Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gunny, May 13, 2008.
McCain is trying to distance himself from his own record:
I don't know what people expect to accomplish by making petroleum fuels obsolete. If the arab nations have no oil to sell, then their economies would collapse, probably leading to radical islamist revolutions.
Anyway, if we are worried about money getting into the hands of terrorists, then why are we giving money to Libya's Khadaffi, or the Saudis? Why are we supporting shady Marxist radicals in Iran, just because they oppose the existing regime? Haven't we learned about the folly of blowback by now?
I don't expect they will become obsolete even if we dramatically reduce our dependence. They will become obsolete as a fuel source if we consume it all, and their economies will collapse then.
Our current dependence and consumption has not quelled the Islamist movement. It has given oil-rich governments additional resources to suppress it, but that only delays the inevitable and makes the eventual revolutions even worse.
The Islamist movement is driven in large part by concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a few, and the poverty suffered by so many others. If the wealthy sheiks put more into infrastructure and building an economy not dependent exclusively upon oil, they could alleviate much poverty and much fuel for the Islamist movement.
But their selfishness and greed controls, so eventually they will be driven out or killed. Only then will we see the real blowback that comes from supporting short-term stability by repression rather than seeking the long-term stability that comes from development.
I agree with all of that. But would just add that oil independence is also a security interest because the oil rich sheiks fund the terrorists organizations and allow them free reign precisely to take the focus off of their own corrupt regimes and place it on the U.S. and Israel.
I remember Bush saying the same thing. Pandering for votes, IMO.
I've been saying this for years. The more we rely on foreign oil the less safe we are.
There is an easy solution but of course politicians are too stupid to see it.
here it is
allow a 100% tax credit (not deduction) for ALL people and businesses who install any type of solar, wind or geothermal system. then give tax breaks to new start ups specializing in these technologies.
this along with building codes that require all new construction to use solar hot water and passive solar heating designs would be monumental in their success. just think a slew of new businesses means a slew of new jobs and our oil dependence would be cut in half.
that means not only would we be physically safer but our economy would be insulated from oil prices and we would see stability and growth like never before in our history.
that sounds like a reasonable plan, but would dependence really be cut in half or was that just an estimated number? the US also needs to move away from corn as a source of biofuel and turn to higher yield crops like sugar, sweet sorgum, or petrolalgae, which looks very promising. all the politicians want to talk about decreasing oil dependence, but none will actually take the hard steps to doing it
I find your idea kind of funny since it was reported on the news he's pissed of the conservative base for embracing man-made global warming.
Personally, I think the senile old coot forgot what party he was in and saw on the news the Dem Primary was still going and went out stumping to be the Dem nominee.
Wait, I'm confused. I thought conservatives were all about embracing man-made global warming?
...oh, you meant "embrace" as in "accept the existence of." Mybad.
Separate names with a comma.