Geas

Uhm.. ever thought about why do people generally start a war? No.. not religion.. mostly for profit.. religion or anything else is just the cover. How to stop a nation from war? Make peace pay for them better.. so easy...

Instead of citing the Bible or the Quaran simply start to use common sense. Not that hard.. of course.. it needs some effort and.. maybe it will lead you to somewhere else than you are now.

The moment people in "terrorist countries" think they can gain nothing by hurting you they simply won't. Work towards that

stilgar wrote:Uhm.. ever thought about why do people generally start a war? No.. not religion.. mostly for profit.. religion or anything else is just the cover. How to stop a nation from war? Make peace pay for them better.. so easy...

This.

It has nothing to do with anyone hating us for our freedoms or any bogus like that. It's shit to live over there and US meddling and occupation, even if it makes things better by our standards, is received badly. Perception is everything, and cornered rats bite.

Olrane wrote:

stilgar wrote:Uhm.. ever thought about why do people generally start a war? No.. not religion.. mostly for profit.. religion or anything else is just the cover. How to stop a nation from war? Make peace pay for them better.. so easy...

This.

It has nothing to do with anyone hating us for our freedoms or any bogus like that. It's shit to live over there and US meddling and occupation, even if it makes things better by our standards, is received badly. Perception is everything, and cornered rats bite.

Perhaps take their word for it, since they are the ones committing the acts.
Some of them say that, most of them don't. Those are just your opinions, because they are not facts at all.

I really don't think we should occupy those countries or even attempt to help them unless they ask us first. Although, there are the ones that do hate us for their religious beliefs, and for our freedom. They have stated this. Us occupying their countries and involving ourselves in their business just makes it worse.

As to Stilgar, just what do the Middle Eastern countries gain from a War with us though?

I think it's silly to try to place either Islamic or Christian beliefs as good or evil. To me, both are inheritly the same. You have the more benign followers that try to do good for the world and fellow people, and the more zealous that want to purge the world of heathens. Each side will try to interpret their faith's beliefs to supplement whatever their personal visions are.

I think it's safe to say the zealots are disliked by many, even those with the same religious beliefs. Attempting to associate Muslims with Jihadists is much like trying to associate Christians with those that believe all homosexuals, blacks, atheists, abortionists, jews, and etc. should be violently killed and sent to burn eternally in hell (I do believe there's a specific term for these types of people, but I forget what exactly it is).

And I wouldn't be surprised if some Muslims hate America for these types of people, much the same as some Americans hate Muslims for terrorists/jihadists.

Herst wrote:As to Stilgar, just what do the Middle Eastern countries gain from a War with us though?

Can sell their own oil at the price they want to the one they want?

Hmm, I thought they already did that.

I dont have as much of a grasp on oil and foreign policy as I probably should but I would venture to say that the promise of having a minute influence on OPEC is at least part of the reason we covet a democratic and friendly Iraq.

With all the money we've put into Iraq, I venture to say we could have used it to break our dependence on oil via alternative energy sources, or at least given ourselves a stable foothold in that direction.

Perhaps Im a pessimist but does "breaking the dependence on oil" actually sound like a realistic endeavor to anyone?

Seriously, take into account not only that most if not all of these alternative energy sources are 20-30yrs away from becoming viable but that immense amounts of oil would be needed to transition to them(how much oil do you think it takes to build a wind turbine, or worse a solar panel). Then remember that 99% of all consumer products are manufactured/processed/treated with oil... Dont get me started on biofuels, lets wean ourselves off oil by causing world starvation.

Of course all that is before tackling the big problem which is the culture shock distancing ourselves from oil as the primary energy source would create. If it were seriously attempted a tightrope would have to be walked inorder to avoid global economic meltdown and the fall of governments/world anarchy(which some believe would be a bad thing).

Not saying something shouldnt be done. We hit peak oil in what, like 1975 or so? Hopefully, Ill be long and gone before supply nears 0. My point, before I got to wherever the hell I am now was that I hear alot about "breaking the dependence" on oil but doubt that anyone really thinks about what this means.

Perhaps Im a pessimist but does "breaking the dependence on oil" actually sound like a realistic endeavor to anyone?

Considering many other things we've done, including using oil in the first place, is finding something new so hard to do?

I don't think finding alternatives is the hard part so much as changing the current system. And I think paying more than minimal attention to the alternative sources would actually help speed up their development.

But I do feel that trying to change things in the current world economic situation would not be the best of times.

Herst wrote:Hmm, I thought they already did that.

No.. their oil trade is controlled by the US since the war.. good morning

tessa wrote:With all the money we've put into Iraq, I venture to say we could have used it to break our dependence on oil via alternative energy sources, or at least given ourselves a stable foothold in that direction.

With all the money you put into the pocket of US companies handling the situation in Iraq you mean?

Wake up kids

stilgar wrote: With all the money you put into the pocket of US companies handling the situation in Iraq you mean?

Wake up kids

Im fairly sure she meant the situation in Iraq as it is commonplace in the states to refer to anything concerning or occurring there as simply "Iraq". Its unfair to argue everything literally. For instance:

As to Stilgar, just what do the Middle Eastern countries gain from a War with us though?

stilgar wrote:Can sell their own oil at the price they want to the one they want?

stilgar wrote:No.. their oil trade is controlled by the US since the war.. good morning

Last I checked Iraq is not the only oil producing country in the M.E. Unless you mean that the U.S. controls everyone's oil trade which would be, sadly, wrong.

Let me explain about power. Power comes from controlling resources everyone needs and few has access to. Changing energy sources to a cheap and accessible one would surely destroy the status Quo. Imagine you would not need to buy fuel could extract it at home, same about energy.

Cheap and accessible energy would simply destroy power based on wealth.

Now guess why we still have fossil fuel?

stilgar wrote:Let me explain about power. Power comes from controlling resources everyone needs and few has access to. Changing energy sources to a cheap and accessible one would surely destroy the status Quo. Imagine you would not need to buy fuel could extract it at home, same about energy.

You say 'destroy the status Quo' as if it would be a good thing. Let me explain something about power and the status Quo. Destroy the status quo and extract fuel/energy from your home. Then I will come, hit you over the head and claim your home. Now I have a bit more power. Why did I do this? Because the status quo that kept me from doing this before is no longer around.

Destroying the status quo would mean a mad rush for power which would be far worse than anything you experience during the current status quo.

See Stilgar, this is why we Americans have guns. :P

gojin wrote:Last I checked Iraq is not the only oil producing country in the M.E. Unless you mean that the U.S. controls everyone's oil trade which would be, sadly, wrong.

Currently the US have direct control on Iraq's and Quwait's oil. (more than half of the so far known avaible fossil fuel sources) That is more than enough for maintaining Status Quo.

Ever imagined how come the US never entered Nepal or Tibet? Things going on there are just as.. if not worse than things were going on in Iraq. And before you bring up terrorism.. things in Iraq started before '90. No one ever heard about terrorism threatening the US at that time

gojin wrote: You say 'destroy the status Quo' as if it would be a good thing. Let me explain something about power and the status Quo. Destroy the status quo and extract fuel/energy from your home. Then I will come, hit you over the head and claim your home. Now I have a bit more power. Why did I do this? Because the status quo that kept me from doing this before is no longer around.

Destroying the status quo would mean a mad rush for power which would be far worse than anything you experience during the current status quo.

Zomg... EVERYONE had home energy source Getting your neighbour's one would mean you have TWO infinite cheap sources.. that earned you nothing

I thought I was clear about that If not, sorry

stilgar wrote:Ever imagined how come the US never entered Nepal or Tibet?

No one will argue that we went into Iraq to protect/expand our own interests. Are you suggesting the U.S. should go into Nepal or Tibet? Damned if you do damned if you dont, do you want us to be the world police or not?

stilgar wrote:Currently the US have direct control on Iraq's and Quwait's oil. (more than half of the so far known avaible fossil fuel sources) That is more than enough for maintaining Status Quo.

While I might argue as to how much control we have over Kuwait's oil I wont as I am at the moment uninformed. As for the second part, are you suggesting its wrong for the U.S.(or any country) not to want to maintain the status quo when they are the sole superpower?

Zomg... EVERYONE had home energy source Getting your neighbour's one would mean you have TWO infinite cheap sources.. that earned you nothing

This makes me think you dont spend too much time around human beings... Infinite energy or no someone will always try to have more influence(power) than others. If everyone has infinite energy I(or someone else) would go around taking everyone elses until I had the only source of infinite energy.

Don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with the world as it is. I think it was me declaring if you HAVE the power to do something and get away with it, you simply don't need any reasons to do so. Not a single excuse.

Several people on this forum expressed they'd like if the US would care more about environmentally friendly energy sources. I explained them why I don't think this will happen in the near future. That was my reasoning about energy sources, current war, etc.

And...

..Yes, you are a superpower, Yes you'd like to remain one, No I don't think you would willingly give away power. So.. No.. don't expect (details in above discussion) environmentally friendly energy sources to be introduced in the near future.

Ok, we understand each other then