English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Seams like a better and more productive direction than going to war for oil that we cant even reap the benifits of yet.
Instead of stifling research efforts for alternitive energy the government should heavily fund it to make oil obsolete. Big business , not to mention cheney, have too much to lose if that happens though.

2006-08-08 02:57:33 · 12 answers · asked by Charles Dobson Focus on the Fam 2 in Politics & Government Politics

I just believe that making oil obsolete is the key to pull the oil stained rug out from underneath the warmongers on both sides of the fence.

2006-08-08 03:13:23 · update #1

I didnt capitilize cheneys name nor do I capitalize bushs name because they do not represent America. They do not deserve my respect or anyone elses for that matter... oh and as far as sheep goes?hmm you repubes stand by the pres. ( YOUR) pres no matter what... you are the epitomy of sheep.
criticize my spelling all you want the fact remains that you and you repube clan are driving this great country into the dirt

2006-08-08 03:30:41 · update #2

12 answers

I agree , people like Cheney and bush are making way to much money off from oil , they don't want a alternative fuel. they would much rather continue to rob us , these people are all about greed , not what's best for the American people.

2006-08-08 03:08:08 · answer #1 · answered by willow6262 4 · 0 0

Seams? Don't you mean Seems? And where did you get the naive conception that the U.S. went to war for oil? If that were the objective, do you think gasoline would cost $3 a gallon?

The US govenment has not stifled research efforts for alternative (correct spelling) energy. It has thus far, chosen not to fund that research. And oil may never be obsolete. Even if alternative fuels eventually replace gasoline, oil will still be needed to lubricate engines, for the production of certain plastics and medicines.

Big business, and Cheny (note the capitalization) will both prosper if and when alternative fuels begin to be produced... if they invest and participate in the process. What's wrong with making a profit? Stockholders just love them.

Your rant is the typical mindless rhetoric, that the liberal, leftist democratic sheep continue to bleat!

2006-08-08 03:26:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't think government intervention on R&D is going to allow incredible results. Obviously grants would help researchers but it's not like thousands of people are trying to come up with alternatives that are practical. Oil is just so cheap compared to the alternatives so we will continue to use for quite some time.

2006-08-08 03:11:04 · answer #3 · answered by ESPforlife 2 · 0 0

Each government last 5 years.. (before uncertanity strikes in)

Now if the current govenment invested, The next government would propogate the technology to an extent This would make the current government's term as a Spending money, on some silly project that may not bear fruits...


Yeah dude its all politics.. with motto "Do not make plans that would go beyound your term"

2006-08-08 03:04:34 · answer #4 · answered by StupendousMan 5 · 0 0

I would say the war was about more than just oil but yes it was a factor. I think your right, the billions of dollars spent on the war effort should have been spent on finding alternative fuels. It would decrease the cost of fuel and has the chance to lower carbon emissions.

2006-08-08 03:02:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

research has been carried out and there are reliable possibilities. See for instance the Texas A&M and U New Hampshire web pages decrease than. creative and prescient and funding are lacking. the U. S. could right now be ability self-adequate with an funding the dimensions of the Iraq warfare. As a perimeter income the warfare could also be gained. the point of warfare is to damage your enemy's ability to salary warfare. The economies of the middle East could be devastated as merely as effectively with the help of lack of oil income because the economies of Germany and Japan were devastated with the help of the fireplace bombing campaigns of WW2.

2016-11-23 15:50:59 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I think the rest of the world would have been thankful and would be more likely to believe other reasons for going to war.

2006-08-08 03:04:07 · answer #7 · answered by grapeshenry 4 · 0 0

Why doesn't private industry do that the way it has been done in this country for over 200 years?

2006-08-08 03:03:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You think critically on this question, but all the others were quite hateful. I can see there are other sides to your personality.

2006-08-08 03:04:12 · answer #9 · answered by Baby Bloo 4 · 0 0

Why dont you make a car that is run on farts. You seem to be full of it.

2006-08-08 03:01:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers