Military Isolationism (misnomer) [Archive]

Tariff

11-10-2007, 08:09 PM

Panama, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Midway, Philipines, to name a few. That was before the idiot politicians knew that we would need them to protect the country. We also had the second largest navy in the world. The country didn't listen to the knowledgeable like Billy Mitchell. In todays world its impossible to pull a Ron Paul and become an isolationist nation.

Panama, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Midway, Philipines are not inside or bordering Japan and Germany. Besides, if you will notice, those bases closest to Japan were attacked first and taken. Power projection IS NOT keeping a gimp skeleton crew of marines in a randomly placed army base as close as possible to the hostile country. Phillipines were taken first, Guam was taken next, then so was that other one. Did the idioc policy of keeping a barely armed skeleton crew at those bases help them against the empire of Japan? NOOOOOoooo. It didn't, it got tens of thousands of American soldiers put into POW camps for years.

Billy Mitchell. What was Billy Mitchel a proponent of? What about him. Or are you just going to say a name and expect everyone to Oooh and Awww your cliche spouting abilities. Wasn't he the dude that liked aircraft carriers? Im not talking about a Navy im talking about having an army base in every two-bit country in the world which probably costs more then 500 aircraft carriers.

In todays world I find it impossible to believe politically correct morons are actually in positions of power. "Isolationism" is a politically incorrect term, its an "I" word. ISOLATIONISM ISOLATIONISM ISOLATIONISM ISOLATIONISM! There I said the "I" word, sue me. Everyone is braindead.

Ron Paul is not a paleoconservative, he's a Libertarian hybrid of god knows what.

FEChancellor

11-10-2007, 08:52 PM

Tariff

11-10-2007, 09:03 PM

The false assumption in the Libertarian program is if the US pulls back to our shores other countries will "Live and let live" and do nothing to injure vital US interests.

History shows that a power vacuum is quickly filled be it abandoned or otherwise.

Prove it.

Prove US bases in Europe after the cold war is actually accomplishing something by merely existing.

Prove US bases in Japan is keeping the kamakazees at bay.

Prove US bases in Africa stops Muslim aggression.

Go ahead, prove it. Nothing is stopping you. While your at it, prove how the tens of billions of dollars given to the regime in Pakistan is helping.

And if you are going to call me a Libertarian, as a slur, then I can slur you NeoCon. Libertarians are the intellectual backbone of the Slaveocrats, ultra-intervention is the inevitabile outcome of opening markets in corrupt/communist nations. The Libertarians just don't know it yet.

FEChancellor

11-10-2007, 09:27 PM

Well, Tariff, what exactly do you want to be called? I saw you use Libertarian to describe Ron Paul, so I thought that was how you preferred to be viewed.

I'm afraid you are the one that needs to prove to me and others in the Republican Party why my statement on this facet of the Libertarian Program is false.

You say "Libertarians are the intellectual backbone..."

As you've been tearing up this forum of late, I have to ask what experience do you have in these matters? Any schooling on foreign policy and defense related issues? Any real practical experience in politics? What exactly is the basis of your "intellectual backbone?

Tariff

11-10-2007, 09:43 PM

The debating points of the Democrats pre US Civil War was "free-trade free-trade free-trade", "don't stop immigration of negros", and intervention "we want Cuba!" Short of intervention, the Slaveocrats are a mirror image of Libertarians.

I didn't say the Libertarians were the intellectual backbone (period) (period) (period). I said the Libertarians were the intellectual backbone of the Slaveocrats.

As you've been tearing up this forum of late, I have to ask what experience do you have in these matters? Any schooling on foreign policy and defense related issues? Any real practical experience in politics? What exactly is the basis of your "intellectual backbone?

I'm schooling you now.

FEChancellor

11-10-2007, 09:56 PM

Pardon me for not being hip with your inside term "Slavocrat," not that that is any schooling I can use in the real world.

Since you failed to answer my questions as to your any specific expertise in these matters, I must assume you're singing from someone else's song sheet.

Mister, I just wanted to see what was under the hood. As has long been my normal practice, I do not debate ideologues.

Tariff

11-10-2007, 09:59 PM

Many Republicans have become sycophant walking-talking cliches.

"Well we must be engaged, Isolationism blah blah blah."

Well laddy daddy do, what exactly is that suppose to mean.

Whatever happened to all that, "Get UN out of US, and US out of UN" talk? Or is that just another meaningless cliche. Does anything matter anymore? Does anyone have any principles left? Did you sell your principles to the Electability Theory.

Terri

11-10-2007, 10:12 PM

Sheez! A few tokes too many? :tqrolleyes:

Bigdog

11-11-2007, 09:58 AM

Sheez! A few tokes too many?

More than a few!

Paulmarkar

11-11-2007, 02:58 PM

Sheez! A few tokes too many?

Sounds more like an overloaded crack head.

ConsrvtivNoah

11-11-2007, 04:37 PM

I am not a military strategic expert whatsoever, but it does seem a bit silly to have our forces so spread out on land.
"Divide and conquer" is a saying I have heard many times in my life and spreading our bases all over foriegn land seems a bit like dividing ourselves.

Especially with modern technology. If we were ever going to be at war with another powerful nation I really doubt that these bases would serve a big enough purpose to be worth the cost. It seems that the money would be better put into a bigger better more mobil force like the navy and Air-force. Of all of the significant military action taken in the two gulf wars, air stikes carried out nearly all of them.
Communications, travel routes, arms cashes, ect. ect. were all dealt with primarily with air strikes.

So someone please explain to me why we NEED to spend so much money keeping land bases over seas? I just don't undestand the importance of it.

FEChancellor

11-11-2007, 05:36 PM

East Asia has long been a cockpit of wars of conquest involving Russia, China and Japan. The US presence there has kept the peace for fifty years.

Central Europe was long a cockpit of wars of expansionism. US basing in Germany is our commitment to NATO that the US will be there when needed. US basing in Germany also ensured the cycle of voilence from Central Europe was stilled. Today, US bases are a forward deployment area with excellent infrastructure.

Think of the countries of Central Europe and East Asia as tectonic plates always with the potential of movement capable of causing an earthquake.

Our NATO partners on the Baltic would fall again under the boot of Russia if all US forces were based exclusively in the US. Also, under the Libertarain construct, the US ability to aid democracy in Georgia and Ukraine would be nil.

Power politics demands the ability to deliver power.

Technology doesn't negate the need for ground troops, yet it is a force multiplier as seen in the Invasion of Iraq. It's called combined arms, and it's damned effective.

I suggest to you reading The Atlas of Military Strategy by David G. Chandler. Mr. Chandler's work is an easy to understand guide to the wars, rulers, generals and armies from 1600 to 1878. This book provides insight into the age old rivalries across the globe.

It was not the end of history when the Berlin Wall fell. People have simply neglected to read history.

ConsrvtivNoah

11-11-2007, 06:12 PM

Do you not think that the same oversight via threat of military action could have been established by placing aircraft carriers and submarines in the area?

I understand there are useful purposes for ground bases overseas, and at times they have been an effective tool. It just seems to me that we would be better served if we could create the same presence of power without having to commit the resources to a stationary format. If we could have the ability to carry this big giant stick of force around where it is needed at the time.

I don't in any shape or form think that all US forces should be entirely at home. You misunderstood me if that is what you though I was saying. It just seems to me that our resources would be more efficient if they were mobile.

Also I really don't see the need for ground troops at all in modern warfare unless the desire is to conquer or occupy a foreign land. If we have a threat that needs to be dealt with we should turn the place into a crater and come home. No need for our troops to die.
Well maybe saying turn the place into a crater is a bit heartless. We could destroy every bit of military apparatus communications equipment and outposts, fuel supplies, roads, airfields, etc. etc. and then come home.

War is ugly, I feel if we are going to fight one it should be done quick and clean. If we have the moral right to go in and blow stuff up we shouldn't have the moral obligation to stay and rebuild everything and try to establish a functioning government for the people we waged war against. If we were a bit more focused on the point of a war (eliminate a threat) and didn't stick around to try and make everything right. Then maybe other nations would be even more deterred by a threat of military action from the US.

I will check out that book. I am a read-aholic.

It just seems to me that Americans want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to war. You cannot fight a war and then have everything nice and honky-dory after its over.
You cannot destroy a government and then expect things to be civil afterwords. And if we are obligated to stick around after every war and try to make everything all nice then I hope we never go to war ever again for any reason.
Because I am fairly young and the cost of fighting wars this way is foolishly impractical. Not only will the money I have paid into social security not be returned but I will probably have to pay 50% of my wages in taxes when China and Saudi Arabia is done lending us all their money.

Are we that pathetically under the rule of the UN that we cannot realize that it would have been in our best interest to just drop the bombs make sure Saddam had not WMD's and go home. If Iran tried to take over Iraq after that we could have re-leveled Iraq a second time destroyed Iran and come home for less money than we have spent trying to make Iraq a civil organized country. I am so tired of everyone thinking that we must follow all these unwritten darn PC rules of war.

Sorry I got way off topic there. Yea so what is your opinion on the difference between ground bases in an area vs navel and air presence in the area as far as being a deterrent or tool of coercion?

Paulmarkar

11-11-2007, 06:14 PM

FEChancellor you put it excellently. I'm a retired AF MSgt. and an air power advocate, however I know that the Air Force and Navy are force multipliers. It takes boots on the ground to force an end to wars. Also note that the bases in Korea and Germany are triggers to keep these allies from being attacked, not bases to attack from. During the Cold War the forces stationed in Korea and Germany knew this and that at best we were to be a holding force til reinforcements arrived.

FEChancellor

11-11-2007, 07:19 PM

So someone please explain to me why we NEED to spend so much money keeping land bases over seas?

I gave you the best snapshot this side of Victor David Hansen.

You misunderstood me if that is what you though I was saying.

No, I'm sure I did not. You're just sniveling.

Do you not think that the same oversight via threat of military action could have been established by placing aircraft carriers and submarines in the area?

Allies require boots on the ground not a transient force over which they have little control or no control, however, the power of the Navy and USAF alone to net a coercive affect just might be validated again by Iran.

FEChancellor

11-11-2007, 07:22 PM

Paul:

Thanks for your service to this great nation. I really appreciate your comment.

patrick

11-12-2007, 01:55 AM

ConsrvtivNoah, excellent post. I agree completely.

ConsrvtivNoah

11-12-2007, 02:18 AM

Quote:
So someone please explain to me why we NEED to spend so much money keeping land bases over seas?

I gave you the best snapshot this side of Victor David Hansen.

So those deterrent situations you listed could have only come about with land bases and not navel & Air presence?
I am not trying to be obnoxious, sorry if I am, I just actually don't understand the difference in deterrence in the two types of military presence.
I honestly would just like to understand why.
Thanks

RealDeal

11-12-2007, 12:28 PM

Also I really don't see the need for ground troops at all in modern warfare unless the desire is to conquer or occupy a foreign land. If we have a threat that needs to be dealt with we should turn the place into a crater and come home. No need for our troops to die.
Well maybe saying turn the place into a crater is a bit heartless. We could destroy every bit of military apparatus communications equipment and outposts, fuel supplies, roads, airfields, etc. etc. and then come home.

War is ugly, I feel if we are going to fight one it should be done quick and clean. If we have the moral right to go in and blow stuff up we shouldn't have the moral obligation to stay and rebuild everything and try to establish a functioning government for the people we waged war against. If we were a bit more focused on the point of a war (eliminate a threat) and didn't stick around to try and make everything right. Then maybe other nations would be even more deterred by a threat of military action from the US.

I actually agree with you here. But we have many people in leadership (leftists) who want UN and "world" approval. We seem to really care what the world thinks of us... which is ludicrous, IMO. (Remember Kerry saying he would get "world approval", etc... excuse me, but I only care about America, and American interests.)

--THAT might be the only way to bankrupt the jidhadists.. they build, we ruin.--

However, I am not a military expert BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

(Maybe someone here could explain the dependence on groud troops over technology to me. Honest inquiry.)

FEChancellor

11-12-2007, 03:40 PM

First, Aircraft Carriers are a blue water asset. There is little open blue water near Central Europe. In any future military situation in Iran, expect our carrier groups to be stationed in the Arabian Gulf, not Persian Gulf.

Second, short legged fighter aircraft must have air bases somewhere near the point of tension. That goes for F-117 Stealth Aircraft too.

Third, KC-1O and KC-135 refueling aircraft are needed and are based in Theater. The AWACS and JSTARS early warning birds also need basing in Theater.

Buddy, I'm a huge supporter of the USN, but even the Navy has forward deployments at Guam, Diego Garica, Rota, Naples, Gitmo, Okinawa (USMC) to support fleet assets or base a carrier as with the George Washington taking over for Kitty Hawk in Japan.

ConsrvtivNoah

11-13-2007, 12:36 AM

Thanks for the further understanding.
However, I must just be an overly frugal cheapskate because I still can't stop thinking there must be a cheaper and better way.
I know we could just take forward ground bases and air fields if and when we need them. Just kidding but there is always a cheaper and better way with everthing. Always, someone just needs to figure out what that is.

Love the kitty hawk, I had several friends serve on her.

Thanks again

FEChancellor

11-13-2007, 12:56 AM

Noah:

One more consideration not many think about is logistics. You got to get the beans and bullets to the Theater if they are not there already.

During the Gulf War, the Saudis had all the runways and jet fuel we could use. What they did not have is the gear necessary to keep US Air Wings in action.

The US has a finite airlift capacity. Carrying the USAF's bag and baggage to the War Zone cuts into the space necessary for front line equipment. Bulldozers for the 82nd Airborne was one such early demand on airlift capacity in the Gulf War. Even our light fighters like the 10th Mountain Division, 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne demand serious lift capability to augment their TO&E in the face of a heavy conventional threat.

The Marines, well, Fleet Marine Force, Marine Expitionary Unit--Special Operations Capable (MEU-SOC), brings their equipment, Amtracks, airlift and tactical fighter support in the task group, but this is just one reinforced battalion of "Devil Dogs"---one Atlantic, one Pacific.

US Forward Deployed Bases are necessary and will remain so for the forseeable future.

FEChancellor

11-13-2007, 01:29 AM

Duncan Hunter knows all this by rote, but I'll bet "Terror Expert" Rudy does not.

Greg Butko

11-13-2007, 01:51 AM

We need to define what Isolationism is. In my way of thinking, Isolation represents a nation that wants no contact with the outside world. There is nothing Isolationist about steering clear of foreign entanglements. The fact is, the more contact the American people have with the people of other nations, and the less contact our government has with theirs, the better off we all will be.

It is politicians who start the wars. Unfortunately, it is others who die and lose their limbs. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never desireable. War kills and maims, it wastes resources, it results in loss of freedom, and it enriches certain people. Is our sacrifice worth their gain?

Some people need to wake up to the fact that our politicians have been instrumental in provoking the terrorists into attacking us. They were perfectly content to kill other Muslims until our politicians intervened in their fight. How this intervention benefits the American people is what I would like to know.

Before I went to Iraq in 2004, I was told that we were going to fight them over there so that we wouldn't have to fight them over here. The truth is, there was no reason to fight them here or there. It is the actions of our politicians that have made us the most hated nation on Earth.

Besides sacrificing American lives in an undeclared perpetual conflict, they are bankrupting the nation, and installing a dictatorship at home. It's time to reverse the disastrous course our nation is on. It's time to bring the troops home and restore the Bill of Rights.

Like many in the military, I am supporting Ron Paul. Ron Paul stands for peace, prosperity and freedom. The rest of the candidates, Republican or Democrat stand for undeclared war, bankrupting deficits and the police state.

FEChancellor

11-13-2007, 02:17 AM

Before I went to Iraq in 2004

You bring up and interesting topic, Mr. Butko. I'd like to discuss it with you, however, I have seen many times where those claiming to be soldiers were not. So please tell the fora what branch of the service and where you served in Iraq in 2004.

As for loaded language like "installing a dictatorship" at home, I just don't respond very well to such wild eyed, unproven and unprovable assertions.

RealDeal

11-13-2007, 07:51 AM

Some people need to wake up to the fact that our politicians have been instrumental in provoking the terrorists into attacking us.

And some people need to realize that they hate us because their religion demands they do.. and that this didn't start yesterday.

ONCE AGAIN (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html)

It is the actions of our politicians that have made us the most hated nation on Earth.

Most hated nation that millions of foreigners strive to live in and become a part of.... uh huh.. HATED!

ConsrvtivNoah

11-13-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:
Some people need to wake up to the fact that our politicians have been instrumental in provoking the terrorists into attacking us.

And some people need to realize that they hate us because their religion demands they do.. and that this didn't start yesterday.

I have to strongly disagree with you here.
I am a Christian as far back as I can remember and went through Christian elementary and High-school, in which we studied the Koran and the Muslim faith as well as many other religions. I also know a few Muslim US citizens and none of the people I know hate anything by what their faith demands and none of my interpretation of the Koran demanded hating Americans. I find this to be a very narrow minded point of view. It is unfair to label an entire group on the actions of a few.
I would be absolutely furious if I were judged to believe what the "God hates fags" (Westboro Baptist Church) people believe because they are also claimed Christians.
Listen I don't personally believe in the Muslim faith and really don't like those in the ME that exaggerate its teaching into Sharia law. But to say that the religion demands hatred for the US is simple false. Some generations in the ME are being thought to hate from birth but that is because of their warped parents not because of Muslim faith (whether or not they twist and use the faith to support their crazy hatred).

Lastly let me lay this logic out: If their faith DEMANDS hatred of the US. Then are all the people in Iraq that have cooperated with our forces fake Muslims? Are the hundreds of thousands of Shi'a Muslims, that celebrated us for taking out Saddam at first, fake Muslims?
Hate is powerful and if they all hated us as much as they believed in god then it only makes sense that every last person in the ME would be fighting against us over there ad they are not.

You show me in the Koran where the hatred for the US infidels you speak of is written, in context, and I will agree with you. Half of the Koran is the same text as the Bible and to say it teaches hate is false.

Greg Butko

11-13-2007, 01:02 PM

FEChancellor,

I served 37 years in the military. I joined the Navy Reserve in 1963. I served two years active duty 1965-1967. I served in Morocco for 17 months. I then finished out my Navy Reserve committment.

I later joined the Army National Guard. My unit was activated in September of 2004. I served in Baghdad from October 04 till September 05.

I retired in August of 06 upon reaching my 60th birthday.

When a president can declare a person a terrorist, and that person can be deprived of legal counsel, ability to face his accuser, can be held indefinitely in jail without being charged, and tortured, I can't think of a better word than dictatorship.

We are all losing our freedoms. We need to change the disastrous course we are on.

Texas Teacher

11-13-2007, 02:07 PM

When a president can declare a person a terrorist, and that person can be deprived of legal counsel, ability to face his accuser, can be held indefinitely in jail without being charged, and tortured, I can't think of a better word than dictatorship.
No, this is called a prisoner of war (except for the "torture"). It is how we treat prisoners and how most others treat our prisoners (with the exception of our current enemy). And we are at war whether you want to deny it or not. Since this war will probably last for decades, we can legally keep the prisoners in their current situation.

These are your main points and why they are wrong.
1. They cannot face their accuser. They are POW's, their is no "facing their accuser".
2. No legal counsel; they are POW's, their is no need for legal counsel.
3. can be held indefinitely in jail; of course they can, they are prisoners of war.

FEChancellor

11-13-2007, 02:51 PM

Greg:

First and foremost, Thank You for your service in the defense of our Great Nation and Democratic Ideals.

Before I went to Iraq in 2004, I was told that we were going to fight them over there so that we wouldn't have to fight them over here. The truth is, there was no reason to fight them here or there.

I'm a big believer in the military science of logistics. I guess that comes from General Robert T. Neyland, USA, legendary Tennessee football coach and one hell of a logistical master.

I believe we agree on Afghanistan. Just about every bit of the US and NATO supplies are flown into the Afghan Theater, and there is pressure from Russia and China on US bases in Central Asia. Uzbekistan is an example of a US base removed from the equation.

If Afghanistan were the only theater, the US would run the risk of being overwhelmed by the addition of foreign fighters we see in Iraq outstripping our supply chain.

The Soviets, with the advantage of road bound logistics direct from the USSR, were still overwhelmed by the Taliban and associated groups. Afghanistan is an Air Head, meaning only a finite amount of supplies and equipment can reach the front.

Logistics in Iraq benefit from the proximity of NATO Ally Turkey (the Turks don't get their due for helping us even though the Turks refused the flank during the Invasion) and GCC Ally Kuwait (the Kuwaitis do not get near the credit they deserve). Iraq is a Rail Head, so to speak, supplied by sea, air and land.

What Iraq is about as a military strategy is dividing our force before an inferior enemy to protect the weakest logistics chain. Iraq is about fighting the enemy where our heavy weapons and technology make the greater difference.

ConsrvtivNoah

11-13-2007, 05:47 PM

I served 37 years in the military. I joined the Navy Reserve in 1963. I served two years active duty 1965-1967. I served in Morocco for 17 months. I then finished out my Navy Reserve committment.

I later joined the Army National Guard. My unit was activated in September of 2004. I served in Baghdad from October 04 till September 05.

I retired in August of 06 upon reaching my 60th birthday.

When a president can declare a person a terrorist, and that person can be deprived of legal counsel, ability to face his accuser, can be held indefinitely in jail without being charged, and tortured, I can't think of a better word than dictatorship.

We are all losing our freedoms. We need to change the disastrous course we are on. Greg. Thank You Thank You for your service. I wish everyone in this country gave military and police/fire folks a ton more appreciation and respect.
I WHOLLY AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT OUR FREEDOMS! People like Texas Teacher don't realize that many recent acts of congress point these policies towards US citizens. HR-1955 if it passes the senate will allow the government to deem pretty much any UC citizen that commits a crime to be deemed a terrorist. Especially if they can point to you being political in any way.
It is very scary what is happening. And if people don't wake up and speak out we all may wake up in the NAU soon and be writing about how great it used to be when we were still "America". This country will never fall to jihadest it will never fall to an invasion from any other state in the world. There could be 1000 911's and I know this country would overcome in the end. However, if we allow the core of what this country is made of to be degraded; then America will fall from within.

FEChancellor

11-13-2007, 06:08 PM

This country will never fall to jihadest it will never fall to an invasion from any other state in the world.

Noah, how about exploring economic hegemony? The Continental System of Napoleon is one such plan devised to strangle Great Britian.

Today, there is a very real possibility of Economic Hegemony by control of oil resources. President Putin has made sure the EU understands he can shut off the Natural Gas tap for any old reason. Remember that tiff between Belarus, otherwise known as White Russia, and Moscow that shut down gas transfers to the EU.

That was a ruse. Russia and Belarus relationship is a dictator to dictator relationship.

There are people in the world that mean the US and West great harm by any means necessary. Don't ever forget it!!! Putin knows the only way to achieve parity with the US and West is to hamstring us at every opportunity.

Economic Hegemony can bring the US and EU to our knees. Our government can't give us the low down on every thing that goes down, but educated people can make more than educated guesses.

Now you know why a lady I admire, Chacellor Merkel of Germany, is walking a tight rope concerning Germany's participation in new US Security Council Sanctions.

ConsrvtivNoah

11-13-2007, 06:38 PM

FEChancellor,

What you speak of is probably the most significant threat to our country. No bombs are needed if you can bust someone economy.

Today, there is a very real possibility of Economic Hegemony by control of oil resources.

This is the reason I am a huge proponent of cars like these guys make:
http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/foreign_oil.php

They should change their name to patriot motors.
They say they will soon put out a 4-door sedan in the $40,000 range that has a longer life span than any ICE vehicle due to minimal moving parts and advanced LiPo technology. It would have a 500mile range that would cost about $6-7 on your electric bill.
Thats under $.02 a mile and no oil changes, no belts, no spark plugs to change, etc., ect.
Only thing that needs maintinance are bearings and a battery pack that will last much much longer than any IC engine. Oh and the cars aren't sluggish dogs.
If people embrace this technology they will have better longer lasting vehicles, get our dependancy on oil WAY down and make this country much stronger.
I think getting our oil consumption cut down to 25% of current is very realistic through non-silicon solar power and nuclear power in conjunction with plug in cars and devices.

For some reason this seems to be rarely talked about and makes me very skeptical of many of those in office and in the media.
The technology is there, it is affordable, and yet everyone still wants to burn oil? I don't get it at all.

florida

11-13-2007, 06:56 PM

Noah

Half of the Koran is the same text as the Bible and to say it teaches hate is false.

You are very Wrong with this statement! The Bible is the Infallible Word of The One True God. The Koran is False. Islam is and has always been a religion of hate! Anyone who does not convert to Islam is an Infidel and deserves to die. So guess that puts Most Americans on the HIT LIST!

ConsrvtivNoah

11-13-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:
Half of the Koran is the same text as the Bible and to say it teaches hate is false.

You are very Wrong with this statement! The Bible is the Infallible Word of The One True God. The Koran is False. Islam is and has always been a religion of hate! Anyone who does not convert to Islam is an Infidel and deserves to die. So guess that puts Most Americans on the HIT LIST!

You are right I did exagerate... not half.
But Psalms, and much of the gospels of the new testament are in the koran. I agree that the koran is false and believe in the message of Christ in the New Testament. However, please show me where in the Koran it says "Anyone who does not convert to Islam is an Infidel and deserves to die." And if you can find those exact words in a translation you dig up online then tell me how that is different than the message that those who do not accept the Christ will suffer hell and destruction.
Muslims in general are not out to kill because of there beliefs.
Just as Christians are not out to do Gods work of judging and destroying.
I have a few friends that are muslim and their understanding of the koran finds no hate preached at all. Nor have I personally seen anything there that promotes a message of hate. No more than the many mentionings in the bible of how evil things and people will be dealt with.
If you believe in the bible you also should be aware that one should love their enemy and leave judgment to the Lord.

FEChancellor

11-13-2007, 07:46 PM

Noah:

I must tell you I am disappointed in your answer. Your car of the future is at least 10 years away if not futher down the road, so to speak.

I've been hearing about Alternative energy sources for 30 years. It's an only augmentor at best. If alternative energy could pay out, we'd be using it. It's called capitalism, get some while you can.

Here's an example, TVA has a huge windmill farm at Oakridge. If that investment was paying out, then the whole damn Tennessee Valley would be covered in windmills.

Pal, I done laid down the realpolitik on a now and looming Economic and Political situation. The best you can do is tell me about Matchbox Cars. I played with them before Chinese lead paint, but I can see how later generations might have toxic levels of lead in their system affecting their judgement.

Let's talk about the real and now.

myownthinker

11-13-2007, 07:56 PM

"For some reason this seems to be rarely talked about and makes me very skeptical of many of those in office and in the media.
The technology is there, it is affordable, and yet everyone still wants to burn oil? I don't get it at all." From Noah

Noah I concur with this thought. I think its a combination of things. First, there is a huge profit to be made by the oil industry especially at high prices. This new technology would jeopardize this profit. Hence new technology will be fought every step of the way. Second, people dont want to change their lifestyles. I know some people who own huge gas guzzler cars. They do nothing but complain about gas prices and how much it costs to fill up their car. I say they deserve what they are getting. Either change and buy something more fuel efficient or pay the prices. I dont care if they keep driving their gas hog. Thats fine with me. But dont complain about your pocket book then. When president Bush said "We are addicted to oil" no truer words have ever been spoken. Some people were angered by this. They dont like the truth. It might "inconvenience" their lazy lifestyles. The time of $5 per gallon of gas is headed our way. I dont see the price of oil dropping drastically. Things will be coming to a head soon enough.

ConsrvtivNoah

11-13-2007, 09:48 PM

Let's talk about the real and now.

FEChancelor, It is here and available.
Tesla motors 1st car is already on the market.
You should check it out. It is actually really cool. Its a Ferrari like $100,000 sports car but the family sedan I was talking about is supposed to be available in 2009.
I am very familiar with the technology. It is proven and already becoming available in cars. We have been using it in large scale acrobatic electric helicopters for years ever since LiPo technology allowed the power to weight ratio of electrics to exceed that of High power nitro-methane burning IC engines.
These cars are here. There are other manufacturers out there also, but they're not as well funded successful yet.

And we all know nuclear power works.

As for the non-silicon solar tech I was talking about it is in production and is going to radically change the solar market in the next 2-5 years. See nanosolar here:
http://www.nanosolar.com/
Pretty cool there aluminum backed solar panel are 1/3rd the price of current silicon panels. At 1/3 the price solar is real realistic. They will be in full production of 430megawatts a year by early 2008. Competitors should be poping up everywhere shortly after.

The average commuter car should be oil free in 10-15 years, no problem, unless the market is intentionally manipulated or electricity somehow magically becomes 5-10 times more expensive.

You are right however about these things taking time to change the market over off oil. But GOOD LUCK getting to our abundant resources of natural gas and oil in Alaska or on the Outer Continental Shelf in the meantime. We have all the oil/gas we need so why we allow ourselves to be vulnerable to the overseas market is beyond my comprehension. If you can figure it out please let me know.