Gas Prices Rising Fast

[wineboyrider]

To show how much the energy companies love us a natural gas company is trying to build a pipeline 2 miles from us. It was originally supposed to be for importing gas. Now they want to use it for export.

Because, the demand is low here in the US due to lack of demand. AKA a crappy economy and little or no industrial production.
8) 8)

 

[scotticeberg]

We had a surplus until Bush came along and started two wars, let his buddies trash the economy, and then left Obama holding the bag.

If you worship fox news and ayn rand, please keep your opinions to yourself; nobody wants to hear them. We get tired of being reminded how many right-wing nut-jobs there are within our society.

Without cheap oil for the past 30 years, nutjob right wing fanatics would never have become so prevalent. Some people get used to having things easy(super-cheap oil), and when reality kicks in all they can do is try and drag everyone down, while blaming everyone but themselves.


Obama ain't great, but I will sure as hell take him over the GOP. I get a real kick when people call Obama a liberal.

Romney : Bonkers
Santorium: Bonkers
Gingrich: Bonkers
Ron Paul : Bonkers

Any questions?

 

[StudEbiker]

Just two. Who the hell are you and why do you think you know it all?

 

[scotticeberg]

I'm the guy who really does not want to see a GOP'er in the WH, and then another GOP'er on the Supreme Court. Obama is disappointing, but the GOP is freaking insano.

 

[rojitor]

The biggest terrorist organization in the world is NATO, and it's just our puppet to
lead.

That's probably the most intelligent sentence i have read at this forum. I totally agree.

 

[ddk]

Should have pulled it out. ...

stopped right there.
I COULD NOT 'pull' it out.

banks win every time with their political rule-machinisms

see:greed

 

[StudEbiker]

I'm the guy who really does not want to see a GOP'er in the WH, and then another GOP'er on the Supreme Court. Obama is disappointing, but the GOP is freaking insano.

Okay, you convinced me. scotticeberg thinks the GOP is "freaking insano". I'm converted.

Edited to add "freaking" to "insano" as the argument wasn't really complete without both words.

 

[ddk]

someone should move this thread. lock it or delete it

 

[boppinbob]

Romney : Bonkers
Santorium: Bonkers
Gingrich: Bonkers
Ron Paul : Bonkers

Any questions?

Yeah. What kind of builds have you done?

 

[Doctorbass]

THE PERFECT WORLD:

-Gas Prices Rising Fast :x

-Lithium A123 20Ah price droping fast

Doc

 

[LI-ghtcycle]

Define terrorism for me. (in your own words)

Perhaps it will help me see why you don't think they are the biggest terrorist group on the earth.

I'm still waiting for an example of NATO acting like Al-Qeada. When did NATO declare that everyone in the world who disagrees with them should be murdered man woman and child?

 

[Scottyf]

Can I move to the USA =-)
Least somewhere hot and with your infastructure. Owning an Ebike there looks awesome.

UK is shit.

 

[veloman]

Can I move to the USA =-)
Least somewhere hot and with your infastructure. Owning an Ebike there looks awesome.

UK is shit.

I don't what it's like in the UK, but USA cities have only very recently begun adding bike infrastructure. It doesn't get any more car-centric than the many many suburban/highway land you see all over the USA.

We probably get away with higher speeds than you do, though, at least for now. We need to be able to 30mph at times or cars want to run us over. And even 30 isn't fast enough many times. I drove my car through rural TX at 60mph on these quiet twisty farmland country roads with no shoulder and had a pickup blast by me at 80+mph. In New England, everyone would be going 40mph on that road.

 

[veloman]

Oil prices looking like they are breaking out today.

US gas fund
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=UGA&p=W&yr=3&mn=0&dy=0&id=p51851498262

Type in USO for oil

 

[liveforphysics]

Define terrorism for me. (in your own words)

Perhaps it will help me see why you don't think they are the biggest terrorist group on the earth.

I'm still waiting for an example of NATO acting like Al-Qeada. When did NATO declare that everyone in the world who disagrees with them should be murdered man woman and child?

They do more than just declare it and rattle sabers. They just go on a murder spree anytime they like. However, they do it with missiles fired from drones and cruise missiles fired from boats hundreds of miles away, or by taking helicopter gun ships etc.

If the people doing it wear similar uniforms that look familiar, then for some reason they stop being terrorists in most peoples eyes.

Does it matter a bit if someone chooses to be-head, and someone else chooses to splatter someones guts out in a charred mess with a rocket?

When you invade someones country, and they defend themselves and their homes with the methods they have available in a resource-limited area, does it make them a terrorist or a freedom fighter? It all depends on which set of eyes you're looking through.

What does become painfully obvious though, is that adding more fighters/rockets/bombs to an area escalates conflict, reinforces the resolve to fight/defend/attack.

My brother is a US Navy Seal, the poor guy has chosen to live as a pawn in this evil BS, and absolutely understands that what he does is terrorizing people who just want to be left alone, and that's it's 100% ethically wrong to do what they do, which is just tactically killing or destroying anything that they suspect would also attempt to kill or destroy... The difference is, one is doing what they believe is an ethical defense of their homeland, using the best means they have available (pretty amazing they found clever ways to destroy armored vehicles by cell-phone detonated in-road bombs, and this is coming from a guy who had a friend from childhood exploded by one).

Where the NATO, despite round after round of heavy propaganda and brainwashing chants and things, largely still recognizes they are obviously an invading foreign superpower meddling in affairs they have no business attending, and always and only escalating and making matters worse, and making anti-USA resolve and tension greater.


If you wanted to stop terrorism, the trick is not shooting million dollar cruise missile after cruise missile, the trick would be doing something kind to relieve tensions and hatred rather than escalate. Violence begets more violence. Imagine if you dropped off crates of ebikes and solar charge stations from planes rather than spending that money on more million dollar missiles to shoot at terrified misled people hiding in caves?

Even if you nuked the whole area of people who disagree with you, just turned every city that held anyone who disagreed with you into glass, this action would only instantly create a new population of people who would wish harm on you (who were neutral before), and with good reason. You would also create new fundamentalist groups over night, and finding people to support those groups and people who were willing to be martyrs would be easy and in huge supply. Imagine if rather than nuking them all to glass, you say, "I'm sorry that you suffered some terrible things over the history of your culture, we can't undo the past, but we promise to stay out of your lives from now forward, and wish you all the best", maybe even donate some tiny percent of that years war-machine budget to them in the form of renewable energy technology or something as a good will gesture. Now what happens to the fundamentalist groups? No support. No justification. You're just left with a handful of people that look like lunatics raving about past atrocities, and finding shelter and support is going to be very tricky for them, rather than effortless as it is while some invader is actively committing atrocities in your country.

 

[LI-ghtcycle]

Luke has it right on Ron Paul and foreign policy. There are actually measures in our Constitution for dealing with "pirates" and Thomas Jefferson utilized them for the first time in Libya called "marque and reprisal". What we need are international bounty hunters willing to sell out the so called "terrorists". The idea of war should be just as the Constitution demands all out WAR on the enemies of the republic and none of this peace keeping and policing BS. Then when we send the troops in we can let Genghis Kahn be the war general. Iran is no threat to us and Israel is the only one debating attacking anyone? How screwed up is that? Oil subsidies should end so the market forces can decide which direction the energy solution must take. I could probably make some concessions based on pollution in urban areas, but oil subsidies and the war machine must end! 8) 8)

I agree that the Constitution allows for that kind of common sense foreign policy, but I have yet to see Ron Paul take a firm stand on the same threat we face today, much like our country had to deal with very early on with the Barbary Pirates.

I respect his sticking to his principals, but I disagree with his opposite extreme of non-interventionism policy.

I'm interested to see how he would expect us to use his idea of a modern version of a Letter of Marque (see Letter of Marque and Reprisal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Terrorism

(See Letters of Marque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque_and_reprisal, something most of the world has abandoned and agreed not to use and has not been used by the US since 1815 (this was the legal use of privateers, which led to much of the problems of Pirates on the high seas using such agreements to prey on "enemy states" shipping vessels) when much of Europe has signed treaties to never do so again.

I'm not sure how you are going to pursue a group like the Taliban who took over a nation state (Afghanistan) with out attacking a nation state.

I'm also not sure how you say you're going to have us pursuing Al-Qaeda and not crossing international boundaries, which all require treaties, but he speaks against "entangling alliances" with other countries.

How many wars have been prevented by alliances that would cause an otherwise aggressive nation state interested in taking over another nation by force have not done so because of threat of war with a countries ally?

How can you know beforehand that a treaty between a nation is going to cause or prevent a war?

Sure it was wrong for the British Empire and later UN to decide to re-define national borders in the Mid-East, but what does that have to do with today?

I'm not interested in worrying about what was done wrong in the past as much as dealing with what is today and sadly the world economy runs on oil, until that changes we will have to be keeping tabs on what is going on in that part of the world.

A better idea would be to stop getting our oil there and better protecting our security by using our own while looking for a better way to run the world economy with out such a dependence on oil.

I totally agree with not giving all this ridiculous foreign aid around the world, and what sense does it make to give so much aid to countries that threaten one of the only true allies we have in the Mid-East, Israel, AND Israel who can obviously take care of it's self as it did long before we offered support?

That kind of stupidity is what lead to our getting involved with the Iraq & Iran war in the first place and helping to create Saddam as a threat to the region.

 

[neptronix]

We created the taliban, who were former mujahideen guys who decided later on to tell the USA to **** off after fighting a proxy war with Russia on their turf. We didn't do it directly, but that's how it worked out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#US.2C_Pakistani_and_other_financing_and_support

After being supplied with billions of dollars of weapons and feeling like they must protect their culture / land from westernization ( Russia basically took over and forced westernization on them ), and after seeing Afghanistan torn to pieces by the war, the more torn up areas of the middle east were ripe for the creation of a group like the Taliban.


Are you surprised that we are under fire by covert groups after ****ing with the middle east for decades, when we have absolutely no business there?

Are you surprised that countries like Pakistan turn a blind eye when we find terrorists there?

We created this mess and are only making it worse with our awful foreign policy. It is all about oil.
And before we were doing it, Britain was doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

I can't help but think about how much greater a nation the United States could be if it did not spend 1/4th of it's federal budget interfering with the middle east. We created some monsters and it will be a permanent money drain on us.

It is not normal to be at war / occupying foreign countries constantly. Only America operates this way and thinks it's business as usual.

 

[LI-ghtcycle]

Define terrorism for me. (in your own words)

Perhaps it will help me see why you don't think they are the biggest terrorist group on the earth.

I'm still waiting for an example of NATO acting like Al-Qeada. When did NATO declare that everyone in the world who disagrees with them should be murdered man woman and child?

They do more than just declare it and rattle sabers. They just go on a murder spree anytime they like. However, they do it with missiles fired from drones and cruise missiles fired from boats hundreds of miles away, or by taking helicopter gun ships etc.

If the people doing it wear similar uniforms that look familiar, then for some reason they stop being terrorists in most peoples eyes.

Does it matter a bit if someone chooses to be-head, and someone else chooses to splatter someones guts out in a charred mess with a rocket?

When you invade someones country, and they defend themselves and their homes with the methods they have available in a resource-limited area, does it make them a terrorist or a freedom fighter? It all depends on which set of eyes you're looking through.

What does become painfully obvious though, is that adding more fighters/rockets/bombs to an area escalates conflict, reinforces the resolve to fight/defend/attack.

My brother is a US Navy Seal, the poor guy has chosen to live as a pawn in this evil BS, and absolutely understands that what he does is terrorizing people who just want to be left alone, and that's it's 100% ethically wrong to do what they do, which is just tactically killing or destroying anything that they suspect would also attempt to kill or destroy... The difference is, one is doing what they believe is an ethical defense of their homeland, using the best means they have available (pretty amazing they found clever ways to destroy armored vehicles by cell-phone detonated in-road bombs, and this is coming from a guy who had a friend from childhood exploded by one).

Where the NATO, despite round after round of heavy propaganda and brainwashing chants and things, largely still recognizes they are obviously an invading foreign superpower meddling in affairs they have no business attending, and always and only escalating and making matters worse, and making anti-USA resolve and tension greater.


If you wanted to stop terrorism, the trick is not shooting million dollar cruise missile after cruise missile, the trick would be doing something kind to relieve tensions and hatred rather than escalate. Violence begets more violence. Imagine if you dropped off crates of ebikes and solar charge stations from planes rather than spending that money on more million dollar missiles to shoot at terrified misled people hiding in caves?

Even if you nuked the whole area of people who disagree with you, just turned every city that held anyone who disagreed with you into glass, this action would only instantly create a new population of people who would wish harm on you (who were neutral before), and with good reason. You would also create new fundamentalist groups over night, and finding people to support those groups and people who were willing to be martyrs would be easy and in huge supply. Imagine if rather than nuking them all to glass, you say, "I'm sorry that you suffered some terrible things over the history of your culture, we can't undo the past, but we promise to stay out of your lives from now forward, and wish you all the best", maybe even donate some tiny percent of that years war-machine budget to them in the form of renewable energy technology or something as a good will gesture. Now what happens to the fundamentalist groups? No support. No justification. You're just left with a handful of people that look like lunatics raving about past atrocities, and finding shelter and support is going to be very tricky for them, rather than effortless as it is while some invader is actively committing atrocities in your country.

Here is how Wikipedia Defines Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

I'm speechless, how you can possibly equate a man who walks into a discothèque with a bomb strapped to his chest to kill other Muslims who just aren't "Muslim Enough" and killing innocent people who have done no harm to them to a Navy Seal who is targeting these very people who are terrorizing the people living in places like Afghanistan and forcing them to go along with their radical version of Islam.

More specific to your example of a road side bomb being set off by a cell phone, are you not aware that this didn't just get put together by an average person, but people with very specific training, expertise and equipment mainly from Iran and terrorist organizations?

Of course when we went into Iraq there was a call to come attack us from as many as could be found to join in the battle, but if this was such a popular insurgency, how do you explain an Army Sniper being able to walk around among the people of Iraq and perform his mission with the average Iraqi's blessing that he met on the street?

If there was such a outcry against the average US soldier in Iraq then how do you think a single man was able to go out on his own in the cities looking for specific targets or with his spotter on many missions over two years and never even be wounded while walking among the people? If the US and NATO were just there terrorizing the people how could this be?

Sure there are people who will join the insurgency when their country is invaded, but I'm sorry, we didn't start this war, in fact we probably wouldn't have been attacked on 911 if we had taken the terrorism threat more seriously in U.S. Embassy in Beirut 1983, and then the first attack on the WTC in 1993 and started going after Al-Qaeda.

We failed to respond when bombed again in Saudi Arabia in the Khobar Towers, and even the USS Cole, 911 was a result in Osama bin Laden's Own Words that we were too weak and wouldn't respond, he had every reason to believe we wouldn't given the past.

If bad actions in the past be thought of as a "cause" for modern terrorists, then why now? How long has it been since the Crusades? If someone is looking for an excuse to attack someone, they will find it well enough with out any actions by their enemy.

A good personal friend of mine was also a Sniper who fought in Afghanistan, they once were shot at by a decrepit old man must have been in his late 70's early 80's and they were able to circle around and find him pretty easy because he had shot at them with a musket which makes a pretty big smoke cloud, and no, they didn't kill him, even though he had tried to kill them.

This poor old man was trying to feed his family and knew if he killed an American Soldier, that the Taliban would give him money, and all he needed were the a few US military hats to prove he had taken some out, and my friend gave him a couple of hats, and told him next time they wouldn't be so kind.

This sniper team he was part of didn't go and just shoot people they "thought" were part of anything. They first took pictures, sent them VIA satellite, confirmed specific targets before taking them out.

Was this a good idea? No, I think it has become beyond foolish to try and change that region of the world, much less to be there for 10 years.

We have been in very stupid to join in an idea of "nation building" and even though we weren't there to force a system upon them like the Russians before us, we should have realized what a mess we would be getting into trying to enforce the peace like some kind of international police force.

That does not mean that our military forces go in and indiscriminately kill anyone.

Even when I was in Saudi Arabia when a very angry British Officer took out his anger on me because he disagreed with being part of that war and blamed G. W. Bush for getting his country involved, he never made such claims.

Where in the world have you seen any evidence of NATO much less US forces targeting civilians?

Sure civilians die in war, but that's not the same as saying someone pushes a button and murders civilians, if that were the case, why did we ever invade any country at all, if all our goal is to bomb it into glass? You can certainly do that from 10,000 feet in the air if that is your goal, and we don't even need to use nuclear weapons.

 

[liveforphysics]

It's not terrorism to you, because you're looking through your set of eyeballs, and you agree/support what NATO is doing.

This has no lessening effect on it being terrorism, or the largest terrorism group in the world.



Let's use the wikipedia definition you sited, because you didn't come up with your own, despite feeling strongly that NATO doesn't meet what ever in your mind you believe terrorism to be.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion."


What the heck is is called when you invade a country with overwhelming forces and military resources to try to exterminate or convert people with some beliefs set (and you can pick any group you like, the one you see as the most nasty awful evil group you can think of).

Does NATO actions not just explicitly define terrorism in the exact form of your own definition?


You mention my example of road-side bombs and the training they receive. I've got the US Army IED manual from the 1980's, it explicitly shows how to make radio-detonated road-side IED's how deep to bury them, what to put on top, how and where to hide it. It just didn't have the clever technology of deformed copper or steel plates to penetrate armor.

You mention Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Could these have existed without NATO interfering in things they had no business playing with a few decades back? You might not know that prior to it becoming the clashing ground for superpowers to wage war over political idiologys, Afghanistan was a safe and popular and beautiful tourist destination with a decent economy, food, shelter etc. The Soviets decided it would be a good next choice for a country to "liberate" via military invasion. The USA decided to take it as an opportunity to pump them full of weapons and training, and in the process, turn it into a war-zone hell hole because they didn't like a competing/different political idiocy spreading.

Here is a quick blurb on the matter:

"Pakistan had been a US ally for much of the Cold War, from the 1950s and as a member of CENTO and SEATO. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan renewed and deepened the US-Pakistan alliance. The Reagan administration in the United States helped supply and finance an anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan, using Pakistan as a conduit. In retaliation, the Afghan secret police, KHAD, carried out a large number of terrorist operations against Pakistan, which also suffered from an influx of illegal weapons and drugs from Afghanistan. In the 1980s, as the front-line state in the anti-Soviet struggle, Pakistan received substantial aid from the United States as it took in millions of Afghan (mostly Pashtun) refugees fleeing the Soviet occupation. The influx of so many refugees - the largest refugee population in the world[88] - had a heavy impact on Pakistan and its effects continue to this day."


We setup, created, funded, and trained teams to do gurillia warfare against the Soviet army, in both Pakistan and Afganistan. This included recruiting zealots and martyrs, setting up organisation for them to do better coordinated gurillia attacks (including car-bombs and road-side bombs, which were standard CIA training lessens), etc.

Then, our interest is lost when the soviet empire collapsed on it'self. We expected everyone we trained to be bombers and trained killers to just go back to farming.

NATO intervention, Soviet intervention, created this nightmare, and created the people feeling justified in there fanatical zealot responses to things, because they lack the resources for other outlets that will touch on a world-wide level.


Anyways, I'm only getting started, but I've got a meeting to hit.

 

[liveforphysics]

You mention a horible act of a sucicide bomber blowing up a nightclub because they werent muslim enough. Killing women and children etc.

Do you recall Waco? We shot and burned 74 men women and children on our own home soil, because they had legally purchased arms that the ATF thought they may possibily be converting to full-auto (which was our official excuse if you can call that an excuse). The real reason was obviously because they were practicing a religious lifestyle that didnt meet there approval.

So... The end result is we killed and burned to death 74 men, women, and childred who were Americans living how they choose (as much as anyone gets to at least). This started when ATF idiots rolled up to the front door with machine guns to serve a suprise search warant, and the people chose to stand up for themselves rather than roll over.

However.... It was a very well funded operation with lots if shiny new cars and people wearing neat uniforms with all sorts of letters on the back, using cutting edge equipment and looking like you and I look, so it wasnt terrorism at all... It was just those brave ATF and FBI boys boldly doing their jobs.


You put the right uniform on someone commiting terrible acts of evil, and is hides it from the majority of eyes. The police uniform on the man spraying the kids holding hands on the grass with pepper spray in there eyes makes it OK. That wasnt terrorism, that was just a brave police officer doing his job and following orders.

The uniform camoflauge only hides the evil acts from those who wish it to be hidden from them. It has no impact on the acts being evil or not evil. The more violance and evil people commit in the name of "justice and morality and the greater good" just mean more evil and violance happened, and will continue to happen.

 

[shock]

I've always had the strange eerie feeling that gasoline as we know it, is going to run out in my lifetime...

The world is so dependent on it in so many ways, that if it were to run out, it literally would be apocalyptic.

People would survive, but my theory is only well armed ones, and even at that it would largely depend on where you live. It's why I choose to arm myself and stay in a region with plenty of tasty animals and the most fresh water of anywhere on the planet.

 

[neptronix]

Shock, i feel that way as well.
The population is growing exponentially and living conditions keep rising.
In 50 years, the world population doubled, and it will probably double again in another 30-40 years.

[youtube]yIC-0JYoDs8[/youtube]

Cuba dealt with peak oil since their welfare from Russia got cut off suddenly. Long painful period of adjustment for them, but they have an advantage in a tropical climate where you can grow things pretty much all year & temps are very moderate thus you don't need a lot of heating in the winter, cooling in the summer.

Small island too, and dense, so you can get everywhere by bike.

Imagine how North America would fare in a peak oil situation. Most of the non-coastal areas would turn into ghost towns in short order. Canada wouldn't make it. The inuit would enjoy having Alaska back. Massive amounts of energy are what make these cold climates more liveable. I bet in Costa Rica, you just put another shirt on in winter, and switch to a tank top in summer, bike everywhere, and otherwise your energy usage is minimal.

 

[wineboyrider]

Luke has it right on Ron Paul and foreign policy. There are actually measures in our Constitution for dealing with "pirates" and Thomas Jefferson utilized them for the first time in Libya called "marque and reprisal". What we need are international bounty hunters willing to sell out the so called "terrorists". The idea of war should be just as the Constitution demands all out WAR on the enemies of the republic and none of this peace keeping and policing BS. Then when we send the troops in we can let Genghis Kahn be the war general. Iran is no threat to us and Israel is the only one debating attacking anyone? How screwed up is that? Oil subsidies should end so the market forces can decide which direction the energy solution must take. I could probably make some concessions based on pollution in urban areas, but oil subsidies and the war machine must end! 8) 8)

I agree that the Constitution allows for that kind of common sense foreign policy, but I have yet to see Ron Paul take a firm stand on the same threat we face today, much like our country had to deal with very early on with the Barbary Pirates.

I respect his sticking to his principals, but I disagree with his opposite extreme of non-interventionism policy.

I'm interested to see how he would expect us to use his idea of a modern version of a Letter of Marque (see Letter of Marque and Reprisal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Terrorism

(See Letters of Marque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque_and_reprisal, something most of the world has abandoned and agreed not to use and has not been used by the US since 1815 (this was the legal use of privateers, which led to much of the problems of Pirates on the high seas using such agreements to prey on "enemy states" shipping vessels) when much of Europe has signed treaties to never do so again.

I'm not sure how you are going to pursue a group like the Taliban who took over a nation state (Afghanistan) with out attacking a nation state.

I'm also not sure how you say you're going to have us pursuing Al-Qaeda and not crossing international boundaries, which all require treaties, but he speaks against "entangling alliances" with other countries.

How many wars have been prevented by alliances that would cause an otherwise aggressive nation state interested in taking over another nation by force have not done so because of threat of war with a countries ally?

How can you know beforehand that a treaty between a nation is going to cause or prevent a war?

Sure it was wrong for the British Empire and later UN to decide to re-define national borders in the Mid-East, but what does that have to do with today?

I'm not interested in worrying about what was done wrong in the past as much as dealing with what is today and sadly the world economy runs on oil, until that changes we will have to be keeping tabs on what is going on in that part of the world.

A better idea would be to stop getting our oil there and better protecting our security by using our own while looking for a better way to run the world economy with out such a dependence on oil.

I totally agree with not giving all this ridiculous foreign aid around the world, and what sense does it make to give so much aid to countries that threaten one of the only true allies we have in the Mid-East, Israel, AND Israel who can obviously take care of it's self as it did long before we offered support?

That kind of stupidity is what lead to our getting involved with the Iraq & Iran war in the first place and helping to create Saddam as a threat to the region.

That's just it I and veterans don't take an oath to Nato or the UN or anything else, but the U.S. Constitution and to the Republic. That's why I don't give a damn if anyone else likes or uses "marque and reprisal", because of the Globalist BS merchant ships can't carry weapons to defend their own ships against Somali pirates. You see there is a need for a US military and action, but it is only to defend the US and nothing more. If Ron Paul were president the Congress can still declare war it's really a no brainer for me. What I want is to stop creating and provoking the crap.
One thing for sure those that put their lives on the line and take the oath know who they want for president![youtube]LOJIwiSrq3M[/youtube]

 

[wineboyrider]

The US Federal Government helped the so called "underwear" bomber onto the plane!
[youtube]uuyYiWv4xkY[/youtube]

 

[neptronix]

Wow, i didn't know that one was a setup too, wineboy..
I know of at least two different cases where federal agents had basically set up people domestically to perform acts of terror, just so that they could arrest them to justify furthering the police state.

One happened in Oregon, the other happened in New York.

In both instances, the feds prodded the guys along and sold them the weapon.
In both instances, the guys were black, either in poverty, or just plain disenfranchised.

I guess this is number 3 and i wonder how many of the other ones were setups.

McCarthy era all over again. replace communists with the Taliban. And badly enough, we've got both democrats and republicans participating in equal capacity.

All over obtaining oil on our terms.
Just as it has been since the 1970's, or earlier when the british were doing the job of bossing the brown people around.

I do really hope Ron Paul wins, he is our only chance for the next 4 years.