Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Iran next ?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
colormyworld

colormyworld

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
1,172
Well it looks like bushes midest peace plan is working like a charm. I notice how all the neighbors of iraq are falling right into line. Just like gw planned.
 
flight of the hawks at most.





nighthawk
tomahawk



boom, end of problem for a couple more years.
The question is who does it, Us or Israel.
 
In my opinion it''s more like flight of the chicken hawks.
 
Date: 1/15/2006 2:25:13 PM
Author: colormyworld
In my opinion it''s more like flight of the chicken hawks.
Click to expand...

Israel wont sit back an let Iran go nuclear.
so either they are going to do something or we are.
count on it.
last time they did I think this time we will.
 
My point to this post is iran is where our attention should have been focused after afganistan not iraq. We have been wasting time and valuable resoruces in iraq. Saddem had that area under his thumb with no terrorism, iran is where the terrorist were comming from. But bush had a vendetta to settle. Its strange how all of his top people were all affraid to fight in war yet they are so willing to send other peoples sons and daughters to fight a battle to settle his vendetta.
 
Date: 1/15/2006 2:57:27 PM
Author: colormyworld
My point to this post is iran is where our attention should have been focused after afganistan not iraq.
Click to expand...

Most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and thats where the funding came from but of course that doesn''t get pointed out in the press.

We should have done the job right in the first Gulf war no question of that.
What is happening now is why we didnt.
Iran will crumble on its own in the long term, keeping it from getting nukes will be the priority.

I have several friends who are over there now and guess what the average everyday Iraq citizen is happy to see him gone and dont mind us being there as long as they know we are leaving.
Most of the attacks are coming from Syria nationals and Iranians and not from the Iraq people themselves.

The news in the US is not tell telling the whole story.
99.9% of the country is secure and quickly being rebuilt and or wasnt damaged and the people are getting on with their lives no problem for the US troops there.
Its the .1% of the area and it is really only 2 towns and parts of another that are a problem that get all the press.
 
I agree getting rid of saddem is a good thing for the people of iraq. I question if that move was the best move for the U.S. though. The one thing I feel is missing from your post is the extent of irans involvment with the terrorist attack of 9/11. I feel as if you have down played irans part in it. The difference from the,saudis is iran was more or less sanctioned by the government of iran.
 
Date: 1/15/2006 3:38:24 PM
Author: colormyworld
I agree getting rid of saddem is a good thing for the people of iraq. I question if that move was the best move for the U.S. though. The one thing I feel is missing from your post is the extent of irans involvment with the terrorist attack of 9/11. I feel as if you have down played irans part in it. The difference from the,saudis is iran was more or less sanctioned by the government of iran.
Click to expand...

You have proof of that?
other than some money to bin laden which even turkey and the US are guilty of I havent heard of a connection.
 
Other than reports of the terrorist of 9/11 having passed through Iran all I can come up with is rumors and inuendo. But heck that was good enough to invade Iraq. Which we know for a fact had nothing what so ever to do with 9/11 but is constantly mentioned in the same sentence by the bush admin.
 
All we need to do is end our dependence on foreign erl, which we could do by using more ethanol. Brazil runs all its vehicles on ethanol distilled from sugar cane. Iceland has mandated fuel cell/hydrogen technology and seeks to elilminate all gasoline from the island in several decades.

Without our need for foreign erl we can simply get out of the Middle East and let them fight amongst themselves and let Allah sort it out.
 
Rodentman, truer words are hard to find.
 
Let me elaborate. We didn''t invade Iraq for the oil per se. We aren''t sabre rattling at Iran for the oil per se. We just really cannot have the large reserves fall into the hands of Islamic fanatics who hate us and can turn off the tap. We took out Saddam, but we still must stay in Iraq until we make sure there is a USA friendly gov''t. The "civil warring" amongst the Sunis etc is not going to guarantee that we get the oil we need.

The war we will lose is an economic one. With the trade deficit, the burgeoning commerce in China, and fanatics in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela controlling a large amount of petroleum, they have us by the left one. Look what is happening already to our auto industry. What do you think it will look like with $4/gallon gas?

Instead of pumping billions into the Mid East we should use our vast technological expertise to aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources.

It would be better to do it sooner rather than we have our backs against the wall.
 
I sure am glad we have a president that is leading us down the road to energy independence.
 
I''m unsure about what the relevance is ...but...North Carolina had ethanol gas for years. They don''t anymore except for one place near the mtns. I have no idea why they discontinued the use. I vaguely recall that is shortens the life of the automobile.
 
It isn''t Bush''s fault. It''s the entire petroleum based economy. Neither the public, gov''t, or business segment has enough interest in alternative fuels. People still buy the gas hogs and seem willing to pay at the pump and to pay for the wars we wage to keep the flow going.

The real war is economic and we need to start thinking that way instead of who we''re gonna take out next.
 
Sorry to disagree with you there rodentman but one of bush's first actions when he took office was to do away with the CAFE fuel standards for automobiles.
 
and bush and family are firmly entrenched in the petroleum business.

movie zombie
 
He is part of the problem, but not the only problem.

And the mileage estimates advertised are obtained on a dyno without any air resistance. No wonder I don''t get the advertised mileage.
 
Every little thing each and every one of us can do to save energy will help. Including getting rid of that gas guzzling SUV that I see going up the highway with just one person in it! One thing thing I notice about the right is they think it is their god given right to waste as much energy as they can afford.
 
Date: 1/27/2006 4:49:07 PM
Author: colormyworld
One thing thing I notice about the right is they think it is their god given right to waste as much energy as they can afford.
Click to expand...

it isnt?
What right does anyone have to tell them what they can do with their money?
Goverment isnt the answer,,,, Goverment is the problem....
 
I am not saying what you can or can not do with the rescoures you choose to aquire , just pointing out an observation about the right.
 
Date: 1/27/2006 6:00:08 PM
Author: colormyworld
I am not saying what you can or can not do with your rescourses, just pointing out an observation about the right.
Click to expand...
About the right? I resent the stereotype. In both my locations, I''ve see MANY a "KERRY-EDWARDS'' bumper sticker on big a** SUV''s. Gas guzzlers are just that. It isn''t reserved for any political affiliation.
 
I agree not all people who claim to be on the left are energy conscious but The right is even less so.
I can't speak for all people on the left but, I feel guilty sometimes for wasting. I think stmrdr made my point rather well abour the other side.
 
Date: 1/27/2006 6:19:58 PM
Author: colormyworld
I agree not all people who claim to be on the left are energy conscious but The right is even less so.

I can''t speak for all people on the left but, I feel guilty sometimes for wasting. I think stmrdr made my point rather well for the other side.
Click to expand...

actualy I conserve energy within reason.
All my light bulbs are compact flourecents.
But i keep my heat at 70 and the AC at 80.
My comfort is worth the cost.
I drive a fairly big car, I do wish it got better gas milage but I like the room and dont have any $$ to replace it.
It gets around 16-18mpg around town.


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/12036.shtml
 
Iam sure a lot of people on the left and right feel locked into a gas guzzler But I can not count how many more of them are sporting dubya stickers.
 
Like rodentman pointed out we are supporting terrorism with our energy dollars. The question is are we going to keep heading down this same road.
 
Conservation is a worthy goal, but I really think we need Congress to mandate changes. I don''t recall the exact %, but there is an achievable % of ethanal in gas that will eliminate our need for any foreign oil. It''s attainable. My vehicle runs on E-85. It is different from a gas only vehicle only in the fuel lines, computer chip, and maybe some other minor items. It''s easy to build a car that will run on E-85. Some people say it takes more energy to produce E-85 than gas so it isn''t as great as it sounds, but I don''t know those facts.

We have fuel cell technology. Let''s develop it. Let''s mandate fuel cell vehicles, a certain % of total production per year. Iceland can do it, we can''t?

We should rid ourselves of foreign oil dependence, pull out of the Mid East, and let them solve their own problems. We should stop sending $ to the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, etc. We can do it.

I am working on my stinking tax return now. It frosts me that so much of my $ is going to waste.
 
We need a leader who will encourage conservation and renewable alternatives not consumtion of fossil fuels.
 
I think you are expressing anti-Bush sentiment at the expense of suggestions. That''s how you started this thread and that''s the tack you are taking. To what end? I''m no big fan of Bush, but Bush bashing adds nothing toward a meaningful discussion of the issue, if that is your intent.

Who would you suggest as a leader who would encourage conservation and alternatives? Hillary Clinton? Arnold? Jesse Ventura?
 
You are right.
We must get away from fossil fuels. The middle east is not our only problem with these energy scoruces. I can not eat some fish caught in the OCEAN because of high mercery content from burning coal in power plants. I think we also should be concerned with green house gasses(ghg). I know a lot of people don't put much creedence in this idea. They even point out that more ghg come from natural soruces than man contributes. But what does that mean. What happens if the people who say that are wrong? What then? Will we find a solution in time should ghg become a problem? I prefer to error on the side of caution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top