A Bit of Disturbing News

[FLESH]

No, my money example had nothing to do with the US or Iraq/Afghanistan. Dictators usually arise in times of need in the country, when it is having low morale and issues, and as such are notoriously difficult to get rid of.

[Siegfried]

Alright, then I misunderstood. Apologies.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

No, I don't think that America is aspiring for world domination. It's just the simple need to make your nation have the most impact in the politics of the world. If that makes you a powerhouse with the goals of world domination, then the US isn't alone there.

And sorry if my view on the world is far from accurate. To be honest, no, I don't look at the news very often, and the only time I get to learn about other countries in much detail is in history class and geography a few years ago, and all they ever talk about is how the world nowadays is such a "perfect" place compared to how it was 70 years ago.

But I have thought of modern day Russia as a better nation. I know Russians, there are Russians here, I know they aren't bad people, they know we aren't bad people. We're all just people, caught up in misunderstood and bothersome politics. I don't like generalizing a nation based on it's government.

And about the war in the middle east, at this point, it's no longer a war. There is no war because there is no other side. It's just fighting against terrorism and attempting to create a better nation from it. Nothing in life ever goes as planned though.
I also say to hell with oil. We have the ability to make better hydrogen vehicles now and cleaner energy sources, I say we just start using them. But of course it's going to end up with "If we do this then all the poor people who make money off of oil will go broke." If they were smart, they'd just start using hydrogen too, and there would be no care in the world for burning dead dinosaurs anymore.

[blackbird]

I mean with world domination that every country has to listen to America and do what they ask.
There was a time in Belgium where people could sue politicians from the whole world due crimes agains humanity. Some people sued president bush and ariel sharon. America decided to put the pressure on belgium to cancel that law and it happened. There were also rumors about moving the NATO from brussels to somewhere in poland, because belguim refused to support the war in Iraq.
I believe that this war is mainly for the oil that lies below Iraq and also for the weapon producers (the family bush is linked to oil and weapon industry).
There is even oil in afghanistan. The taliban (before 11 september) decided to let an afghan company transport the oil. I suspect that this oil is in hands of america.
We have also so many american tv shows in europe, that europe is slowly americanising. I mean that europe is taking the american customs over.
The same thing would probably happening too in the middle east if those conservative muslims wouldn't try to reduce of even forbid the american films and tv shows.

[Zurke]

Originally posted by IAMTHEEMPEROR
We have the ability to make better hydrogen vehicles now and cleaner energy sources, I say we just start using them. But of course it's going to end up with "If we do this then all the poor people who make money off of oil will go broke." If they were smart, they'd just start using hydrogen too, and there would be no care in the world for burning dead dinosaurs anymore.

It is a whole industry. From the owners of the wells and the companies that pull it out of the ground. To the companies that transport it to other nations. The refineries in those nations and the companies that transport gas, desiel and heating fuels. There are also the gas staions with the mini marts.

It's an economy. It's a slow process but I have noticed Oil Companies getting into the business of alternative energy('going clean'). Nations as big as the US can't afford to go overnight from oil to some other fuel, hydrogen, ethenel(which is really a waste of good food) etc. The big oil giants don't want to get left behind so they are trying to get their foot in the door which is also slowing things down.

IMO we will in the future distance ourselves from oil by using less. IMO that energy will be just as expensive to make up for profit loss from using less oil.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

Originally posted by Zurke
IMO that energy will be just as expensive to make up for profit loss from using less oil.

Not sure about it. What is starting to appear in places is the use of hydrogen power. A surprisingly stable source of power, is just about free to make, and is actually beneficial to the environment because it releases oxygen and water emissions rather than carbon dioxide.

I'm just hoping that some leader in this country will eventually wise up and help put some of these things in motion.

[DarkAsmodeous]

"I'm just hoping that some leader in this country will eventually wise up and help put some of these things in motion. "

I am a huge hydrogen power supporter, and that's why I think this is a very bad idea.

If the government were in charge of everyone having computers, then we would. They would all weigh 50 pounds, cost 2000 to make, only display green text, and would be ugly as can be.

You have to make people want it, and then it will be.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But then again it wouldn't be a bad thing for a little government incentive to get the hydrogen power industry going.

Big countries like the US take more time to accept something new. But the easier things are made for people, the better.

[Siegfried]

I wouldn't mind tax breaks or something for companies that being exploring that, but even then I'm kind of skeptical. I mean, what happens if a better fuel comes along, but we've already forced our companies to commit too far in that direction? Generally speaking, when gas prices hit $6 a gallon, I'm inclined to believe necessity will kick in and take care of things.

Frankly, I just don't trust politicians, I mean, no matter what party you're from, they never achieve anything productive, I personally am a conservative and George Bush supporter (I actually would prefer someone who is further to the "right"), but I mean, I don't love him or claim that he is the greatest president of all time like many other conservatives in my country.

What has he done well? He's managed to lower taxes, and he handled events very well after 9/11 and leading into Afghanistan I believe. Other than that though, nothing. On the other hand, what has he failed to do on the conservative agenda: balance the nation's budget, immigration reform, botched up Iraq (in the start, its improving now), no vouchers, none of the "moral" reforms religious folks ask for (such as gay marriage or abortion bans)

Then for left leaning people (this is generally directed at Americans), what did Bill Clinton get done as President? He was elected during a period of economic growth so everyone felt good about him, he made a few new government programs, fired a couple of tomahawks into the middle east, and shagged an intern. What did he promise to do that he didn't achieve, like when he told environmentalists he was the "green candidate". I mean, just look at what these politicians promise/try to do, and then see how much of it is achieved or actually works out for the better.

The simple reality is that regardless of political affiliation, most politicians can't do anything but spend money and start trouble. Once in a while you get an FDR or a Regan that is capable of getting things done (I'll let you guys decide which of the two you prefer), but nine times out of ten you get a worthless arrogant prick that has never worked a day in their life, and seeks to regulate areas and industries that they know absolutely nothing about. They're so arrogant though that they believe their policies will make an impact for the better... just ask yourself if you want politicians getting their grubby paws on a good thing like hydrogen power now, they have an unlimited capacity to screw stuff up...

Wow, I went way off topic there on how I hate politicians. I guess I'll just end this rant with a quote-- it's a great quote because it holds truth for everyone regardless of your political sentiments-- its from my old man's boss, "In America, we have two political parties: one is the evil party, the other is the stupid party".

[RideWithTheWind]

I understand IATE's worries about military growth in Russia, but I don't think you can fear the cold war coming back. Things were very different in those days, you had completely opposed ideologies fighting against each other, no place for both of them. Capitalism was a vital threat for communism, communism was a vital threat for capitalism.

Today you just have countries fighting to secure their energy supplies, so you can expect them to threat (like Medvedev), show their teeth (like China), maybe fighting sometimes (Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechenya), but the aim is not the annihilation of the opponent.

And if you consider that they need each other like they never did in the past (yeah, globalisation of economy also has advantages) you have another reason why not to build an antinuclear bunker in your garden

(well at least in a short term future, because even without ideologic incompatibility you can also have ugly wars. Rise of nation-states along with increasing nationalisms provoked 2 world wars after all...)

One should allways be careful not to be seduced by scaremonger speeches, it's the best way for governments to keep people docile, to send them to war easily in order to achieve hidden goals. That was true in the ancient Greece, and that's true as well today.