Green zone" is still not secure.

YADA, ..... YADA, ...... YADA

And five years ago Donnie Rumsfeld did not in his wildest dreams figure that our Military would have to be fighting an extended, exacerbated Iraqi War ....... on two (2) Fronts.

The "Bush Hating" partisan Democrat Front here in the United States ....... and the Religious Fanatical Front in Iraq which launched a major insurgency upon realizing it had highly influencial "friends n' supporters" here in the US.

Ziggy, you have been "sucking" for 5 years ..... for that which you are now feigning complaining about, .......... "so swallow it", .... its obvious you love the taste.

.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron thinks it's acceptable to invade and occupy another sovereign nation for its natural resources. I do not.

Stephanie was for the invasion and occupation of Iraq before she was against it. Were Ron Paul to decide that the invasion and occupation was worthwile, Stpehanie would be for it again. It's simple. Stephanine has found a new puppet master and he's pulling different strings is all.

Aaron was always against this invasion and the war. What Aaron is not for is cutting and running and giving Iraq over to Moqtada al Sadr and the Iranians becasue Aaron thinks for himself, doesn't let the fad politician of the month do his thinking for him and knows to do that would be pure stupidity.

Aaron wrote:
Somebody has, at least on how much we're spending on oil and gas in Iraq. I was reading about it a couple of days ago on yahoo. I also read an article about 3 weeks ago of how many private sector jobs Iraq was creating as well. That one was pretty interesting. I'll try to find the link to both and post them.

Aaron, in a few minutes I will make a new post about how many in Congress are "invested" in the Iraqi War.

cheers

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Appearantly you don't understand how important oil production in Iraq is, not only to US consumption, but world consumption as well and how important of a role it plays in getting Iraq stable.

I did not say that it was not important. I said that it is not important enough to just barge in and "stabalize" Iraq (which was more "stable" under Saddam than it is now, btw), and under the faux guise of ridding Iraq of WMDs, and while even still continuing to deny that it is about oil. If oil is important, then all America should have an honest discussion about it- and including determing how much American and Iraqi blood a barrell of Iraqi oil is worth.

I've NEVER said oil was justification enough for going in. You know what I've said about the invasion many, many times so why would you imply that I've said otherwise?

So we went into Iraq for WMDs, but we're staying there for oil?

And you really do need to study up on what a constitutional republic is and how it works. You've got a BADLY mistaken idea that before our government does anything, they have to obtain the permission of "ALL" America.

Getting the support of "ALL" of America for going to war in Iraq was Bush's idea, not mine. So maybe it is Bush who needs to "study up" on what a constitutional republic is and how it works. It was Bush, not Ziggy, who thought it was important to convince "ALL" of America that it was important to go into Iraq because of WMDs. That's about all he talked about for 6 months prior to invading Iraq- WMDs. Why would it not be equally important to convince "ALL" of America that staying there for oil is equally important- instead of denying it? Or is it that Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq for one reason or another, but that Aaron and Sam think we should stay there for some other reasons?

Why does the Bush administration keep insisting that the U.S. war in Iraq was not and is not about oil? Why is it so politically incorrect for Bush administration officials to talk about oil and Iraq publically? Why is denial better than admitting what "ALL" of America and the world seems to be more and more convinced of- that it is "ALL" about oil? Or are those like Sam and Aaron and others who think it is and should be about oil just dillusional numbutts?

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:OK. I can accept that. "Subjective analysis". My subjective analysis brings forth the question: How many American lives is a few barrells of Iraqi oil worth? And my "subjective answer" is not very damn many.

Because the cost of acquiring that oil, in terms of how many lives and how many pints, quarts or gallons of blood it costs, is more than it is worth.

Right Zigster, just like you don't think the "social cost" of extracting the coal out of the hills of West Virginia is worth the electricity that keeps your home "warm n' bright" and your PC functioning so you can bitch about those "social costs".

What "social costs", Sam? You and you cohorts in coal are in perpetual denial that there are any "social costs" in extracting coal. Are you now telling us that you have seen the light and that there are indeed externalized social costs to mining and burning coal- costs that are not incorporated into the "market price" of the coal and the electricity? You had better give Bill Raney and the other good ole' boys at the WV Coal Association a call, Sam. You have just drifted from the coal industry public relations script of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" re: the social costs of the extraction and burning of coal.

ziggy wrote: Or is it that Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq for one reason, but that Aaron and Sam think we should stay there for some other reason?

Well, at the very least the three (3) of us are capable of "thinking".

An attribute that came up missing during your development.

.

ziggy wrote:So we went into Iraq for WMDs, but we're staying there for oil?

As I wasn't a proponant of going in like Stephanie was, I certainly wasn't a part of the decison making and I don't speak for the government so I don't really care why we went in. Even though EVERY intelligence agency in the WORLD believed there was WMD's in Iraq (as did I), I didn't believe it was reason enough to invade Iraq.

But the bottom line is, we're there and all your crying and complaining, bitching and moaning and Bush hating partisan tripe doesn't chage that one simple fact.

And yes, we're staying there for oil, at least in my opinion, as we should. I don't have my head buried in the sand so I understand how vital Iraq and middle eastern oil is for our country, I understand how important stability in that region is, I understand that civil war would be bad thing, I understand that giving Iraq to al Sadr and Iran would not be in anyone's best interest, and I understand that it was the US that created the mess so it is our responsibility to clean it up.

Logically thinking, it's really not that difficult. The only thing I don't understand is why you can't comprehend it.

ziggy wrote:Getting the support of "ALL" of America for going to war in Iraq was Bush's idea, not mine. So maybe it is Bush who needs to "study up" on what a constitutional republic is and how it works. It was Bush, not Ziggy, who thought it was important to convince "ALL" of America that it was important to go into Iraq because of WMDs. That's about all he talked about for 6 months prior to invading Iraq- WMDs. Why would it not be equally important to convince "ALL" of America that staying there for oil is equally important- instead of denying it? Or is it that Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq for one reason, but that Aaron and Sam think we should stay there for some other reason?

He did that. Almost 80% believed he was justified in going in and over 70% of Congress agreed. Yet you still constantly cry and whine about Bush not getting your approval and wanting him to admit to you all mistakes your liberal butt believes he made.

And yet you want him to get your approval once again. We don't govern by polls dude. That's not how we roll.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: Or is it that Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq for one reason, but that Aaron and Sam think we should stay there for some other reason?

Well, at the very least the three (3) of us are capable of "thinking".

An attribute that came up missing during your development.

That's a brilliant deduction, Sam- that Ziggy is incapable of thinking. Once again, you make an ad hominine attack upon me, rather than answer an obvious question. The George Bush / Carl Rove spin machine would be proud of you.

But anyway, how do we know that the 3 of you are "capable of thinking"?

ziggy wrote:
But anyway, how do we know that the 3 of you are "capable of thinking"?

I back my beliefs up with valid points thought out logicaly and reasonably. I'm certain not beating the same dead horse, without any reason or logic, over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over again.

You on the other hand keep repeating the same old, hate filled, partisan tripe that you've been spouting since I saw your first post about a year and half ago. If anyone is Karl Rove like, it would be you.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Getting the support of "ALL" of America for going to war in Iraq was Bush's idea, not mine. So maybe it is Bush who needs to "study up" on what a constitutional republic is and how it works. It was Bush, not Ziggy, who thought it was important to convince "ALL" of America that it was important to go into Iraq because of WMDs. That's about all he talked about for 6 months prior to invading Iraq- WMDs. Why would it not be equally important to convince "ALL" of America that staying there for oil is equally important- instead of denying it? Or is it that Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq for one reason, but that Aaron and Sam think we should stay there for some other reason?

He did that. Almost 80% believed he was justified in going in and over 70% of Congress agreed. Yet you still constantly cry and whine about Bush not getting your approval and wanting him to admit to you all mistakes your liberal butt believes he made.

But that 80 percent and 70 percent agreed only because for months and months they were fed phony excuses- mostly WMDs- but also endless hype designed to connect 9/11 with Saddam Hussein, but which even the Bush administration denies actual evidence of. And the WMD evidence that you say the "intelligence agancies" believed in was not nearly as certain as the rush to war hype would have us believe.

And yet you want him to get your approval once again. We don't govern by polls dude. That's not how we roll.

No, I don't expect him to get my "approval".

But if we're going to have a national conversation about it (and Bush seemed to think it was somehow very important to have some kind of a long national conversation about the U.S. invasion of Iraq), then it should be an honest conversation. It should be one based on honest motives and honest information. And for six years the national conversation re: Iraq has been managed such as to be anything but honest. From bogus "bills" for uranium from Africa, to "45 moinutes from an east coast attack on the U.S.", to "No, it's not about oil"- it has all been so full of unsubstantiated hype and devoid of more apparent motive(s).

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
But anyway, how do we know that the 3 of you are "capable of thinking"?

I back my beliefs up with valid points thought out logicaly and reasonably. I'm certain not beating the same dead horse, without any reason or logic, over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over
......................................... and over and over again.

And I'll quit beating that "dead horse" when Bush & Cheney ante up with the truth that it's about oil and about establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, just as the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Kristol-Wolfowitz, etc. PNAC document shows, and when they stop insisting that "It's not about oil", over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over
----------------------------------- and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Steph, that is good hindsight, ……… something Ziggy is overflowing with.

Nuclear generators is another one, which if they had been built 30 years ago our “electric power” would now be “dirt cheap” and which would have assuredly fostered “electric powered vehicle” development and we would not now be so dependent on gasoline and diesel fuel.

Whether it is new domestic oil supplies, bio-fuels or nuclear, their effect on sustaining our economy is 10 to 20+ years from now …….. whereas terrorism is here and now ...... and you damn well better address that fact ……… or suffer the consequences.

Sam,

Don't you agree that it is important to understand WHY terrorism is here and now? We're clear on the other side of the globe from the Middle East. They aren't trying to kill Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, or Peruvians. They are trying to kill Americans. They are "out to get" us because we have been "getting" them, one way or another, for decades. It's time to try something new.

What's worse, is those in positions of power in this nation refuse to admit, or accept, or acknowledge (pick your term) that radical Muslims will NEVER, NEVER, EVER, accept US intervention. They reject us, our way of life, the religious and political beliefs of our people. The want no part of it. They hold their beliefs more fervently than the craziest, most whacked out twisted Christian in the 2000 year history of Christianity. They don't mind dying for their cause, they think it's an honor. Hell, these wingnuts think it's some sort of sacred privilege to sacrafice their own children in the name of their god and religion.

They will never accept US occupation. They will always seek vengence. It is part of their very being. Once this fact is accepted, only two possible options remain. Leave them alone or wipe them from the face of the Earth.

Aside from the fact that genocide is reprehensible to rational human beings, it would take decades, perhaps longer. They don't all just live within the confines of one nation, or one continent. They would take countless numbers of "us" with them. Time to leave them, their land, their nations, and their oil to their own devices. Time to get out of the Middle East.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Putting aside all the lies, all the deception,the trillions of dollars, all of the death, destruction and displacement for a moment, I have a question.

Has there been any kind of study done on just how much oil is being consumed in waging this needless war? Seriously, all those tanks and jeeps and planes etc....... require massive amounts of oil. Don't you wonder just how much oil is used in making all of those bombs, and bullets, and uniforms, etc.... How about how much oil is burned to transport all of those weapons and tents and Marines and Rangers and medics and MP's etc.........

Surely if we weren't busy invading and occupying and displacing other people we wouldn't need quite so much oil. Somebody should do a study on this.

Somebody has, at least on how much we're spending on oil and gas in Iraq. I was reading about it a couple of days ago on yahoo. I also read an article about 3 weeks ago of how many private sector jobs Iraq was creating as well. That one was pretty interesting. I'll try to find the link to both and post them.

Does that study that "somebody" has done on "how much we're spending on oil and gas in Iraq" include putting a price on the American and Iraqi lives that have been expended, and countless others maimed in that oil and gas enterprize? If so, what is that value? If not, why not?

ziggy wrote:
What "social costs", Sam?

The "social costs" you have been bitching and complaining about ever since I joined the Gazette Forums.

ziggy wrote:You and you cohorts in coal are in perpetual denial that there are any "social costs" in extracting coal. Are you now telling us that you have seen the light and that there are indeed externalized social costs to mining and burning coal- costs that are not incorporated into the "market price" of the coal and the electricity?

GIMME A BREAK, ……… Ziggy, ...... even though I know that is impossible for you to do.

Ziggy, your mind is FUBAR.

You can make-up more shidt in 30 seconds ……. than any sane person is capable of addressing or responding to in 30 days. Which would be a futile act on their part because you would just repeat yourself in replying to said ........ with more of the same ole shidt.

Zigster, what I am now telling you is that those years n’ years of 12 to 18 hour days you spent sitting in your garage all alone pondering all the dastardly deeds that you accuse people of doing to you has FUBARed your mind.

Your condition is not unlike those who are obsessed with Religion and vocally attempt to force their Religious beliefs on anyone they can engage in a conversation with.

Ziggy, you are ...... that which you dislike about such Religion believing people.

.

So Sam, are you telling us that there indeed are externalized "social costs" of extracting and burning coal, or that there aren't such costs?

Those social costs of coal either exist or don't exist- independently of how FUBAR Ziggy is.

So tell us about those social costs you and your fellow pimps in coal have been denying for all these years, Sam.

Preach it, man, preach it!

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Getting the support of "ALL" of America for going to war in Iraq was Bush's idea, not mine. So maybe it is Bush who needs to "study up" on what a constitutional republic is and how it works. It was Bush, not Ziggy, who thought it was important to convince "ALL" of America that it was important to go into Iraq because of WMDs. That's about all he talked about for 6 months prior to invading Iraq- WMDs. Why would it not be equally important to convince "ALL" of America that staying there for oil is equally important- instead of denying it? Or is it that Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq for one reason, but that Aaron and Sam think we should stay there for some other reason?

He did that. Almost 80% believed he was justified in going in and over 70% of Congress agreed. Yet you still constantly cry and whine about Bush not getting your approval and wanting him to admit to you all mistakes your liberal butt believes he made.

But that 80 percent and 70 percent agreed only because for months and months they were fed phony excuses- mostly WMDs- but also endless hype designed to connect 9/11 with Saddam Hussein, but which even the Bush administration denies actual evidence of. And the WMD evidence that you say the "intelligence agancies" believed in was not nearly as certain as the rush to war hype would have us believe.

And yet you want him to get your approval once again. We don't govern by polls dude. That's not how we roll.

No, I don't expect him to get my "approval".

But if we're going to have a national conversation about it (and Bush seemed to think it was somehow very important to have some kind of a long national conversation about the U.S. invasion of Iraq), then it should be an honest conversation. It should be one based on honest motives and honest information. And for six years the national conversation re: Iraq has been managed such as to be anything but honest. From bogus "bills" for uranium from Africa, to "45 moinutes from an east coast attack on the U.S.", to "No, it's not about oil"- it has all been so full of unsubstantiated hype and devoid of more apparent motive(s).

Once someone tells you go, you don't continue the conversation for 6 more years. That sounds like a woman, harping on something over and over. Sheesh.

ziggy wrote:Does that study that "somebody" has done on "how much we're spending on oil and gas in Iraq" include putting a price on the American and Iraqi lives that have been expended, and countless others maimed in that oil and gas enterprize? If so, what is that value? If not, why not?

It was an article posted on Yahoo by the Associated Press. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find it.

Stephanie wrote:

Steph, that is good hindsight, ……… something Ziggy is overflowing with.

Nuclear generators is another one, which if they had been built 30 years ago our “electric power” would now be “dirt cheap” and which would have assuredly fostered “electric powered vehicle” development and we would not now be so dependent on gasoline and diesel fuel.

Whether it is new domestic oil supplies, bio-fuels or nuclear, their effect on sustaining our economy is 10 to 20+ years from now …….. whereas terrorism is here and now ...... and you damn well better address that fact ……… or suffer the consequences.

Sam,

Don't you agree that it is important to understand WHY terrorism is here and now? We're clear on the other side of the globe from the Middle East. They aren't trying to kill Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, or Peruvians. They are trying to kill Americans. They are "out to get" us because we have been "getting" them, one way or another, for decades. It's time to try something new.

What's worse, is those in positions of power in this nation refuse to admit, or accept, or acknowledge (pick your term) that radical Muslims will NEVER, NEVER, EVER, accept US intervention. They reject us, our way of life, the religious and political beliefs of our people. The want no part of it. They hold their beliefs more fervently than the craziest, most whacked out twisted Christian in the 2000 year history of Christianity. They don't mind dying for their cause, they think it's an honor. Hell, these wingnuts think it's some sort of sacred privilege to sacrafice their own children in the name of their god and religion.

They will never accept US occupation. They will always seek vengence. It is part of their very being. Once this fact is accepted, only two possible options remain. Leave them alone or wipe them from the face of the Earth.

Aside from the fact that genocide is reprehensible to rational human beings, it would take decades, perhaps longer. They don't all just live within the confines of one nation, or one continent. They would take countless numbers of "us" with them. Time to leave them, their land, their nations, and their oil to their own devices. Time to get out of the Middle East.

"They" declared war on us in 1948 when we recognized Israel as a nation.