What should the U.S.’s role be?

Sound of claws scratching.

I've privately shared my concerns with SRO...he blew them off...I'll call him out on the board if he won't moderate his own behavior....

I've privately shared my concerns with SRO...he blew them off...I'll call him out on the board if he won't moderate his own behavior.... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Which I am sure will do everyone a whole lot of good. NOT!

When the US fought the war for independence, we didn't need a third party to knock off the King of England for us.
Originally Posted by DEPmic05

Really? The 10,000 Frenchmen who served in the American Revolution under Generals Lafayette and Rochembeau, not to mention the French fleet under Admiral de Grasse that was essential to the victory at the battle of Yorktowne, might beg to differ. Never mind the huge sums of money lent to us by the French crown, and private bankers in France and Holland.

The U.S. would still be blamed. Rosie O'Donnell will spin up a conspiracy theory so quick your head will spin. LOL Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Sure you don't mean Christine O'Donnell??

Really? The 10,000 Frenchmen who served in the American Revolution under Generals Lafayette and Rochembeau, not to mention the French fleet under Admiral de Grasse that was essential to the victory at the battle of Yorktowne, might beg to differ. Never mind the huge sums of money lent to us by the French crown, and private bankers in France and Holland. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Agreed.

C

Iran and others with ambitions in the region will probably tip their hands and we will need to inter vein with deftness as is necessary to protect the innocent revolutionaries from vultures that would hijack a peoples attempt to throw off the yoke of oppressive regimes as the communist party did in Russia. Originally Posted by oden

Interesting observation. An overt action by Iran would seem to require some reaction from the West.

Really? The 10,000 Frenchmen who served in the American Revolution under Generals Lafayette and Rochembeau, not to mention the French fleet under Admiral de Grasse that was essential to the victory at the battle of Yorktowne, might beg to differ. Never mind the huge sums of money lent to us by the French crown, and private bankers in France and Holland. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

+1

Sure you don't mean Christine O'Donnell?? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

No. I am sure I was referencing the ignorant bitch and not the ignorant witch.

Sure you don't mean Christine O'Donnell?? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

No. I am sure I was referencing the ignorant bitch and not the ignorant witch. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

Hehe in my strongest Northern accent, "You are fooked!"

C xxx Originally Posted by Camille

LMAO

I adore you

What are your goals…at home and throughout the world?

Stability in the world?...then spend your dollars and efforts on things that help maintain the status quo.

Self reliance from the world?...then spend your dollars and efforts on things that make you less reliant on outside forces, and on isolating our country from exterior forces.

Are you trying to promote our citizens or others’?

Do we want a higher hydrocarbon price to promote the economics of cleaner fuels? Gasoline in London (as I understand it) exceeds $10.00/gal. We’re bitching here when it goes over $4.00.

Throughout history governments and countries have tried isolationism…sphere of influence…imperialism…etc. The fact is that none of them work for a sustained period. Even if we were to try isolationism, we would still need to be involved enough in the world to keep it from unifying against us. In other words, keep the world fractured enough to where it is fighting amongst itself…and less worried about us. Sometimes such a thought process requires sending our troops into harm’s way to destabilize a region…or maintain a diverse governance (even if oppressive) that lessens the chances of a unified region. The US tends to think that people throughout the world have the same ultimate motivations that we do…and if we simply remove oppression?...democracy will flourish…a very naïve view, indeed.

We could (if we chose to) be totally self reliant on energy…but not at $80-90 oil prices…of $3-4 gasoline prices. And not without spending significant capital on new refineries…or alternative energy sources…etc. If gasoline is to remain at $3-4?...or oil at $80-90?...then it is going to be the cheapest way to deliver energy.

We could (if we chose to) probably care less about what goes on outside of our borders…but not without designing a defense system and border control that is second to none.

As for me? I care about most of the world…and then care more about the western world…and then care more about the US…and then care more about the south…and then care more about Texas…and then care more about Dallas…and then care more about my businesses…and then care most about my family. As the world goes…so goes my caring. When times are all good it is a whole lot easier to care about those things way up on the list. As times get tougher, human nature has us caring more closer to home.

I tend to agree that we should do nothing in regards to Gaddafi. IMHO, he has been no friend to the US. And right now my mindset is a lot more isolationist. Frankly, I am probably always more isolationist than most. But then, I try, as much as possible, to deal with normal human emotions…and let the moralists deal with the high horses.

I’m not sure exactly what question you are posing DG, but I’ll try to give my view if you’ll make it simple for the feeble minded.

My question is if neither taxes on gasoline nor government assistance is seen as an option to help in developing alternative energy sources what options are left?

My question is if neither taxes on gasoline nor government assistance is seen as an option to help in developing alternative energy sources what options are left? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Less government regulation and free market, the same way gasoline and the vehicles that use it were originally developed. Just to suggest something that hasn't been tried in a while!

My question is if neither taxes on gasoline nor government assistance is seen as an option to help in developing alternative energy sources what options are left? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Expedite licensing of new nukes and build the damn storage facility at Yucca Mountain. Nuclear power is the only technology currently available that scales and doesn't require extensive subsidies. What it needs is the bullshit delays stopped.

Expedite licensing of new nukes and build the damn storage facility at Yucca Mountain. Nuclear power is the only technology currently available that scales and doesn't require extensive subsidies. What it needs is the bullshit delays stopped. Originally Posted by pjorourke

But...but...but, PJ, it wouldn't be the American republic with all those "bullshit delays."

But...but...but, PJ, it wouldn't be the American republic with all those "bullshit delays." Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I have no idea what you mean by that or why you find it so hysterical.