We can choose to be small — like George Bush. Or big — like real Americans.
I had me a very American 9/11 day. Three vivid changes of mood that brought home a great truth about our country:…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
A Once Mighty Nation Reduced To The Size Of The Pea That Is George Bush’s Brain - Comments Page 2
Article comments
26 - zingzing
hey al, why did we HAVE TO invade a country? why don't we just go after terrorists?
and yeah, so if lobbing a couple of cruise missles is how we got to 9/11, what do you think sending in the military will do? make them happy? oh lawd.
i'd say... why don't we try NOT invading countries, not having army bases scattered across arabia, not sending weapons to israel, not trying to control middle eastern oil, and not trying to play daddy to the world? why not? it's a whole lot cheaper, and there's a lot less blood involved. how's that for a solution?
27 - Richard Brodie
Have to agree with zing on this one. Stop taking sides and intervening in the Middle East. Arming Israel, and supporting them in every instance only makes the Islamists hate us. Use the money saved to secure America. Instead of pouring a trillion dollars (and precious American blood) down the drain, hopelessly trying to Americanize the Arabs, spend a few tens of billions on port security, hermetically sealing our borders, and reducing dependence on oil by cultivating non ME sources and encouraging alternate energy technologies. Of course this will not happen, because it does not serve the interests of the one-world globalist corporate elites who are firmly in control of the current United States government.
28 - zingzing
oi... that's going a bit far. i think addressing the reasons for their anger, rather than rolling tanks through their back yard, is a good step forward. if they have no reason to kill us, we won't have any reason to fear them. and vice-versa. goes around and around.
29 - Nancy
I don't know. I think at this point even if we did leave Iraq, they (muslim fundies & terrorists) would still be out to get us "just because", and would then target Americans abroad, or switch their target to US allies - as they've already announced they aim to do, actually.
What would be interesting would be if the US did pull out of the mideast entirely. No military, no aid workers, no tourists, no foreign aid, no trade - nothing, nada. I'll bet they'd be crying & begging us to come back within a month. It won't happen, of course, but it would be interesting.
30 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Well it doesnt matter. We're all doomed because all young people are lazy.
31 - Nancy
I never said that. I said the ones here where I work are spoiled.
32 - Victor Lana
Like a dinosaur's brain, hey, Adam? Well, if nothing else, the trophy for best title of the week should be awarded to you.
PS> As I recall, Suss told me there isn't a real trophy; it's kind of like a metaphor.
33 - Al Barger
Zing sez: "what do you think sending in the military will do? make them happy?" No, it's not to make them happy, but to KILL them, and put the fear of God into the ones living over what happens if you screw with US.
We have to go after countries at some point because the bad guys are in countries. There's no territory unclaimed by any country where the bad guys conveniently gather and wait for US to come get them. Plus, some of these countries (Iran most obviously) are absolutely sponsoring this nonsense.
Also, Zing sez: "if they have no reason to kill us, we won't have any reason to fear them." That's just SO manifestly not anything like related to facts. We didn't do anything to Bin Laden to provoke 9/11. They always come up with new, shifting reasons for what we've done. Don't like us in your precious frickin' Mecca (Saudi Arabia)? OK, we're out of there. So I guess the attacks will stop now, huh?
As a principle, I'd certainly favor scaling way back on how many troops we have in how many other countries. But if we in fact tried to pull our troops and money out of the entire Middle East right now, would they say "Thank you. That's all we were asking for." or would it be a sign that the infidels are on the run and that it's time to re-double their jihad?
Nancy's definitely right there - they'd still be after us just because. Let me fill in the "just because" a bit. It's just because, as many of them see it, we're fat, rich, happy Americans leading noodle-salad lives rather than being miserable shame-based losers stuck in a miserable desert with a nowhere culture that consists of little but a thousand shame spirals in which you can nourish hatred of yourself and everyone else.
34 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Zing sez: "what do you think sending in the military will do? make them happy?" No, it's not to make them happy, but to KILL them, and put the fear of God into the ones living over what happens if you screw with US.
The fear of God? What the hell? Are you some kind of religious crusader? Did you really just say that? Killing people will put the fear of God into their comrades? Holy shit. I cannot believe you said that. Who the fuck are you to deal out divine justice?
And just a side note...Iraq wasnt fucking the the U.S...you did mean U.S. didnt you? You said "screw with US." And which collective US would you be referring to? Certainly not any collective involving me. As far as I know Iraq wasnt screwing with ME.
Also, Zing sez: "if they have no reason to kill us, we won't have any reason to fear them." That's just SO manifestly not anything like related to facts. We didn't do anything to Bin Laden to provoke 9/11. They always come up with new, shifting reasons for what we've done.
Did you ever consider there are just a lot of reasons? This is like a typical family car ride. The big brother punches the little brother. The mother says "stop punching." So he pokes him. "No poking." So he pinches him. etc. The real question are their reasons valid? The sheer number of reasons they come up with doesnt, contrary to all your hypothesizing, prove that the reasons are necessarily false.
rather than being miserable shame-based losers stuck in a miserable desert with a nowhere culture
Funny...the large majority of the world's population thinks it's America, not the Middle East, that lacks culture. How ironic.
And I still can't believe you actually said
it's not to make them happy, but to KILL them, and put the fear of God into the ones living over what happens if you screw with US.
And i thought all the jihadists were in the Middle East...
35 - zingzing
thank you, pleasexcusethein[...], you said what i wanted to say with probably a lot less yelling and cursing and name-calling and pissing-myself-anger and threats, etc.
but, i'd like to address one of al's statements a little more clearly: "We didn't do anything to Bin Laden to provoke 9/11." um, yeah. maybe you don't think we deserved it, i certainly don't think anyone deserves such a thing, but there are concrete reasons why it happened. stationing our troops in the middle east, using our political and military influence in the region, supporting israel with weapons, etc.
sure, if we walk away now, they may find new reasons to continue this war, but i'd bet those would be more in line with the reasons why bush wants to continue this war: politics and money.
36 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Which comes back to my point... is it a good reason that will carry an international following?
37 - zingzing
it might. that's what's so scary about this whole thing. an end might not be in sight. an end might never be in sight. but, approaching it like this will certainly never end things, unless it really does end things, if you know what i mean.
fighting fire with fire only makes fire, unless it totally sucks the life out of everything. the invasion of afghanistan had its point. the taliban were harboring those responsible. there was a goal in mind, even if it was abandoned at the worst possible time. marching through the rest of the middle east, stirring up trouble and civil wars, is not the way to get anything done.
38 - Al Barger
Pleaseexcuse, are you out of your pinko tree, or what? There are people out making massacres based on Islamic jihad, and you're losing your mind accusing ME of jihadism based on the turn of phrase "putting the fear of God" into them. That's just completely dumb. If you're working on that level, you're just not ready to join in a serious discussion of our civic affairs in these matters.
Also you say, "the large majority of the world's population thinks it's America, not the Middle East, that lacks culture." That's just not true. Some Frenchman may ridicule our culture because they haven't meant much in the world since the rise of America. We're going to be the subjects of playa hatin'. However, everyone very well knows that America is the cultural center of the world, and the Arab and Muslim world harbor many of the most backward and barbaric cultures going.
Y'all can say that there are reasons other than just generalized projected hate and envy for jihadists atttacking us, but you're wrong- and I wouldn't care anyway. They may think they have reasons, but they don't.
More importantly, it doesn't matter what reasons they have or think they have. This jihad stuff is unacceptable for any reason, and people doing or even marginally helping to do these things have to be put down like rabid dogs.
This "fighting fire with fire only makes more fire" business is simply not true. Fighting fire with fire in WWII was ugly, but killing off the Nazis ended that fire.
NOT fighting fire with fire, however, will only lead to jihadists setting more and bigger fires here at home.
And lastly Pleasexcuse, when people come to kill US, it's right there that we pick up the authority to deal out divine justice. Don't want us dealing out divine justice upside your head? Then don't be trying to do US violence.
Did I mention that my God can beat up your God?
39 - STM
If the vast mahority of republicans think that invading Iraq was about regime change, fighting terrorists and making the world a safer place, then they really are believing the Bush administration's verbal garbage.
It's about the oil, silly. A little look at the history books (the coups and internal power struggles) and the British experience in Iraq in the 1920s and '30s would have indicated the kinds of problems the so-called coalition of the willing would face: a power vacuum caused by the fall from grace of the Sunni ruling class and Iranian meddling among the fundamentalists of Iraq's majority shi'ite population, just to name a few. As is so often the case, the lessons of history are ignored by all concerned.
Badly planned, badly organised and really badly thought out. It's only had one good result: the removal of the murderous Baathist regime.
The problem is, it's just given people like bin laden and his ilk one more reason to hate Americans, and they've already got a long list.
Hit, hurt and run tactics by specially trained formations like Delta Force and the SAS on a global basis would have been the better option.
That way, they never know who's coming, or when, or whether they are safe: have them thinking the same way they've got us thinking.
A massive deployment in Iraq was a mistake and it's cost too many lives and ruined the place to boot. The real problem, however, was not invading and getting rid of a hated dictator but the poor planning of such a venture. It's a tragedy.
I lived in Baghdad in the 1960s and can tell you that it was one of the most beautiful cities in the middle east and that Iraqis are good and industrious people.
Now it's just one big blast zone and a graveyard for innocent Iraqis and coalition soldiers believing they are doing the right thing.
40 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Ok so basically it's ok for Barger to wage jihad because it's not as bad as the islamic jihad.
41 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Also if you're going to limit hatred of America and its lack of culture to just a few stupid Frenchmen, you obviously have not been out of the U.S. And watch out, Barger's dealin out divine justice, so make sure you don't offend him. I take it you havent read Hume have you Al?
42 - Dave Nalle
If the vast mahority of republicans think that invading Iraq was about regime change, fighting terrorists and making the world a safer place, then they really are believing the Bush administration's verbal garbage.
Astonishingly they're believing their garbage almost exactly as much as you are believing the left's garbage when you parrot this drivel:
It's about the oil, silly.
When that's the most ridiculous of all the left's claims - so much so that most of them have even abandonned it. If it was about the oil, we would have just seized and held the oil fields in the first gulf war. Or we could have made a deal with Saddam for all the oil we wanted at a bargain price any time we wanted. What's more, it doesn't actually matter who owns the oil. They're going to hire the same outfits to run the wells and the same multinationals are going to ship, refine and distill and distribute it no matter what. Waging a war which shuts down the oil fields for 3 years is the least sensible thing we could do if we wanted the oil.
Dave
43 - Al Barger
Pleaseexcuse, you're simply being childish now, refusing to understand the plain meaning of my words. It's just willfully dishonest for you to accuse me of being a "jihadist." I'm not even a believer, much less a religious warrior. You're just being hysterical.
But yup, if you offend me by trying to kill me or my people, I'll unhesitatingly support the dealing of some divine justice right out the end of a US Marine's gun.
In short then Pleaseexcuse, you need to go sit in the time out corner and calm down. When you feel like you can control your emotions and talk rationally, then maybe you can come sit at the table with the adults.
44 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
some divine justice right out the end of a US Marine's gun.
If that's not the makings of a jihad then I dont know what is.
45 - Jet in Columbus
When someone here can give a plausible explanation on why George Bush has repeatedly wasted chance after chance to eliminate the Afghan poppy fields that were nearly non existant under the Taliban regime, then I'll listen to the right wing.
And I did say plausible.
Those fields have expanded to almost none in 2001 to a $5 BILLION dollar industry for bin Laden and his insurgents.
They've expanded to the point of being out of control, and we have Bush's shortsightedness to thank for it.
46 - MCH
"Lob a couple of cruise missles now and again in the general direction of somewhere he was reported to have been at some point and then pretend like you've done something, then go back to poking the help."
- Al Barger
Uh, sorta like writing macho war rhetoric on a keyboard 10,000 miles from the action...?
47 - STM
Dave Nalle wrote: "Astonishingly they're believing their garbage almost exactly as much as you are believing the left's garbage when you parrot this drivel: It's about the oil, silly."
OK mate, on that basis, US liberals (I'd hardly call them leftists, according to my idea of what that constitutes) are dopes if they don't buy the reality of the oil argument.
Sorry Dave, love your posting and respect your points of view, but don't (can't) agree with you on this one. The US administration was planning to go after Saddam's oil fields BEFORE 9/11.
Do the homework, mate. War plans were being drawn up tentatively within weeks of Bush taking office, and the big oil companies were in on the later planning meetings that took place at the Pentagon. They actually influenced both the course of the fighting and the post-war infrastructure.
Iraq's reserves are a bit more than substantial, as you'd know, and in the current climate, oil is as good a bargaining chip as a big stick. In the case of the US, both is better.
The real answer to this is whether Iraq's oil industry remains under state control (under the auspices of the US and the international community) or is fully privatised, which may lead to foreign companies being left out of the process, as happened in the former Soviet Union.
Right now, no-one wants to undermine Opec or mess with its equilibrium pricing structure. And here's the rub: only if Iraq is allowed to fully privatise will there be unequivocal proof that this war is not about oil.
But it won't happen, and the US will make sure it doesn't happen.
Don't be fooled on this mate: the war in Iraq is mostly about petrodollars. If you get some other spin-off security benefits, great. Problem is, we haven't.
And seriously, anyone who doesn't understand that corporate America is the real root of US imperialism (and it really is hardly any different to what the Brits were doing 100 years ago) needs a bloody good reality check.
48 - ergo-sum
Dear BC'ers:
"Curiouser and curiouser…"
What began as a wonderful acclamation regarding Great Tits of the Western World metamorphed into silly stuff, like killing and war.
I am poorly educated and none-too-bright.
Might any of you know with certainty exactly when, in 1999, - as a potential electee - George Walker Bush began being briefed on national issues - especially those issues regarding national security. I believe this process is 'de rigueur' for all potential electees.
Yet, if such briefings failed to occur, on my fingers I counted 20 months in office prior to 11 September 2001.
Could it be that Mr. Bush did not exercise prudent triage regarding the topics about which he ordered his staff to keep him abreast of? (Yes, I know, we're back to tits again. My bad.)
If Mr. Bush demanded of the NSA, FBI, CIA, 'et alii' 'ad nauseum', to apprise him of any and all threats to the nation, either they did not have the necessary data - their failure to perform - or they had the data and failed to convey it to the president.
Else, Mr. Bush had the data and elected to do nothing. And if this is the case, then the buck stops exactly where Mr. Truman specified.
Now I would engage in a bit of conjecture. Mr. Bush's father, in addition to being president, was once the director of the CIA. I might think that Mr. Bush peré might yet, on the odd occasion, have communication with the sundry individuals with whom he once interacted. If not one of these individuals or agencies had a clue regarding the impending attacks then I must certainly commend the group who perpetrated the attacks on 11 September regarding their success in keeping their activities secret from the intelligence communities of the world. Nary a leak.
This becomes more interesting if I accept as true that the Bush dynasty has had a convivial relationship with the more powerful families of Saudi Arabia - from which nation, I am led to believe, most of the hijackers came. I had not before believed Saudi intelligence to be so inept - they almost seem American.
And one of the families in Saudi Arabia with whom the Bush dynasty interacted was the bin Laden family. Of course, the family publicly disowned Osama in 1994. And, of course, they have had no contact with him, and have no idea where he is. Not having any money nor political connections, they would be unable to know anything. Unless Osama called them collect.
Does anyone know with certainty that the bin Laden family has given the US carte blanche to do whatever we want to Osama should we capture Osama. Might they become distressed if they were to learn that Osama - in a future scenario - arrived at Leavenworth, Kansas, but ended up the next day in Seattle AND San Diego AND Miami AND New York. But the four teams of horses were being well cared for.
Now, on to Clinton.
If I accept that Clinton did nothing to find Osama bin Laden, then I understand why Clinton did not find Osama bin Laden. Seems logical to me. And for his failure to do anything, if you would procure two large pieces of wood and three very large nails and hold Clinton in place, then I would be willing to drive the first nail into his hand. Fuck it, I'll drive the other two nails also. Nota bene, I am not being facetious.
However, Mr Bush, as some would have me believe, has had the capture of Osama bin Laden as one of his highest priorities since 01 January 2000 - right up to the moment when Mr. Bush disbanded the select team whose mission was to locate Osama bin Laden - and failed, then he does not seem different from Clinton, for all practical purposes.
Except that I understand why Clinton failed. I do not understand and I do not accept that Mr. Bush failed.
And I do not understand and I do not accept why more than two terabytes of data regarding Able Danger were destroyed during Mr.Bush's watch. Nota bene, per Wikipedia, "The U.S. Library of Congress has claimed it contains approximately 20 terabytes of text." Ergo, the data destroyed amounted to more than 10% of the text held by the LoC!
And I do not understand and I do not accept that there is a need for the "9/11 Commission Report - the Corrected Edition". Yet some congressmen (congresspersons?) - of both parties - believe there are several serious omissions and inaccuracies in the original.
Regarding Monica and friend.
First, I regard accepting Ms. Lewinski's ministrations to be on a par with failing to try to find Osama bin Laden. But I'm funny that way. And, no, I'm not "light in the loafers". Nota bene: the Dictionary of American Speech traced this phrase as referring to a male homosexual since circa 1955. I wear lace-up boots with steel toes.
Second, Ms. Lewinski achieved her fifteen minutes - as allotted by Mr. Warhol - and more. She has much more money than I do. Perhaps I should become a White House intern - when Salma Hayek becomes president. (And now we're back to that, or those, again. My bad, part deux.)
Ms. Tripp - remember her? - received $750,000 as a byproduct of her illegal (warrantless) eavesdropping.
Going back to the beginning.
I am going to die. I was Designed (Intelligently) that way. I do not know when nor how.
But I do not worry about it.
I am an American.
I grew up in a neighborhood in Chicago which was considered 'interesting' at the time - not the worst - but if you were from a small town in Iowa you would not want your car to break down there.
I enlisted in 1966. In 1968 I was at a fatcat, made-in-the-shade assignment in California. The notice was posted that there was a need for my specialty code in Vietnam, so I volunteered to be transferred and extended my enlistment in order to complete a full tour of duty. I have fired an M-16 with intent to kill or seriously injure the insurgents-du-jur at that time. The insurgents-du-jur fired whatever they had at me with the same or similar intent.
I drive regularly in Chicago and I have driven in Manilla, Mexico City and Tokyo. You think I'm going to worry about terrorists?
I personally consider the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration to be pathetic - and an unforgiveable waste of my - American taxpayer - money.
Without access to a copy of "Terrorism for Dummies", I still can envision what could be done that DHS could not prevent even if they had a clue. Two years in SEA can have that residual effect.
Ain't no point in worrying about terrorists. So, can anyone out there hook me up with Ms. Hayek?
Lastly, in answer to the oft-repeated inquiry as to when I will stop, i.e., "Dont you ever get tired of the same thing over and over again,,,geezzz". Right now I have the stopping point penciled in for the year 2525, but it might be delayed beyond that time. Capisce?
Keep up the good work, BC'ers. I enjoy learning from you.
If the foregoing seems fragmented, I apologize. I have been up for twenty hours and need to be up again in two hours.
49 - MCH
"Or there's Nancy's approach to defending the country, which would appear to consist of projecting the frustrations of your failed and pathetic life onto the leader of the free world, and piling more ridiculous Freudian nonsense on top."
- Al Barger
At least Nancy served, Al babe.
50 - Bliffle
Al: "And this very tired argument about going into Iraq instead of looking for Bin Laden is just dumb - as if we couldn't do both. "
Uhhh, well, apparently not, since OBL is still free and Iraq is a failure. Apparently, we can't do either, let alone both.
51 - SHARK
Dear Ergo-Sum.
That was great. Seriously.
xxoo
Shark
PS: Anyone up for some Abortion talk?! I'll make the *coffee!
*Hemlock
52 - SHARK
Al "Patrick Henry" Barger:
"...KILL them, and put the fear of God into the ones living over what happens if you screw with US.
"...We have to go after countries at some point because the bad guys are in countries."
"This jihad stuff is unacceptable for any reason, and people doing... these things have to be put down like rabid dogs.
"This "fighting fire with fire only makes more fire" business is simply not true. Fighting fire with fire in WWII was ugly, but killing off the Nazis ended that fire. NOT fighting fire with fire, however, will only lead to jihadists setting more and bigger fires here at home."
"...we pick up the authority to deal out divine justice."
========
I'm inspired!
Hear ya go, Al!
53 - Victor Plenty
Interesting. The Army accepts enlistments up to the age of 41 now. I don't think that was the case last time I checked back in 2001, but maybe I was looking in the wrong place that time.
54 - SHARK
BARGER: "...it's tough to know where to begin or how to approach this...
...Again, perhaps Iraq wasn't the best approach to trying to tackle this problem.
...OK, what would you do instead?"
SHARK answers with:
~THINGS TO DO THE DAY AFTER 9/11, 2001~
1) INVADE/secure Afghanastan/marginalize Taliban -- and make them rebuild that Buddha scuplture they blew up.
2) EMPHASIZE to the mourning nation that sacrifices will have to be made in order to secure our country. Promise that ~we'll all be asked to serve in some manner.
3) FUND a "Manhattan Project" to transition ALL aspects of American society/economy to a non-finite energy source within a targeted time-frame. ["We'll put a man on the moon by the end of this decade..." etc] It could cost -- what -- maybe $300 Billion fer starters? Whups!? That's what we've spent in Iraq.
4) NATIONALIZE the Oil Industry in order to finance its *FINAL obsolescence
*ie. through OUR LACK OF DEPENDANCE ON OIL. -- ie. We get rid of our greatest National Security Threat! (Which, btw, is the only REAL long-term solution, and it just so happens to be the LEAST LIKELY to be considered by national leaders who were once Oil Executives. IE. WE'RE FUCKED.)
5) Use the SYMPATHY of world leaders + their populations to formulate an international Approach/Consensus to the issue of Non-State Terrorism and its adherants (in ALL forms).
6) REFORM CIA/FBI to SPECIALIZE in terrorist infiltration, etc.
7) SECURE ALL borders using U.S. Military Reserves ---
--transitioning to -->
8)) Begin PENTAGON transition to having physical U.S. BORDERS as their PRIMARY responsibility.
9) Secure all incoming cargo containers.
10) ONCE AND FOR ALL, begin negotiations to resolve Paletinian/Israeli conflict AS IF YOUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.
11) Meet with every major Arab & Islamist national leader that will give you 15 minutes. Tell them that the U.S.A. NOW HAS NO inherent interests in the health or stability of the Middle East; -- that we'll be HAPPY to assist in them in postive, constructive matters in the future IF THEY ASK -- but otherwise, we have a "hands-off" policy toward all activities in their region -- EXCEPT as they relate to Non-State Terrorists that have attacked Americans in the U.S. or abroad.
======
~I'm sure there are more, but I'm "out of gas" for the moment...
55 - SHARK
Oh, here's one more!
12) Develop technology to put an advertising sign on the moon; it reads:
"Oil is no longer a leverage.
Signed, Your Uncle Sam"
56 - Dave Nalle
Nice to see Shark concfirm what I've always believed - that the alternative to our current halfassed approach to the War on Terror is the establishement of a centrally controlled, socialistic/fascistic police state - and that he supports the future fuhrers of Fortress America.
Dave
57 - SHARK
Oh, here's one more! (I can't believe I forgot this!)
14) Immediately CALL IN Al GORE and JOHN KERRY; tell them you want to form an ad-hoc coalition for the future -- giving both important jobs in the Administration. Promise to bring twin-puppet political parties together.
58 - SHARK
The defense of the nation is one of the few legitimate, inherent obligations of THE U.S. "government."
I can't believe you would even try to dispute that, Nalle.
59 - Clavos
shark sez:
4) NATIONALIZE the Oil Industry in order to finance its *FINAL obsolescence
*ie. through OUR LACK OF DEPENDANCE ON OIL. -- ie. We get rid of our greatest National Security Threat! (Which, btw, is the only REAL long-term solution, and it just so happens to be the LEAST LIKELY to be considered by national leaders who were once Oil Executives. IE. WE'RE FUCKED.)
I don't believe in nationalizing any industry, but I DO agree with you that eliminating our dependence on foreign oil NOW (not after we develop new technology, etc.) is paramount and "the only long term solution".
I suggest that we advise the oil companies that as of September 30th, they will no longer be permitted to buy ANY foreign oil (except Canada's), including from Mexico and Venezuela, for US consumption. Allow them to continue to buy and sell in foreign markets but they must earmark ALL domestic revenue for R&D for alternative fuel and energy. Give them short term deadlines to come up with same, or their foreign markets get closed down, too.
The pump price of gasoline will immediately go up to about $10/gallon or more. All but a few of the SUVs will promptly be retired, and the population will HAVE to consider carpooling, moving closer to work, etc. to be able to afford what gas they MUST buy. It's a lot of sacrifice, but the WWII generation made similar sacrifices to win their war. (I DO have my doubts about the pampered spoiled kids of that generation and their kids, but too bad.)
Industries like airlines and trucking will have to scramble to cut fat and become more efficient, as will utilities and other fuel users. After 30 years in the airline business, I can tell you the airlines have room to cut a LOT of inefficiency and fat out--I'm sure the other industries are no better.
With gas at $10 (or more) a gallon, shale sands and rock sources of oil will be economically viable, as will alternative renewable fuels. The oil companies, with that economic incentive, will find new ways to sell us energy and fuel, and they'll do it quickly. Look how quickly the tobacco companies got into the food business when they had to.
THEN we can tell the arabs to go fuck themselves.
60 - Martin Lav
15. arrest Nalle and his side-kick Clavos for conspiring to incite violence and instigate terrorist acts against the country of the U.S. of A.
*see latest article posted on BC Apocalyptic Dreams for the New Millenium
61 - Arch Conservative
Am I the only one that thinks MCH is a dumbass because all his posts include "at least he/she served?"
And why does this only apply to those that disagree with him. Aren't people who agree with him but didn't served banned from expressing their opinions too?
62 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
So uhh what do we do when we run out of oil in the U.S? Then we have to buy our oil as high as the rest of the world pities to sell it to us. Not exactly a long term aproach ... The long term approach is to buy ALL of your oil from foreign nations while it is still in large supply. When oil starts becoming seriously depleted (2020?2040?) you start using your own reserves.
63 - Peter J
Very cool, Adam,
It's always great to see everyone has a sense of humor.
Here's a little known fact for ya.
World War II?...that was clintons fault!
That's right. some will say "no way, he wasn't even born" but I say 'way', there just trying to confuse you with facts.
Jet, you queried how the poppy fields expanded from almost 0 to a $5 BILLION dollar industry? ?
Well, let me put it to you this way; Those fields have expanded to almost none in 2001 to a $5 BILLION dollar industry {for bin Laden and his insurgents}.
See that? The answer was hidden right there in your own question. verrry spooky, huh?
Let's just keep on asking those questions,, just don't ever expect any answers.
.
64 - Clavos
Am I the only one that thinks MCH is a dumbass because all his posts include "at least he/she served?"
No, you're not, Arch. It's a pretty widely held BC viewpoint, from both the left and right.
65 - Jet in Columbus
Clavos, I'd say we're pretty much in agreement about Arch too...
66 - Peter J
Very cool, Adam,
It's always great to see everyone has a sense of humor.
Here's a little known fact for ya.
World War II?...that was clintons fault!
That's right. some will say "no way, he wasn't even born" but I say 'way', there just trying to confuse you with facts.
Jet, you queried how the poppy fields expanded from almost 0 to a $5 BILLION dollar industry? ?
Well, let me put it to you this way; Those fields have expanded to almost none in 2001 to a $5 BILLION dollar industry {for bin Laden and his insurgents}.
See that? The answer was hidden right there in your own question. verrry spooky, huh?
Let's just kep on asking those questions,, just don't ever expect any answers.
.
67 - MCH
"Am I the only one that thinks MCH is a dumbass because all his posts include "at least he/she served?"
- ArchBing
"No, you're not, Arch. It's a pretty widely held BC viewpoint, from both the left and right."
- Clavos
Come on, Clavvy, you're just pissed because I helped shine the light of truth on your boy GW's Desertion...
68 - Dave Nalle
The defense of the nation is one of the few legitimate, inherent obligations of THE U.S. "government."
The defense of the US does not necessarily require the draconian measures and outrageous violations of our rights which you advocated.
BTW, stop leaving your html commands unclosed. I'm tired of fixing them.
Dave
69 - STM
Dave Nalle said: "The defense of the US does not necessarily require the draconian measures and outrageous violations of our rights."
There you go old boy ... we CAN agree on something. They're doing it to us here too ... an Anti-terrorism Bill (fair enough) that also includes the return of The Sedition Act, a piece of legislation that had been defunct for 50 years and was hated by most Australians, particularly the 40 per cent of Irish background.
Had the crispy-skin duck lately?
70 - SHARK
Nalle in his knee-jerk Leftist Liberal Mode: "...The defense of the US does not necessarily require the draconian measures and outrageous violations of our rights which you advocated."
Here's the irony: I've taken the Bush/Right Wing/Neo-Con rhetoric and actually made suggestions relative to the level of fear they've tried to instill in the American Public.
IF THIS WERE REALLY A "WAR" [against "terrorism" -- which as discussed, is impossible, since one can't wage a war against a CTIC] -- then sacrifices and "draconian" measures would not only be justified, they would be an obligation FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE POPULATION.
As to "draconian, fascist" etc. terms you used to smear some of the MOST PRACTICAL, WORKABLE, REALISTIC SUGGESTIONS to arrive on Blogcritics re. a response to 9/11, I'm wondering which of my 12 steps you see as "fascistic", "draconian", and a threat to your freedom?
Defense of borders? Surely you jest?!
I would guess that your middle-class gated-community outside of Austin has FENCES around it? Possibly a security guard? A check-point?
IF -- as Bush and Al Barger say -- that We're At War! -- then securing our borders should be of the highest priority. Every student of military strategy knows that.
And once our country was attacked -- and 3000 Americans died -- it behooved us to secure our airlines first, our borders second, and all incoming containers third. And it's obvious that all three can be done without threatening ANY AMERICAN'S freedom or liberty.
I don't really see any of my suggestions that meet fit your "fascist" charges.
What? Nationalizing Oil Industry? Yah, that's a bit "draconian" -- but -- like the "WAR on Drugs" -- the best REAL SERIOUS LONG-TERM TACTIC is not to FOCUS on the SUPPLY, but TO KICK THE FUCKING HABIT.
Oh, wait, that would mean giving up my giant, gas-guzzling *militaristic car so that our grandchildren can live in peace and safety.
Nevermind.
*Hummer, SUV, etc.
=========
PS:
SHARK -- a friggin' humorous -dada- satirist -- actually put serious suggestions on the table for dealing with what he likes to call the "Defense Against Terrorism".
**Yall's answers seem to be:
tax cuts for the rich, make no sacrifices, bitch about Clinton, quote Ayn Rand, and "Stay The Course" in that Treasury Black Hole known as vietn... um, Iraq.
** Although Barger makes a good pre-enlistment stump speech! "Kickin' Ass" and "Wrath of God" are just what the PR folks ordered; but talking like a Marine and walking like Toby Keith Typing Tough while lounging around Mom's basement in Camo pajamas are two different things, eh?
71 - MCH
"Am I the only one that thinks MCH is a dumbass because all his posts include "at least he/she served?"
- ArchBing
Well, yes, my posts include that phrase if a writer who has never served pretends to be braver than they really are and bashes a veteran.
But mostly what I'm saying, ArchBing, is this; You talk the talk, but you've never walked the walk. Don't send someone else over to fight your battles for you.