If we have declared war on terrorism, why do we supply them with the money to carry out their attacks?

Question

With all the technology that has developed in the last 100 years, why have we not found an alternative to the combustible engine? Or an alternative fuel that comes from an abundant source and is regenerable? If we stop using oil and gasoline, there will be no money to purchase guns, rockets, etc. By not finding other means, we are supplying the very ppl who try to destroy us. So what can we do to stop them?

Answer 1

The US's CIA financed al-Qaeda with a reported one billion dollars in the late '80s to fight the Soviets out of Afghanistan. I'm sure the Bush administration doesn't want many people to know or remember it.

We don't know even know much details about the covert, secret operations by the CIA, NSA, and other military sources that have been done and the extent of the operations. From the history that's publicly available on the CIA, I know they've done a lot of illegal and violent things and it's a possiblity that it's a factor for the current wars.

Bush wasn't even concerned with terrorism before 9/11, then all of a sudden terrorism is all he talks about (politics of fear?)... talk about flip-flopping. Bush and conservatives have wrongly taken advantage of the sympathy after 9/11 and it's been gone ever since they sucked the last breath of it. It's very sad what Bush and his people will do.

The "war on terror", in my opinion, is nothing more than a religious war, between Islamists and Christians, maybe a more accurate term for the "war on terror" is probably the "war on Islam".

The phrase, "war on" and putting a bad word after it seems, to me, to be more of a propaganda attempt to try to make "war" more acceptable, like to make war appear to be good.

War is the ulitmate violent act, never forget that.

Answer 2

That is so much easier said than done.

If we're talking about fuel that's one thing, but the by-products of oil such as plastic is another. Oil is so highly integrated into our economy and society.

Alternative fuels would have been hushed up and pushed under the carpet by the oil corporations back in the day; I doubt they would've ever thought we'd be in this mess with oil as a key element.

Nonetheless, there is research and development going on towards new alternative fuels, but this is no easy task. These decisions have huge economic repercussions. The only sensible way I can see it is this has to be gradually integrated in our society, but at a fairly steady pace. This is to prevent the economy from crashing. You can't just put the oil companies out of business one day. Think of all the lost jobs. That's why these oil companies ought to be the leaders in alternative fuel development and implementation.

Yet, typical us to only react when forced. Capitalism produces many in-the-moment business types.

We stop (as best we can) the oil-rich terrorist-harboring countries by the obvious course, implementing successful alternative fuels into our vehicles and significantly lessening our oil dependence on them.

Yet the problem is, for the achievements we may make, it's lost to the mega oil demand of China, India, and other rapidly growing industrial nations. The whole situation is just grim.

That's why some see military action as a viable solution to removing this unfriendly ideology and instilling more friendly leaders in these oil-rich countries.

Foreign policy is no easy thing by any means, and it is so crucial to this.

Answer 3

Nuclear power is the obvious answer. We have the technology.
Unfortunately many people, including the environment Mafia like Greenpeace, are against, based on unreasonable, even hysterical fears.

Answer 4

Anna, I give you the best question of the week award