We are involve in the Middle East for the oil, plain and simple. Right now 50% of our energy needs are imported. Think about that next time you gas up your car. 1/2 the money you spend goes to countries who finance terrorist and build nuclear weapons.
My solution is first to move the USA towards energy independence. When we reach energy independence we tell the Arabs to buzz off.
Second, once we are energy independent if the terroists attacks presist, we toast them with nukes. End of problem.
I'm a Democrat, but I didn't claim to be a liberal Democrat. So I hope this lays to rest the arguement that seems to go on here that all Democrats want some kissey feelly solution to the Middle East.
2006-09-07 00:34:46 · 14 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Thank goodness I'm not the President, eh? The current administration is looking at the Middle East with a similar narrow-minded viewpoint. That's why we should elect officals with a little more gray matter than we have now. Whether you're Democrat or Republican, vote for the country in November.
2006-09-07 01:02:24 · update #1
Let's nuke Walmart while we're at it! Damn slave drivers!
2006-09-07 00:38:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The truth is that we aren't involved in the middle east solely because of oil. There is Israel there, too. Israel deserves to be allowed to live peacefully like evry other country...The UN made Israel in 1948 so if you accept the UN as a world government..Israel's right to exist is not disputable.
Also, Islam, is determined to "drive Israel into the sea" and has been attacking Israel from the beginning.
Whatever the number is, most of our imported oil does not come from the middle east but from Venezuela, Mexico (the largest), the North Sea, etc. , so the money I spend at the gas pump does not finance terrorism to the extent you say.
But, in theory, you are about correct.
Your solution to move toward energy independence is very sweet but like most democrat ideas, you don't say "how"...Everybody wants energy independence. There isn't an American who doesn't want energy independence! So, so far, you have said absolutely nothing.
No one from this side is going to nuke anyone.....Terrorist attacks will persist because Radical Islam is the problem...not oil. War in the Mid-East is near inevitable.
You have a very simplistic solution to a complicated problem. None of your ideas will work.
Energy independence will be achieved by DRILLING in Alaska, the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico. Then building refineries to handle the needs, all this is being thwarted by the Liberal wing of the democratic party, So, if we became a seller rather than a buyer, the map will change a bit...at least the radicals will be funded with less money.
By the way, did you know that Brazil devised a plan to become energy independent in ten years...and they did it? They drilled for oil, buildt a system to get it to the refineries and in nten years will be an exporter and not an importer! They were in economic poverty and in ten years will not be. Because they had a vision!
Next time, understand the issues before you speak and offer a realistic solution.
ron
2006-09-07 00:59:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I completely agree with your opinions on energy dependence, and how to handle terrorists. I also agree that we have national interests relating to oil in the Middle East, but currently only 8% of oil comes from the Middle East. We get the lion's share from Venezuela, Canada and Mexico. If your contentions about the war were correct wouldn't we be more aggressive with these countries? I believe that Iraq is a result of wanting to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Now the reasons for that are debatable, Bush family pride, terrorist threat, or a true belief that the Iraqi people would be better off. I salute you though, it is nice to see civilized comments with real proposed solutions no matter what side of the political spectrum they come from.
2006-09-07 00:48:41 · answer #3 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as the president and congress are cashing in on the oil revenues, we'll never try to be oil free. Why do you think he's such good friends with the Saudis that harbor terrorists and goes to war with a country that didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
2006-09-07 00:46:15 · answer #4 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I guess in your narrow-minded "easy" solution, you forget that even low levels of nuclear radiation will circumnavigate the world .
(Did you forget Chernobyl?)
How about we, treat the environment with a little more respect, and realize that some people will never be happy, and that we will continue to live in a world of hate and natural disaster, just as the Bible tells us.
So- Deal with it because you can't negtiate with a terrorist willing to blow himself up for his cause and realize that nowhere on earth is "safe".
2006-09-07 00:45:51 · answer #5 · answered by Sgt Squid 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yea, pretty much.
The guy who said drill for oil, that is a really stupid idea.
If you want to send less money to the middle east, you need to get off oil totally.
America will never supply enough oil to meet its demand, so the longer you use oil, you will sent more money to the middle east. Drilling for oil will only make it worse, because you will keep doing it for decades longer than you need to.
You need to oil price high to encourage investment in alternative sources.
Its why oil prices never rise to high levels, but never keep rising and rising, and rising, US$100 a barrel, because OPEC know this, they want to keep the price high enough while remaining just a bit affordable, because they know the world will keep buying and buying.
2006-09-07 00:46:29 · answer #6 · answered by holdon 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not a bad idea except for the nukes eventually the radioactive fallout wold drift here and affect things here. other places also If you want to bomb the hell out of them do it with conventional weapons we have more than enough to do a damn good job of it
2006-09-07 00:45:39 · answer #7 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The only problem there is that you have failed to answer the Jihad problem. Jihad wasn't declared on America because we aren't energy independent, it was declared because we are not controlled by a Muslim government. They won't leave us alone even when we get away from their countries. The Clinton era proved that.
2006-09-07 00:43:49 · answer #8 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good answer. If the Democratic party hadn't been hijacked by the extreme left, I would be one today. Sadly the Repubs are run from the far right so what can we do. All us middle of the roaders should form our own party maybe?
2006-09-07 00:41:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
You are an improvement over the average Democrat.
Why don't you get your Democrat Politicians to allow us to drill for oil?
Ask them why they want high gas prices.
2006-09-07 00:39:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you on some points.
2006-09-07 00:42:30 · answer #11 · answered by kingofnarniaforever 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋