The economy and war...

By Kix

Date 03-10-2008 17:14

If I'm not mistaken, most of that money is being spent here in the states to make things for the war. They don't say anything about that.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-10-2008 17:20 Edited 03-10-2008 17:50

We're probably going to get into a urinating contest, you know that, don't you?

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with Plasma-brain. I read the article yesterday and was truly miffed. We all know who's footing the bill, you and me and those guy's and girls sitting next to us... for the next few decades, and maybe well beyond that.

I won't get into politics or say who is right or who is wrong but simply pose the question: What was our goal in going into Iraq? The now infamous WMD... never found any, doubt there ever were any. No evidence, just one screwed up Dictator who refused to be bullied and paid the price with his life... no loss there, but it really makes one wonder by what power we attack and overthrow another countries leadership?

And where is Bin Laden, that's what the target was originally, wasn't it??? Everyone seems to have lost focus on that issue, and in the meantime, for those who do NOT travel, our airports are reminiscent of what I imagine Hitlers Nazi Germany was like or maybe rule under the Communist regime. I know I probably sound anti-American to some collegues.. the truth is quite the opposite, I'm just tired of paying to be the new Roman Empire. Let some other "Super Power" take on the role of world's policeman for a change or, even better, take care of things at home and leave the world to it's own form of government instead of trying to force feed democracy to nations that really want no part in it.

This war has not made America a safer place, to the contrary, it's only stirred up a hornets nest that might never be quited. Sorry for speaking my mind, but there's my two worthless cents! ;-)

EDIT: Having gone to bed and thought through my responses, I got back up to say I won't change a thing in my response, but will apologize for the ranting, the issues are obviously pretty passionate to me. I should learn to refrain one day!!!

By OBEWAN

Date 03-10-2008 18:28 Edited 03-10-2008 19:00

I have to agree; at this point the Iraq war seems to be a huge waste of resources. Before we invaded, there was virtually no al-Qaida in Iraq. Now, terrorism is the rule of the day there. It seems we only made things worse, and Iraq was shown to be no threat to our security interests.

As for the oil part, it would be nice to eliminate the Middle East, but I don't think it will ever happen since they supply around 40% of our thirsty need. We can only get 10% from ethanol if 100% of our cropland is devoted to corn, then what about food? We can only get around 2% for a short while if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is drilled. We could get 10%-20% right away if we could ever sell the environmentalists on liquid coal (I like liquid coal a lot).

Oil will be the biggest worry in the coming decades. War for oil will the second biggest problem. Just Google the topic of "peak oil" to see what I mean. We have 50 years left (according to most geophysicists) until the oil is 100% gone. Economic DISASTER will ensue long before that, as cheap oil becomes a memory from the distant past.

I don't care about the so-called "Chicken Littles" who cried "oil crisis" in the past, don't forget at the end of the story, Chicken Little was proven to be right (just when no one listened any more). My views are very unpopular with the greedy gas-guzzlers, but I continue to be disturbed every time I see a huge Hummer H2 with only one passenger. And I see them often in Florida where there is no snow to worry about.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-10-2008 18:38

I agree with many of your thoughts (and worries) but I'm betting long before the oil runs dry, there's be a new "miracle fuel" suddenly discovered... (would bet quite a bit it's already developed and sitting in wait)... I would imagine every "older person" has said this for a thousand generations but this sure isn't the world I grew up in!

By OBEWAN

Date 03-10-2008 19:15

I suppose the optimistic thing to do is to hope for a new breakthrough fuel source. If we all pray hard enough, maybe they will find that new algae that can be grown hydro phonically and converted into biodiesel. So far, the algae oil costs about $20 a gallon. But who knows what they can do with agriculture and genetic engineering combined.

By js55

Date 03-10-2008 19:43

WOW. Some interesting politics here. OK. I'll bite.
I'm wonderin why if its true that there weren't no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was it so important for them to come a runnin simply because we wuz there?
Certainly not to defend Kurd's, Shia's, and Sunni's.
I don't know, do the Wahabi's care that much about em?
If you think so perhaps you should read what they did to their own in Chechnya who didn't tow the radical Islamicist Sharia line.
I mean, Libyans, Egyptions, Afghani's, Pakistani's, Sudanese, Syrians', Chechnyan's, Dagastani's, Iranians', Lebenese, Saudi's, Yemeni's,and I don;t know how manyothers. Lordy, lordy.
Bin Laden musta though it was real important. At least marginally more important that what the US mainstream press led us to believe.
If there weren't no connection between Bin Laden and Hussein we sure seemed to pizz im off.

By js55

Date 03-10-2008 19:48

If we invaded France would Al Qaeda come a runnin with such ferocity? France has Muslims. Lots of em. The historical association with Algeria has much to do with that. And before anyone starts stating Muslim brotherhood lets not forget the Shia/Sunni Iraqi Civil war yap we were treated to in the press for so long.

By hogan

Date 03-10-2008 20:36

in my opinion, this all boils down to outdated god concepts and the subsequent justifications

By 357max

Date 03-10-2008 21:00

For over 200 years the USA has had the moral fortitude to say to world dictators - you can not butcher, slaughter or gas or any other form of genocide on their people. Fact (quoted Bill Clinton) "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and has used them on his own people". Most Yanks would say that is wrong and despicable. Lets destroy the dictator. It is kinda good as a people to live peacably and not worry about somebody not liking oneself (dehumanizing/of no value) to the point of them taking us out by wholesale slaughter. I think I might wish this happiness on others in the world. If the USA is such a despicable people why are so many people trying to get in?

By hogan

Date 03-10-2008 21:27

most yanks? a little insight is given.

By CWI555

Date 03-10-2008 23:45

There are a lot worse things that have happened. This idea of "you can not butcher, slaughter or gas or any other form of genocide on their people" is out the window before it began. It's happening in the world as we speak, and will continue to happen. Hussein did in fact gas his people.. but why didnt we do something about it then? Why not about the genocide happening in africa? No, the WMD excuse, while I do believe He did in fact have them, doesn't fly. As for dehumanizing, it doesn't just take a war or genocide to do it.
While a lot of people lament about the poor slave labour found in china and other parts of the world, the never seem to make an effort not to buy the products of that labour.
Why not do something about those human rights violations? Oh wait a minute... that would cost money with no hope of any return of any kind.
It would be nice if the rest of the world played nice in the sand box, but that will never happen as long as the human race as a whole looks across the fence and says "I think I'd like that for myself".

The people in the middle east have been killing each other for centuries in horrific ways. Bottom line is, that had nothing to do with why we are there fighting a war. Nor do I think it has anything to do with terrorism at least not in the beginning. Simply put, hussein was a threat to the stability of the worlds oil supplies and especially to Saudi Arabia. Who btw are known for their own human rights violations. The world runs on oil. Shut off the spigot, and the world comes to a grinding halt. Like or hate it, that is how it is in this day and time. chavez better pay attention to that. Threaten the stability of the oil supply, and you'll find yourself staring down a few cruise missiles or worse. The west and the east at the end of the day understand they are intractably interdependent economically. They may gripe and moan, posture and rattle sabers, but at the end of the day, any one country found to threaten that stability will not be standing long.

Did we go into Iraq for oil? Damn right we did. Just not for the reasons commonly believed. Afganistan is the real front on the terror war, not Iraq, or least it wasn't in the beginning. Should we have went to either place? I believe so. The basic problem I see is, many people can't accept that reasoning, therefore a pc correct reason is created. Terror and WMD's. Twin evils sure to shake up the people. However; considering the drastic effect destabilization of the oil supply would have on the world, those few thousand lives lost will in my opinion save 10 fold their number or more in lives should that spigot be closed (where are you going to get your food, your power, medical supplies, or anything else that makes modern life modern without that oil?). Therefore everyone on a PC high horse needs to climb off and smell the coffee for what it really is.

No matter how the BS is cut, our men and women in uniform are in fact protecting those liberties we enjoy, and our way of life. It's just not in the manner reported by our government.

My opinion. Feel free to flame, it won't change.
Gerald

By js55

Date 03-11-2008 13:31

Gerald,
I agree with much of what you say. Though I might take some of it a bit farther in which you may not agree.
Iraq was indeed about oil. And though oils importance should not be trivialized with stupid bumper sticker slogans like blood for oil, Iraq was not just about oil. Oil is simply an important aspect. The most important aspect to me is, as I stated in my response to jon, the world is getting smaller and smaller. THERE WILL BE SOON, a world government. What do we want that government to look like? Do we want it to look like the culture of a 7th century desert tribe? Or do we want it to look like the culture of the 17th century Enlightenment that has created the peace of democracies and has done more for civil and human rights than any single force in the history of this globe. Bin Laden and Jefferson cannot coexist.
There is an admirable philosohy at the base of much of American liberalism in its "live and let live' approach. But it is dangerously naive in the face of those who have no interest in live and let live.

By CWI555

Date 03-11-2008 15:24 Edited 03-11-2008 15:27

Jeff,

I don't disagree with most of what you say. However; even though I agree there is a move to create a one world government, I don't see it ever happening, if for no other reason, than religion. Along with that one world, would have to come one religion, and that simply is not going to happen. As you say Bin Laden and Jefferson cannot coexist. Neither can Christianity, and Islam and others. As it stands, the world can achieve stability, if not peace, despite those differences as long as there are borders that effectively define a region of the world who's identity co-exist peacefully with the prevalent religion of that region. Removing the borders worldwide would be one sure way to bring on a world wide religious war. Evidence of what happens when they cannot co-exist peacefully can be seen in Israel and the surrounding countrys of that region, and as a microcosm in the sheites vs sunnis within their own religion. (spelled sheites due to pc filter)

Thats why I believe it impossible for a one world government. Live and let live, while a grand utopian philosophy, is as you say, naive at best.

Regards,
Gerald

By js55

Date 03-11-2008 15:48

I believe religions as a whole can and have existed together quite nicely. Even in the middle east there is a history of religious tolerance by all three of the primary monotheisms. But of course there will always be radical factions focusing upon martial elements of the sacred texts, that can take advantage of discontent. But it doesn't have to be the rule.

By hogan

Date 03-11-2008 15:55

js55, can you give examples of this golden age?

By js55

Date 03-11-2008 16:57

Well, what history calls a Golden Age of Islam was the Abbasid Caliphate. Where artistic, literary, scientific, philosophic, religious, and political freedoms, though in the case of religious and political freedom somewhat limited, was still common and encouraged.
It was an age founded upon the ideals of knowledge, and learning, and cultural exchange. This age to be sure would probably be considered imperfect by todays standards, and certainly had many problems, but doesn't our society as well. And thats not equating the Abbasid's with the US. Just trying to make the point that religious intolerance (or tolerance) is not endemic to any particular religion.
In fact, it was, in my oponion, the Abbasids who held the light of civilization while the pre renaissance Europeans were running around beating each other over the heads with Bibles, arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and burning each other at the stake.
It was the Abbasids who held on to Aristotle, eventually finding its way through Moorish Spain along Islamic trade routes and into Europe to become the crux of the work of such illustrious catholics as Saint Thomas Aquinus.

By hogan

Date 03-11-2008 18:28

i had an idea where you were headed. while i agree that for a brief time knowledge was held above religion, it equates to a fraction of a percent of this areas troubled history. It was also limited to elite/educated class, not a cultural embrace.

By js55

Date 03-11-2008 19:06

Education in the ancient world was always the priviledge of the elite classes. Even in Ancient Greece, Rome, Persia, China, Egypt, etc.. I don't think this can discount the accomplichment of this point in time in their history. And Abbasids were around for a not insignificant period of time. And thats all that is needed to verify its possibility, and to deny the idea that intolerance is a characteristic of one particular religion.
Not to mention Constantines persecution, the brutalities of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Albeginsian Crusade, and the Salem witch trials, etc.
Also, being in the crossroads as they were makes it somewhat difficult to hold it together. Thats why the ancient Levant saw such as the Egyptians, Medes, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Macedonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans, etc., all rolling over them through the centuries
The thing is, I believe the crossroads phenomena is breaking down. When the primary transport from place to place over long distances is now planes as opposed to horseback it makes a difference. Its no more a crossroads, and perhaps even less now, than New York, Paris, London, Cairo, Tokyo, or Beijing.

By hogan

Date 03-11-2008 19:50

maybe were looking at two different aspects of there society. we both seem to agree that the elite were tolerant. but the masses never openly accepted the big 3 mono's. that is why i have a hard time seeing that the abbasid, as a culture, were that tolerant.
roughly 700 years is a significant period of time. but 700 years out of 10,000 years recorded history is not that good of a record. I'm not bashing any culture, maybe just suggesting that tolerance is not a natural human characteristic. I see what your saying about the loss of the crossroad, but as one asset is lost, up pops another (oil).

By CWI555

Date 03-11-2008 18:23

If you believe that the religions of the world can play well together in the sandbox, and can show them the way to it, then your in the wrong calling. You should be a diplomat. The examples periods were full of strife and war as well. With all due respect, I believe the idea that the radical factions won't take advantage to spread that strife is at best a pipe dream when history, distant and recent has shown it to be impossible. It will remain the rule of the day rather than any exception.

Respectfully,
Gerald

By HgTX

Date 03-10-2008 20:51

They came running because we got rid of the guy who was keeping them out because they were a threat to his power.

Hg

By js55

Date 03-10-2008 21:02

Keeping them out?
That only makes the logic even messier.

By HgTX

Date 03-10-2008 21:09

Keeping them out by smacking down any in-house islamism. He maintained a very secular regime by smacking down Islamist powers. Not because he valued secularism over religiious rules, but because any "higher power" was a threat to his own. Odd that out of fear of an Islamist enemy, we took out one of the most secular regimes in that region.

I'm not saying I agreed with his methods, but he was a lot more aligned with "our" goals than was presented in the selling of the war.

Hg

By js55

Date 03-10-2008 21:34

Smackdown?
The Russians (the second most powerful military on the planet)smacked down in Chechnya and it only enraged the Islamicists. And if Hussein (leader of only the fifth largest army) is a secularist as much as you say, which I agree with by the way, then the Islamacists would look at him as an infidel as much as they did the Russians AND Muslim Sufis, ANd muslim traditionalists, of which they didn't hesitate to slaughter.
There is no way that the argument Hussein prowess at keeping them out can be sustained.

By swsweld (****)

Date 03-11-2008 03:07 Edited 03-11-2008 03:10

One great thing about the USA is that we all have a right to our opinion and can express it. Some of the above I agree with and some I respectfully disagree. First off; I tend to think the media has an agenda whether it is to the left or right. CNN is no exception. The figures could be dead on or it could be like saying we (the US) have created 300,000 manufacturing jobs by calling a hamburger maker a manufacturer. Al-Qaida is not only in a cave half way across the world, they are in Canada, USA, S. & Central America, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Africa and many other places. They attacked us pre Bush on our own soil. We have not been attacked here after 9/11. I think we are safer now, but at a cost. They have attacked many other nations. It is only a matter of time before they will try here again. Radical Islam hates us for our support of Israel and our way of life. Doesn't matter if a Dem or Rep is in the White House.
Saddam did have WMD's and used them to kill many thousands of his own countrymen. He defied the world with his denial of weapon inspectors to the nuke sites.

On bin Laden; I think if we were to catch or kill him then any support left for fighting the war on terror will deminish. We need a figurehead be the villian.
We in the US have been spared the everyday threat and inconvenience of potential terrorism. On the train ride to London we were stormed by anti terrorist police(not there real title), the next day downtown London the subway was evacuated due to terrorist threats. I was only working there on my way back to the states my wife and three children with me. It was new to us but the English lived in that environment day in and day out.

I too think the war is about oil. The US has a huge security interest in who controls the oil in the Middle East. It also needs a place to park its planes in the neighborhood.
We often help the lesser of two evils at the time. That can change quickly. We helped Afganistan fight Russia in part so they could not keep moving to the oil countries. Keeping our enemy out of oil coutry seemed like a good idea. We helped Iraq defeat Iran. Iran was at the time the more evil.

I don't know if we should have went to Iraq or not. Drawing and fighting the extremist there seems better than fighting them here.
We do make mistakes, we are not always right, sometimes even with good intentions things turn out bad. Sometimes we the people do not know all the facts and reasons for doing what we do. The Bible says "the love of money is the root of all evil." With money comes power. I know that we could have all the wrong reasons for invading Iraq but I hope that one day history will reveal that we did the right thing. There are numerous of examples in our history where we helped other people and nations with no selfish reasons. I still think we are a great country that attempts to do right but we are far from perfect.

By RioCampo (***)

Date 03-11-2008 03:13

Economy? War? Where? you have got to be kidding. I like 4 dollar diesel so much I am delerious (spelled with a D). As in da** tired of payin for our countries administrative ignorance, which gets thrown in the lap of the workin man.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-11-2008 04:35

Okay try this one on: America is attacked, invaded and the XYZ Administration is jailed and brought up on international war crimes. The President is tried, with a "just" legal representative, found guilty and hung. Far fetched, of course, but imagine the outrage every one of us would feel in such circumstances? Has the American adminstration throughout the decades committed war crimes (albiet discretely)... I guess thats a matter of personal opinion.

My point is simply this: we owe it to our own people to protect the freedoms and security of our nation. Invading Iraq, in my own opinion had nothing to do with either of those two things. Okay, so war was declared and a few years back an end to combat operations was announced by the Chief... why then are we still there? Is this a morale issue? Bomb the s**t out of a country, depose and assure the execution of its leader and now we're obligated to rebuild, as we did with Japan, Germany, Korea, etc., etc.,???

Please... enough... we need those dollars here at home. Sorry for another rant, I thought I was over it. Just so any of you might get notions, I admit complete ignorance to the political issues but am only responding on emotion so calling me ignorant is of no use, I already realize my own ignorance... and am bliss for it! :-)

By js55

Date 03-11-2008 13:17

This is a really good discussion. And I'm glad nobody has lost it yet. Its easy with politics. People feel strongly because its important. Speaks for the caliber of folks in here.
But jon, I can't agree with the philosophy of 'we need it at home more'. There really isn't any 'need it at home more' any more. Not sure there ever really was. The world is too small. A butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Florida, as Chaos hteory would have it. We need it in both locations.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-11-2008 15:40 Edited 03-11-2008 15:43

js55... while I agree with you to limited extent, my point is simply this: every GREAT nation throughout the entire history of mankind (at least that I know of) which has over-extended beyond it's capacities and over-reached it's own borders has failed... or drawn greatly back to itself.

It's just not conceivable that one nation should take responsibility of protecting and overseeing world affairs.

To that extent, I'd offer a challenge to my learned collegues to tell me of a single historical nation that has extended itself to full capacity without collapsing upon itself; which is what "appears" to be happening to me at the moment.

You've all heard me refer to America as the new "Rome" so there's one, how about Great Britain, China, Mongolia, Germany, Greece, Portugal, USSR, Inca's, all ears folks. I would really and truly like to be proven wrong in this perception. I'll grant that certain nations in the above have not "collapsed" perse, but they seem to have greatly dimished worldly reaches from what once was (in my opinion, wisely so)... why?

By hogan

Date 03-11-2008 15:52

Jon, these cultures are not what they use to be, and they have suffered from over extension. but i think that is a symptom of poor leadership, not a result of expansion.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-11-2008 15:58

hogan, perhaps your correct, but if you look at the long, long world history, there certainly seems to be some commonality of over-extending and subsequent shrinking back or worse, collapse...

By js55

Date 03-11-2008 16:03

I dont think taking responsibility for and protecting and overseeing world affairs is necessarily at issue. Thats why it is so important to engage and dialogue with allies. Democratic allies.
On the other hand when something has to be done, and it is in our interest (this being THE most important variable) we have to have resolve to do it. Even when our allies oppose or are to unresolved or cowardly to contribute. We are the worlds leader and sometimes we have to step forward. Even when unpopluar. Andone thing is certain,if we do not resolve to be the world leader we soon will not be. Maybe it willbe China. The seem to have to lack of resolve.
You mentioned Rome. What ruined Rome in my opinion more than anythng else was not so much overextending themselves as it was the brutality by which they did it and the pathetically wimpish lack of resolve by the Roman people in the maturity of the Empire.
An example I prefer, if we wishto go back that far, is the Persian empire of Cyrus the Great. He pretty much left the conquered lands to their own rule as long as they paid tribute to the empire. And all shared equally in the fruits of empire. It was a remarkably humane empire given the times. Not perfect, but remarkable nonetheless. Of course with his death things changed a bit.
And I'm not talking about a conquering of lands for empire, wherein the extension argument might have some validity. I'm talking about an effort in the spirit of American interest to influence the world towards Jefferson and away from the Bin Ladens, Moa's, Hitler's, Stalins, Pol Pots, etc. There is no hands off, there is no equilibrium, there is no looking the other way. A lack resolve to engage is more deadly than anything else that crumbles empires.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-11-2008 16:16

Sorry js55, while you know I've the greatest respect for you personally, it's perhaps best to simply say we disagree on many points politically! ;-) Probably why Mom & Dad said never talk politics or religion with friends, lol!

By js55

Date 03-11-2008 19:22

We're cool jon. Actually everyone was very civil in this discussion. Maybe we all just think that everyone else is full of it and are letting it go at that. :)

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-11-2008 04:51

   Does anybody remember Pres. Bush's speech on TV St.Pattys day '03? That is the one where He told Sadam that unless the UN weapons inspectors were allowed complete acess to any site they wanted to inspect, that Iraq could expect American invasion in as soon as 2 weeks. 2 weeks later We were there.
At the end of Desert Storm there was talk of going into Iraq and replacing Sadam, it was not done beacuse it was realised that it would be a messy situation, as the country was populated by groups that hate each other, and was only kept under controll by Sadam's use of martial law-and worse.
The weapons inspections were a compromise intended to keep Iraq's military capacity under controll without having to remove Sadam and establish a new, hopefully better government.
Hans Blix, who was in charge of the UN weapons inspections could not say what WMD capacity Iraq had, as He and His teams had been denied acess to sites they wanted to inspect. Hans Blix was not personally in favor of invasion, however.
I think Sadam was overstating His weapons capacity to the surounding countries governments so He could intimidate them, and denying inspection acess to keep them scared of His capabilities.
After 9-11 when most of the world was offering at least moral support to Us, Sadam was suggesting that Muslims around the world take up arms against the west. Had He kept His mouth shut perhaps Bush would have left Him slide on the weapons inspection.
The suspected WMD threat was that there might have been suficient capability to reach Eastern Europe, what was found was older Soviet chemical weapons in deteriating condition. These chemical WMD's altho no longer at full original strength would still be usefull to terrorists, if they had acess to them.
   Our Govt is trying to establish a democratic society that will not be anti western, anti American etc. If it can be done it would be a benifit in the future as at least some part of the middle east might not be against us.
Much of the cost in Iraq has to do with restoring the infrastructure destroyed by their own people, not something that anybody had ever thought about when planning the invasion.
   How does the cost of the "war on terror" stack up against the cost of a 9-11 type atack every year? Do You think We would have a stable economy if that happened on a regular basis?
   Our dependence on oil does NOT mean We have to be dependent on forign oil, all We have to do is drill and use what is already Ours, and not sell ANY of Ours to forign companies. Let the OTHERS deal with the Mid East. See how much crap China will put up with.
   Oil of course is in limited supply, but We have huge reservs of coal, and of natural gas. All of the US east coastal waters have natural gas and methane hydrate underneath, We use NONE of it, and pay 4x world prices for natural gas.
   Obama will make it all work out, just wait and see. And as an added benifit it will only rain at night, just like it did in Camelott.

By Root Pass (***)

Date 03-11-2008 16:37

One thing we can all agree on is that the government WASTES too much of OUR money. Any company in the world would have long gone bankrupt if it was run like the elected "officials" run the country. We need more farmers, working men, etc.( with common sense and morals) in D.C.

By Kix

Date 03-11-2008 17:49

I like it Dave, good stuff.

By ross

Date 03-11-2008 19:29

I'm pleased to see how everybody conducted this discussion in a gracious way.

Ross

By Plasma-Brain (**)

Date 03-12-2008 00:06

Well, sorry to miss all the action. Havent gotten a chance to sit down at the computer for a bit, and i barely have a min now.

Im still curious who our country is borrowing money from. The thread diverged into religion and politics, which wasnt unexpected, but no one touched on who we owe these billions of dollars to.
Does anyone know?

Still dont have enough time to sit down and reply properly...
-Clif

By Roadtrash (*)

Date 03-12-2008 02:37

a very large chunk of that we owe to china.

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-12-2008 06:01

Clif, some of thast money is borrowed from Us, the citizens, Treasury bills, US Saving bonds etc. Who do We owe Our "National Debt" too? Just about everybody.

By OBEWAN

Date 03-12-2008 11:51

I heard that 40% of our savings bond debt is held by China. We had better stay friends with them or they will call in their cards and ruin us. On the other hand, if they ruin us they ruin themselves because we hold their entire economy in our hands with all the junk we buy.

By Kix

Date 03-12-2008 12:21

I told ya up top that most of that money is being spent in the states.;-) Building planes, tanks, weapon developement, weapons, future combat systems, This big MRAP deal that just went down last year, ships, and lots of other things. I guess you did say that you haven't had time to read your thread. So yeah, like Dave said we owe ourselves a lot of it.

By Plasma-Brain (**)

Date 03-12-2008 15:29 Edited 03-13-2008 00:46

Kix, your right now that I can sit down and read for a second.
I guess I can live with us owing our self's... it's better to owe your neighbor than someone across the world.
But from the sounds of it I should stop bashing harbor freight....at least online.

Well, I missed the fun and don't really have much to add to it...
I'm with Hogan on the religion side of this debate.... more horrors have been committed in the name of god than for any other cause (the crusades, the inquisition ect ect...)
Not trying to bash on anyone's faith, but more people need to start practicing the whole peace love and good will towards all that are prevalent themes in a lot of religions.
Fundamentalists of all faiths need to sit down, shut up, and stop creating problems.... And with that I'm done peeing into that tornado.

Leaving religion alone, I'm still pretty irked that we have the capability to produce a good chunk of our own power yet we still rely on foreign oil.
"The world runs on oil. Shut off the spigot, and the world comes to a grinding halt. Like or hate it that is how it is in this day and time." Gerald, sadly you are correct.
While it's nice that at least some of the money we owe is to our self's and is going to new weapons, I'd rather it go to new power sources. What good is building a monster of a new battle tank if it runs on a gas turbine that you can't get any gas for? I think it would do our country good to try and get to the point that when the spigot shuts off, we don't fall flat on our face.
Now I realize I sound like an ungrateful little dink, so I do have to give credit to the oil industry. Without you all we wouldn't be where we are today.
*takes his hat off and bows to all in the oil industry*, you people have gotten us this far, now it's time for something else to take the stage.

Speaking of something else taking the stage, take a look at this: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html
Here's another fun technology that needs more attention drawn to it: http://www.pyrogenesis.com/
And finally, http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page , is worth taking a look through just to see what other ideas are out there, although it can be a dig to find info from.

The answers are out there. No one wants to look for them because they're all making money off the status quo. As long as our leaders have the capability to make money off of the disasters they create, nothing will change until were out of oil or out of people to fight over the oil.
Ok, I'm done for the moment. Hopefully I haven't ticked too many of you off...
-Clif

By jrw159

Date 03-12-2008 16:00

Frank Pringle is going to be more popular than maybe he wants to be. I honestly believe his fear of assasination is very valid. I would be worried and bodyguarded up. Amazing breakthrough!!

By Plasma-Brain (**)

Date 03-13-2008 01:00

Its kind of sad that someone who possibly found a solution to a decent bit of our worlds problems has to worry about being killed for his invention.
I don't doubt for a second that there are people out there who want Mr. Pringle and others who work on new energy sources dead.
From where I'm sitting, and this is a view I doubt many will share, the people Mr. Pringle are worrying about are the real terrorists.

Burn me to a crisp if you must, but that's my opinion.
(Not that this thread has been anything but opinions, but isn't that what the first amendment is for?) :)

Thank you all for being civil with this touchy subject, and thanks again for sharing your opinions to all who did
-Clif

By Kix

Date 03-12-2008 16:42

It's money we owe as a whole is not only war stuff like what most of the stuff I stated was. It's also going to space exploration, alternative fuels and ways to correct the situation we got ourselves in right now.:-) But most of the money being spent on the war is going to the stuff I stated. Man, this is gona be an expensive summer.:-( Or a boring one.

By Stringer (***)

Date 03-13-2008 00:50

Our treasury's debt is reflected in many ways, and has been pointed out, is held by people almost everywhere. The fear that someone will call in their debt and ruin us is simplistic. However, when the press reports Americans selling junk gold to put gas in their tanks, or using savings to put gas in their tanks, well, that can't be good.
Alternative fuels cannot hold a candle to the power of the long-chained hydrocarbon. Gasoline rules. Gasoline is finite. We are wasting it. There will be a cost.

By MAX04 Date 03-13-2008 07:33

Curious do you subscribe to popSci? They are pretty big into the global warming morass, and they think it is accurate, I don't.

Second, regarding the Iraq matter, in my opinion there is a bit more there than most folks see.
Scenario, folks fall out of the sky, dominate our government, and tell us our Christian heritage is just not going to work for a governmental model, ergo we have to switch to Islam yatta yatta yatta. That is what the common guy in the sand box sees.
Most of those folks don't read. If they do read the only book they ever see is the Koran. If you have any familiarity with that book you know that it does not bode well for the Infidel if these folks ever get the upper hand. I am not trying to put any body down here please see that clearly.

The difference between our religion, (Christian and most others) is that we do not state we should kill the opposition off. That IS the case with Islam. H.G. wells in his Outline of History describes the initial configuration of Islam. There were three tribes. The third upset the other two to the degree that they killed every last one of them, thereby providing resolution to the question, would the third tribe ever become dominant. This simple concept has served them well. I have spent considerable time in that area. I started it when I was 17, and that was a long time ago. I have been there several times and I tell you, the intensity of their distaste for the US has only increased.

To the plus side for Islam, I recall a lecture I attended in Saudi. Speaking was as I recall some highly respected Mullah. There were nearly 1000 of us in this huge theater by invitation. This to the best of my ability what I heard. "Let me ask you, America the richest country in the world, you have a drug problem. America the most powerful country in the world, your women cannot walk the streets at night. America, the best educated country in the world, you have a problem with alcohol. How can all this be? In countries where Islam is dominant these things are not the case....." I assure you he was telling the truth. There are many other areas where Islam runs a tight ship - sad to say, it is not a ship upon which I wish to sail. Why? Because the price for these things is truly a grisly matter and not one I wish to encourage. As feeble as our justice system is in The United States, it driven by our Constitution. That must be protected and remain in tact at any cost. If you let that slip away you are walking away from what so many have given their lives to uphold. Oil will come and go, money and power will shift around, but if our governmental structure is breached - game over. The Middle Eastern guy looks at it the same way. This a huge dilemma.

Leaving the religion alone is not an option. It is the middle east culture, and an integral part of the mix. Were I driving, a Manhattan type project to get the fuel matter solved would be my priority. For our way of life to continue there is no other matter of greater significance. The use of other folks oil is the power money thing, out of sight for folks like us. I really wish it was a different matter.

Finally, I urge you to watch the education of your children. What they are fed they will become. Presently the media and eduction agrees that should be a socialist structure. Take care! They have great impact! Be sure you are seeing what is really going on. It takes lots of effort to watch and absorb things which look benign but have the potential to cause vast damage.

M