McCain Shocker!

[tomandshell]

In my opinion... I don't think there is.

In my opinion, that would be a nice feature.

 

[Shropt]

In my opinion, that would be a nice feature.

In my opinion... I agree.

Anyone else grossed out by the title of this thread?

 

[barbelith]

Please explain the timetable you perceive as achievable in implementing an alternative energy source (for vehicles) that makes it unnecessary to "tap our own reserves", and where we currently are on that timetable.

We have to see what's feasible first. There's no point in making any kind of decision before then; our choice could vary dramatically if alternative vehicle power is 10 years or 50 years away after all. The technology currently exists to triple national gas mileage at the very least. That would buy significant time if the political will existed to put those vehicles in drivers' hands.

 

[Ultimate Weapon]

I have, and while Im not a huge fan of Bush I believe the constitution has a clause that allows the government to claim private land for use in national defense.
The government must also give fair or market value financial compensation to the previous owners.

So that makes it all right then?

The government currently gives tax credits to those willing to implement eco-minded technologies into their homes. They don't force anyone to put photovoltaics on their homes or to buy hybrid cars. But really, would you honestly be upset if the government forced coal plants to burn it clean and efficiently to prevent the acid rain that we continually send to Canada? Would you be upset if your power company switched their electric generation from coal to wind power? As long as you receive your electricity at the fair market value, how could you honestly be annoyed by that?

We need alternative energies and fuels or we're going to choke on it, just like Beijing. Countries in Europe are already exceeding us in this endeavor - it's out there and it can be done.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Well that's just it. They're not.

So the people who are roadside bombing our troops are solely citizens angry that we're there? If we weren't there they'd be happy and non-militant? I don't think so.

 

[Ultimate Weapon]

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses in London:

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/environment/2017.aspx

Fuel Cell Taxis in London by 2012:

https://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/...el-cell-taxis-in-time-for-2012-olympic-games/

And anyone who is interested should check out 'Who Killed the Electric Car'; a documentary about GM releasing a successful electric car in California and then subsequently recalling and destroying all of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

 

[barbelith]

So the people who are roadside bombing our troops are solely citizens angry that we're there? If we weren't there they'd be happy and non-militant? I don't think so.

You're entitled to think that, but frankly you're confusing standard occupational resistance and terrorism. If we weren't there, those people would not be bombing our roads, no. They'd just turn on each other until a single government takes over and cracks down.

The idea that we are fighting a terror army in Iraq is not only completely at odds with what our own intelligence agencies believe, but it's such a naively GI Joe vs Cobra view of the world I'm literally speechless anyone seriously believes it.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Its not a state sponsored military, but the multiple militias we are battling are certainly commanded by maniacs, somewhat like Cobra Commander. LOL.

Sure it would be safer for those troops currently in Iraq to withdraw but it would give the militias time to prepare undistracted for something akin to 9/11.

While I'm in no way saying the occupation wasn't full of mistakes, I think the occupation in and of itself has distracted and prevented something serious on home territory.

 

[Chimera 1]

The amount of money spent on the Iraq "war" could have put new clean heating sources in every home in the country.

 

[hoodonit00]

You're entitled to think that, but frankly you're confusing standard occupational resistance and terrorism. If we weren't there, those people would not be bombing our roads, no. They'd just turn on each other until a single government takes over and cracks down.

The idea that we are fighting a terror army in Iraq is not only completely at odds with what our own intelligence agencies believe, but it's such a naively GI Joe vs Cobra view of the world I'm literally speechless anyone seriously believes it.

What do you mean our intelligence says we are not fighting a terror army? The Iraqi people are actively working with the US and Iraqi army on revealing the whereabouts of Al Qeda in Iraq.

 

[hoodonit00]

The amount of money spent on the Iraq "war" could have put new clean heating sources in every home in the country.

Oh yea. What new clean heating source would that be.

 

[barbelith]

Sure it would be safer for those troops currently in Iraq to withdraw but it would give the militias time to prepare undistracted for something akin to 9/11.

But the militias don't want another 9/11. They want regional control in Iraq and they want a foreign invader out of their land. The number of people we could classically consider "terrorists" plotting action on US soil is incredibly small. Fewer than 200 people according to one CIA estimate.

In a humanitarian sense I think leaving Iraq to the devices of several competing militias would be a disaster but it's not terror we're fighting.

 

[barbelith]

What do you mean our intelligence says we are not fighting a terror army?

Al-Qaeda is not an army.

 

[barbelith]

Oh yea. What new clean heating source would that be.

The Iraq invasion has cost an estimated $1 trillion. That buys a lot of solar panels.

EDIT: The official figure is nearer $500 billion. Still not too shabby!

 

[tomandshell]

One dictionary definition of Army: "Any body of persons organized for any purpose." Or: "A large body of persons trained and armed for war." Or: "A very large number or group of something."

You don't have to represent a specific nation to be loosely referred to as an army. Just look at "Dumbledore's Army."

 

[barbelith]

One dictionary definition of Army: "Any body of persons organized for any purpose."

My local Starbucks?

Or: "A large body of persons trained and armed for war."

Terrorists of course are neither large bodies nor armed for war, which is precisely why they resort to terror tactics. I'm afraid this sort of Orwellian "define away reality" is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Iraq and terrorism are two separate issues. Five years after the ground invasion there shouldn't be anyone left who still buys into the propaganda otherwise.

 

[The Mike]

You don't have to represent a specific nation to be loosely referred to as an army. Just look at "Dumbledore's Army."

Good thing we don't have to fight them....they have wands!

 

[DarthNeil]

Good thing we don't have to fight them....they have wands!

And sometimes funky hats... Or maybe that's just Dumbledore.

 

[Darth Cruel]

Too bad I got in so late on this one. Sure is a lot of spin in some of these posts. There are a few who need to stop twisting the truth into an unrecognizeable version of actual facts. That is exactly what politicians do to fool voters into casting the voters' votes in their favor. Please stop playing the spin cards.

After everything is said and done. We are fighting a dictionary definition of an army in Iraq. It does not matter who they are. Our colonial militias did the same thing. Using what was largely considered cowardly tactics against a foe that outnumbered and outgunned them. (Edit - Let me make it clear that I do not believe the colonial militia were cowards, nor wrong, I am proud of what they accomplished against the odds and having been in the military, I completely understand the necessity and the wisdom of their chosen tactics) The colonials used guerilla tactics, the terrorists use terror tactics. But it is an inarguable fact that the terrorists are armies. Some of them even call themselves armies. They actually put that term in their organization names.

Remove all of the spin and ask youself a basic question.

1) Do they fit the dictionary definition of an army? And there can be only one answer. Yes. In 2 ways actually. They are a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war.

and 2) Is this actually a war? And once again, by the dictionary definition, yes. It is a state of antagonism. And we don't even have to go so far as to quote both of our Presidential candidates who both refer to it as a "war".

If we want to accomplish any progress toward understanding. We all need to leave the partisan spin behind.

 

[monkeydad16]

Great move on the part of McCain. Did anyone see all the women weeping when Hillary spoke at the convention? They feel cheated with the results of the primaries.