Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 85 of 85
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Better they are cozy with us that those other guys. Ben
    Yup. Just keeping giving them their ransom money and keep em' happy. Sounds like a plan to me....at least one that Exxon will like.
  2. #82  
    Hey, moderateinny I was enjoying our conversation awhile back. I was interested in your perspective to post #63, that is buried a page or two ago.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Hey, moderateinny I was enjoying our conversation awhile back. I was interested in your perspective to post #63, that is buried a page or two ago.
    Thanks Hobbes. I've been trying to jump in when I can but just got back from Hong Kong and heading out tomorrow to FL then Boston...and still feeling jet lagged. But I'll respond when I can put more than a few sentences together. To be honest I forgot about it once I arrived into Asia but I see that you've provided a thoughtful reply that deserves a response.
  4. #84  
    No problem....believe me I know what it is like to be on the road for work (which I assume is who is running you ragged). I get sent all over the US, but they send me to Hong Kong! That would be pretty cool.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I agree with all the pieces, but I am not convinced they all fit together as laid out. I think oil is the means to achieve their agenda. Their agenda is political and religious base. This is the cause, the oil money is the means. Again....just to clarify I am talking about radicals and those who support them.
    So it is your contention that the arab oil cartels exist to achieve their religious objectives?

    Which is why our oil dependency is a national security measure.....and why it maybe a very real and violent problem if we became oil independent and stopped giving all of our money to them that they have become so accustomed to.
    You do realize this sounds like we're better off paying them off than risk upsetting them? I'm sorry but I cannot get behind that. Now if you mean that we're stuck paying them until we come up with an alternative to oil, then I'd agree it is a regrettable option we're stuck with. My point of contention is that we now know that we should have invested in alternative fuels over 20 years ago, yet, there is no aggressive plan nor leadership to do so today. Yes, it will take time to change but you have to start somewhere. Paying these oil cartel's hush money is friggin un-American IMO. Heck we nearly went to war over tea when this country was founded....its time for another tea party IMO. We need to shake up our leadership to force change as "staying the course" is simply not an option any more.

    This is a classic the enemy of our enemy is our friend only to find out 20 years later that they become a bigger enemy than the original one we wanted them to deal with. This has been repeated over and over again in history since ancient times. Hindsight would be a wonderful gift to have before you do something, don't you think?

    No matter even if we educated OBL and indoctrinated him with all the hatred of all the West and personally gave him his $300 million personal fortune and handed him the position of President of a major Mid Eastern country....we would still have to deal with him now today.
    I think we're spinning our wheels on this point as we're interpreting "what could have been" differently. We've agreed that investing in alternative fuels 20 years ago would have resulted in far less wealthy regimes and somehow your point above doesn't seem to align with this premise.

    No actually, I have a post somewhere here on the forums that cites like 4-5 different Islamic leaders and clerics preaching the same thing, both before and after Afghanistan. With a few of them even preaching it here in mosques here in the US. The problem is that whenever I search the Off Topic Forums, it always seems to only pull posts from 2005 and before. I remember Shop responding to it when I posted it and amazed at the what they were saying with such hatred with violent intent against Democracy and those who support it. This is a very real issue among many radical Islamic orgs and leaders.
    Oh I think there are some real whackos to be sure. But I need to understand something (again) - are you saying that the regimes, oil cartels, etc. all exist to fullfil their religous destiny and fuel these radicals? Sorry...just confused where you are coming from here.

    EDIT: Added the following after posting.....
    Yes, but only as a piece of the puzzle, not the sole motivation. I think the three main factors for our motivations in the middle east are:

    1) Our support of any of our allies, which are numerous, that is threatened by a Middle Eastern country, with obviously Israel only being one of them, but that seems to pop up in many people's mind first and sometimes exclusively.


    I'm a bit more jaded then you in this regard and would move this to the bottom of the list. If Israel and the Jews were located in Iceland we'd likely not give a rats a$$ about them. The state of Israel is strategically important to us because they are next to all of the oil we need. It all comes back to oil.

    2) Gov support of terrorist orgs. This goes right along with gov's will and means of developing WMDs. This can be listed separately as well, but since it is so intertwined and the dangers so closely linked together, I put them in one single point.
    It's all about oil. I maintain that the radicals have served a very useful purpose for the oil cartels/regimes of "changing the subject" amongst the population.

    3) Oil. This is a major a item for the stability and security of our country. Our whole economy is based on being able to get it at reasonable price. Our economy will fail without it. And until we become oil independent it will continue to be a factor in any decision with the Middle East with any Administration from any political party.
    If we look at the policies 20 plus years ago (aka around 1985 and before), I would also add the Cold War. This was a HUGE motivating factor (some very real concerns and some concerns that added blinders on those making decisions as not to realize the possible long term effects their decisions might have). This played out in all regions in the world, including the Middle East....aka supporting OBL against the Russians in Afghanistan is only one example.
    I think perhaps our differing vantage points are different largely in the area of timing or how aggressively we should move to new fuels and what to do while we develop these new fuels and deploy an infrastructure. It may take 100 years. It may take 50 years. But we need to change and I should hope we'll find common ground there.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions