Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What interest is it of ours to have the Embassy in Jerusalem? What does that do for the United States?
Obviously you didn't read the post you quoted. I said nothing about the embassy and everything about the capital. I happen to believe that the choice of a capital is exclusively that of the country and not of outsiders, providing that the country controls the real estate. For example, the U.S. could not declare Quebec City its capital based on some Revolutionary War era claims i.e. Benedict Arnold's invasion. While I favor the embassy moving that is admittedly a much closer call inasmuch as the embassy if property of the U.S., even though it's sited elsewhere. Israel is also the only country in the region with a system of democratic succession, where the leader is not one gunshot away from ceding power. Think Anwar Sadat. A deal with Israel is a deal. A deal with Abbas could fall prey to a Hamas bullet. Any deal with Syria, Egypt, Jordan or Lebanon is similarly unstable. Israel is without question our major ally and a necessary one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer
What interest is it of ours to NOT be proactive about alternative energies. I would think it would be MORE in our interests to ween the world off of oil and Arabic world wealth, and start the world on some U.S.-created energy sources, and lead the technology in something U.S.-centric. Being a backwards nations that wants to focus on Middle East OIL, make the Arabic world rich, and do NOTHING proactive energy-wise, and let the rest of the world create all that stuff? That might be in the interest of the US/Arabic/Russian Oil brokers and middlemen... but it shouldn't be the interest of the American people to be backwards as hell, and not attempt to lead our U.S. technology and U.S. industry into world leaders of alternative means of energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
When oil sells for $50 to $60 a barrel why do we need to focus on maximizing domestic production?
I agree when its a $100 a barrel, domestic production should be increased.
I would say there is an argument that we should save our oil for now. If we haven't developed alternative energy sources in ten years and oil prices rise again that would be the time to encourage more domestic production of oil.
Right now, I pay about $2.25 a gallon for gas. Gas doesn't need to cost less than that. When it costs less than that it encourages wasteful use of this resource and adds to climate change.
If we used so-called "alternative sources" at the very least our manufacturing sectors would be at a huge disadvantage to everyone else. Arab extraction costs are about $5 a barrel and the market forces them to accept any price above that. That is if the market is about $60 a barrel, as it is now, the Arabs accept that. Or if it is $145 a barrel, as it was briefly in 2008, they accept that. The Arabs are price-takers, not price makers. If we artificially increase our energy costs our manufacturing costs increase. China and India are happy to pollute and take advantage of lower costs while we beggar ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer
The rejection of the Paris Accord by the U.S. is all about oil lobbyists and corporate polluters who want to make a quick buck in the short-term. It has nothing to do with long-term 'America's interests'.
Even accepting that there is a man-made climate change problem, the Paris Accord does nothing about it. The preamble is great. In short form it's "we have a worldwide problem, let's work together." The remedy is to create a "climate adjustment fund" that shovels money to Third World leaders who are typically going to abuse the money. Neither their people nor the "world" will see any benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
The US could become a net energy exported in 2018. Hydraulic fracturing of gas has made us energy self-sufficient. It's held down energy prices and been boon for the states where it's practiced.
Oil is almost where GM was 80 years ago: What's good for it is good for us.
Perfect so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
We made the mistake of entering the stage of world politics 100 odd years ago. It was never any of our business and still really isn't. The world and we would be better off if we would up our current business and left stage right.
The problem with that is that the U.S. replaced the U.K. as a relatively beneficent world power around then. The world needs such a leader, not a bully like Russia or China.
The problem with that is that the U.S. replaced the U.K. as a relatively beneficent world power around then. The world needs such a leader, not a bully like Russia or China.
With this current administration we are becoming the bully you claim Russia and China are.
The truth is most people posting on this thread don't care about the use of the bully pulpit, they care about who is using the bully pulpit.
I like it when governments secure endowed rights, and nothing more without consent of the governed.... you know, adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
I like it when governments secure endowed rights, and nothing more without consent of the governed.... you know, adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
Sort of burns me up that China and India are being thrown around in this thread as if they are the same caliber as the USA. The Middle Eastern countries as well. Human rights. There ain't none. (and I use the word ain't for emphasis)
Chinese infrastructure? Do you know what their record is on industrial/construction safety? Because they care not a whit for their people. Expendable commodity.
I'm disgusted by the amount of US assets owned by China. Who's bright idea was that? Oh wait...
Yes, please put the interests of the USA first. Who cares what the Radical Muslim world thinks about us? They've totally destroyed what was once a nice part of the world. And NEWSFLASH: putting your women in burkas doesn't make them invisible. We see you ladies!!
Sort of burns me up that China and India are being thrown around in this thread as if they are the same caliber as the USA.
****
Chinese infrastructure? Do you know what their record is on industrial/construction safety? Because they care not a whit for their people. Expendable commodity.
Absolutely. China's "prosperity" is built on slave labor and corruption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunterseat
I'm disgusted by the amount of US assets owned by China. Who's bright idea was that? Oh wait...
I wonder how much money rightfully belonging to the people was squandered in those acquisitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunterseat
Yes, please put the interests of the USA first. Who cares what the Radical Muslim world thinks about us? They've totally destroyed what was once a nice part of the world. And NEWSFLASH: putting your women in burkas doesn't make them invisible. We see you ladies!!
But that wouldn't sit well with the diplomats who are on NYC's party circuit. And I have great pride in the Muslim world's philosophers. Puts John Locke to shame. </sarcasm>
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunterseat
The Middle Eastern countries as well. Human rights. There ain't none. (and I use the word ain't for emphasis)
...Israel is also the only country in the region with a system of democratic succession, where the leader is not one gunshot away from ceding power. Think Anwar Sadat. A deal with Israel is a deal. A deal with Abbas could fall prey to a Hamas bullet.
Remember Yitzhak Rabin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
The problem with that is that the U.S. replaced the U.K. as a relatively beneficent world power around then. The world needs such a leader, not a bully like Russia or China.
Exactly! And one price of leadership, is taking one for the team. It means ceding the best options and the choicest bits for others, who are under your leadership. For the United States, that means occasionally entering - and honoring! - international agreements that are more beneficial for the people of other nations, than for the American people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Has the U.S. had:
Gulags
Cultural Revolutions; or
Purposeless massacres?
Given the way that the current political climate is going, perhaps these things are all only a matter of time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
