We might have been in stage five 30 years ago. 20 years ago we slipped into the complacency to apathy stage.

How can you say that we are not in the dependence phase?

We need foreign oil, foreign labor(at least as far as the stock market is concerned), and the financing of the majority of our debt(China is the largest debt holder, with the Saudis right behind them).

Take the timelines of development, and we have to get moving. There isn't a great deal of choice in this.


This was from T. Boone Pickens' website and his new plan for fuel use in the US.

I know he is pushing his new wind energy business and his natural gas business. But the numbers make sense, and it pushes the foreign financial invaders further from our shores.

Right now, I'd say they are getting ready to land on our shores.

And why, when we have some various estimates, the ones shown above are the more positive estimates, do we need to keep up with the charade? The facts are the oil is going to be gone.

Do you realize how much of what we have today is based on chemistry, and how much of that chemistry is directly tied to petroleum? If we burn all of the oil to go from point A to point B, what then?

The issue of the fuel is beyond simply driving. It has to do with the medical equipment that will be used to keep people alive, the chemistry that will put food on the tables of Americans, the pharmaceuticals that will cure disease, and pretty much any of the current modern items in any home.

Again, independence from foreign oil is more than simply driving. To craft the argument solely on the basis of more oil for today is to ignore the long range needs. To shift our needs onto the new production capacities for energy would be to save the current reserves for our future production needs in other areas.

But, to look past 10 years is to ask corporate America to actually consider something beyond the next reporting period, which is just plain wrong when the whole emphasis of American business is to get as rich as you can in as short a period as possible--which I'm pretty sure Christ was not preaching to his disciples.

And, loose the little name games. It's juvenile and decreases the credibility of what you wrote above it.

I have seen that 140 year number. The problem is the number includes all oil sources--shale and oil sand. Not bad. But, the process to extract the petroleum from these sources is expensive, and even with the best practice available today, the cost per barrel would at best be twice the price we see today. Doesn't sound like a good idea.

The numbers that I have put forward are numbers based on the current best technology and the available reserves that can be exploited, at roughly current pricing.

Your argument that we are running out because we are not seeking a new supply is neglecting the fact that all significant reserves have been found. They are all known. Where are these secret reserves? The world has been mapped like never before with all of the various sonic and radar technology. And what has been found in total since the 70's haven't equated what was found in the preceding decade.

You cannot find what does not exist. Physics are the limiting factor here.

Your statement on Christ's desire for our use of the planet is correct. He put mankind as caretakers and masters of the planet. By way of comparison, let's look back at history. The greatest rulers of the ages, the ones that have been called "great" took care of their people, and their nation, and the natural resources they had. The ones that have been termed as evil or viewed as poor rulers, often squandered the nation's resources and natural resources. Rome would serve as a good example. Ceasar Augustus would be a relatively good leader. He had a long tenure as Ceasar, and he didn't waste the national treasury on foolish spending. Fast forward a couple of generations and we have Nero, Caligula, and a bunch of other inbreeds that destroyed Rome by their foolish rule.

The point of this comparison is that we know what we have and why, but do we really know what we are doing? Hydrogen, solar, wind, wave and a whole host of other green renewable energy sources have been available for decades. But, what have we done? Just what you are defending, followed the cheapest fuel until it's all gone. Kind of what Brittan did with all of the trees that once covered the Isle from coast to coast. How does using a resource until it's all gone really follow God's command to be masters of the world? It sounds more like the prodigal son who squandered the inheritance from his father. Except for the fact that once we have used all of the natural resources we will have nothing left. No refill.

As for developing resources, yes. But this country has not been into helping the rest of the world. The third world is a prime example. The world bank is funded in large part by the US, and the debt service is essentially breaking these small countries in two. The US labor market is shrinking. How do we take care of both of these problems? Forge into solar and wind power manufacturing, get these items workable for use in a third world country. Once they have a power source that doesn't continually take the national treasury out of their borders, they can develop other economic sources of survivability that do not destroy the environment nor destroy the people through constant civil war.

US workers work, the US economy expands, the tax income increases, the national debt shrinks, and the third world begins to stabilize.

Now that sounds like being proper stewards of God's creation.

The nuclear issue is a dead one. It's cost is greater than that of solar and wind. You have stated in your own words that to move to different sources as prices come into line. The total cost of a nuclear power plant during their lifetime is more than the price to develop and get online a wind farm of equal capacity with all of the grid infrastructure. And, there is no waste to poison the world.

If Walmart is such good corporate partner, they should be actively working to convert all of their flat roof space into solar. They won't be sucking the local power, they will be saving money, and the example would be clear. But, I guess the short term profit loss would be too much for them. No dividends for a year and the company can use the energy savings to complete the retrofit on the rest of the inventory of stores and pay out higher dividends. But, no one looks past the next earnings period.

Good values based business for Xians to invest in.

Obama has already weakened America

In his Berlin Speech,  Obmaa ignored history and offered the world a much weaker America should, God forbid,  he be elected.

Much of this comes from an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Garry Kasparov

Weakness because Obama failed to mention that while the Berlin wall and the soviet union are gone,  there remain dangerous nuclear-armed dictatorships still in the world.  Iran being an important one.

Weakness because Obama, in his immaturity, doesn’t understand that a strong determined America is needed to stand against oppression in the world.

several weeks ago, when the Illinois senator rejected John McCain's proposal to eject Russia and exclude China from the Group of Eight (G-8). Mr. Obama's response during a July 13 interview on CNN -- "We have to engage and get them involved" -- suggests that it is impossible to work with Russia and China on economic and nuclear nonproliferation issues while also standing up for democracy and human rights.

The exact opposite is true.  We must be strong and determined BEFORE engaging in negotiations, least the opponents think we are “patsies” 

Obama referred to the Berlin Air lift, but he failed to mention the actions of Harry Truman, who defied the political thinking here in the US and went on the offensive.  Obama’s  vote against the surge clearly defines him as a weak and timid president who has no Truman like credentials.

Obama’s weakness and immaturity has already gotten results.

Obama’s call for more NATO troops to Afganhistan received the following resonse from the opposition German Free Democrats . . “Under no circumsances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan. . “

A good executive is able to admit his or her mistakes.  Obama is holding out and denying that he made a bad judgement  in opposing the Surge and advocating  an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0730/p01s06-usfp.html

reports that  the surge worked and that it may be  the beginning of a new Iraq.

Top US commanders have said the surge of forces will have met their goals only if the improved security on the ground is "irreversible." The fear remains that the gains could all slip away if the Iraqi government doesn't cement the progress with political reconciliation on key issues and an increased level of governance.

The Government Accountability Office warned earlier last week that with the new- found security in Iraq, the US now needs a new strategy. The report noted that surge of forces, the last brigade of which returned home this month, is now over, and the war in Iraq is entering another phase.
Had Obama had his way,  Iraq would still be a quagmire with no hope, al Quaeda would be stronger and an even greater threat to the US.

Obama is inexperienced, has no executive experience and seems to be unwilling to admit his mistakes.

We cannot afford him as President of the US>

I see we are stacking the deck.  You realize that democrats have started 4 of our last 6 wars, right?  The first four (started by democrats resulted in over 600,000 lost American lives.  The last two wars (started by republicans) resulted in 6,000 lost American lives.  So, if you want to talk about being "pro-war" and "antipathy toward the US and thousands killed and maimed" than one out to look in the political mirror.




Good question.  I often wonder that myself.  We will never really know what would have happened if Saddam was allowed to stay in power, allowed to jerk around the UN, allowed to evade important inspections, allowed develop his nuclear weapons programs with the help France and Russia, or allowed to conceal his weapons programs from U.S. Intelligence. 

Oh, and the invasion of Iraq most certainly had something to do with 911.  That attack on our soil woke us up to the fact that isolationism is not the answer to dealing with terrorism.  If we are to protect our home, we ought to take the middle east a little more seriously than we have been.

And another thing, I don't think the liberal party should be lecturing us on waisting money.  Why do you think democrats are so pro-taxes?  How else are they going to support their spending bills, government programs, and whatever else they want to throw our money at.  Personally, I won't bat an eye at spending billions of dollars on our military.  It is the one thing where investments should never fall short.
 

Yes, WWI, WWII, Nam, and the Korean War.  That's a lot of American blood in a single century.




There are so many different issues that distinguish Iraq from say North Korea. 

First, Saddam had a penchant for causing problems in the middle east.  He invaded Kuwait and caused all sorts of problems.  I don't recall North Korea invading their neighbors.

Second, North Korea isn't located in the middle east where there is a dense supply of oil.  And yes, that has serious ramifications because the oil market affects everyone. 

Third, Saddam was a constant threat to a major ally - Israel.  North Korea has no ethnic or religious-based hostility toward Israel, and they aren't willing to use WMD against them any time soon.

Fourth, I don't recall Islamic terrorists hanging out in North Korea, nor to I recall any news about them conducting terrorist training camps.

And fifth, I don't recall North Korea trying to assassinate one of our presidents.

There is a major difference between the two.




Apologists aren't always wrong.  Also, it depends how one defines "had nothing to do with."  I agree there is very little evidence that supports the belief that Iraq was behind the 911 attacks.  However, the middle eastern mentality and culture behind the 911 attacks share a commonality with the mentality and culture behind Saddam's regime.  There is no intention to abide by rules, no intention to leave Israel alone, and every intention to impose their will on non-Arab nations through acts of terrorism.

 


Jack, none of us know whether the excursion was fruitless.  We ought to leave that up to the historians 30-60 years down the road.  Our economy is not in the tank because of the war in Iraq.  The housing market has nothing to do with Iraq, the gas prices have nothing to do with Iraq, and the unemployment rate has nothing to do with Iraq.

On a side note, I know what party is responsible for high gas prices - and it ain't the republicans.  Here is a good reason why our prices are so high.

Is this tongue and check or are you really that much of a closed minded person?

The United Church of Christ, the denomination Obama had belonged until May, was founded in 1957, through the merger of the Evangelical Reformed Church, and the Congregational Church. Both bodies existed for almost 3 centuries in the US, and most of the REBELS who signed the Declaration of Independence who had a religious affiliation were tied to the Congregational Church.

So, if the comment is one about his church, you have been informed.

If the comment is about his name, you are ignorant.

If the comment is about his racial heritage, you are a bigot.

If the comment was supposed to be funny, it isn't.

I have a whole list of jokes about senior citizens and how they should be handled after a certain age. I leave them off the web because they do not have a place in an environment where the humor cannot be monitored, and the offense cannot be contained.

Yeah, I'm naive. But at least I try to keep the issue about the issues, not some looser argument based on presumptions of a person's faith based off a name due to a heritage that is not fully understood.

Nice.

Yep. He didn't mention the Berlin wall. He didn't mention nukes around the world in hands of military dictatorhsips one of which W gave nukes to (Pakistan, Anyone?). 

That means he doesn't have a plan or a position. God knows that whenever McCain goes out and speaks he mentions every item on his list of issues.

Get real!!!!!!!!!!!

If every politician operated according to your statement, the speeches would last a week at a time.

And here's a concept: Cooperation with the EU and those nations in seeking out the terrorists and fighting terrorism. Why should the US be the one that spends its treasure in fighting terrorism?

According to your logic here, if a country is attacked, they should be in charge of fending off terrorists, without the cooperation of the rest of the world. Good idea. The Munich bombings of 1972 occurred far away from Israel. But who went after the terrorists? The Israelies.

Prior to 9-11, the US had very little interest in engaging in active rooting out of terrorists.

Again, Uncle Ronnie managed to get Osama Bin Laden the weapons he is using today. Good MOVE.

Let's keep going. Ike Eisenhower supported the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran in the mid 50's. We ended up with the Shah. This half-wit didn't have his family's blessing to be more than a playboy. He gets to lead Iran, the US feeds him all the guns and money he can handle, he squanders it, suppresses the media, and that leads to the Islamic fundamentalists gaining influence, and the Ahatolah influencing the Islamic world to the terrorism we have today.

Or, the last one for now:

Iran's last elections were leaning to a pro-western government until W opened his mouth and Ajhmidinijad gained support and won.

Again, good move.

But, Obama didn't mention terrorism and so he must be weak or inexperienced.

How about McCain still hasn't acknowledged that his position is out of step with the Iraqis and their desire to have the US out of their country. He stated that he would support withdrawal when the Iraqis said they wanted us out, when the surge started. Where is that admission?

Obama hit that one on the head.

But, he couldn't possibly know what it takes to lead a country. He was only top of his class at Harvard, lead the Harvard Law Review, all the while putting himself through college.

Meanwhile, McCain freely admits that he was 5th from the bottom of his class at the US military college, and he crashed a plane during Viet Nam.

I see how McCain is so much more qualified to lead. It really, really makes sense now.