Waterthrush wrote:The past six years have significantly weakened the US, so we will not have much power to resist the demands to reduce our consumption that I believe will be coming down the road to us.
Waterthrush wrote:I repeat, the past six years have significantly weakened the US. We are seeing this in the behavior of other states, we are seeing it in the failure to maintain our victory in Afghanistan (my goodness, that one is hard to believe).
I expect to see higher and higher level denunciations of US consumption levels of fossil fuels.
Waterthrush wrote:Rwwff, I have to disagree. I've read numerous articles about how quickly the US equipment in Iraq is deteriorating and how there are in fact shortages of various sorts there. We know that most of the National Guard equipment in areas hit by Katrina had been removed to Iraq. We know that much of the skilled manpower is all going to private contractors.
These articles are backed up by observations of other powers: Bush really doesn't intimidate anybody anymore. Russia has completely outplayed the US in Asia, China in Africa.
And by observations of the Bush administration as well: I read that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs basically told Bush we don't have the power to do much about Iran.
I repeat, the past six years have significantly weakened the US. We are seeing this in the behavior of other states, we are seeing it in the failure to maintain our victory in Afghanistan (my goodness, that one is hard to believe).
And I predict that we will see more consequences of these six years of growing weakness in the next two - the consequences are rolling in now and will continue. I expect to see higher and higher level denunciations of US consumption levels of fossil fuels.
Revi wrote:What amazed me about Gore's talk is how far behind the rest of the world we are getting. Our cars are gas hogs and we have almost no solar nor wind happening. What are we thinking? Is there even a plan to get us beyond fossil fuel?
rwwff wrote:...we still have easy control of Bagram, and the [name] permanent Iraqi bases.
rogerhb wrote:rwwff wrote:...we still have easy control of Bagram, and the [name] permanent Iraqi bases.
Wow, you invaded two countries over three years ago and you still have control of a couple of airfields, that's impressive, guess that's mission accomplished then.
rwwff wrote:This strategy has given us at-will air domination of Iran, and until they can cook up a working nuke, they know they are absolutely helpless to do anything about it.
rogerhb wrote:rwwff wrote:This strategy has given us at-will air domination of Iran, and until they can cook up a working nuke, they know they are absolutely helpless to do anything about it.
Iran doesn't look helpless from over here, Europe/China and Russia don't look keen for more military adventures, and you aren't going to like the oil price hike when a couple of supertankers go down.
rwwff wrote:Considering that most of Bush's and Cheney's buds draw royalty checks that are in large part dependent upon the price of oil.
rogerhb wrote:rwwff wrote:Considering that most of Bush's and Cheney's buds draw royalty checks that are in large part dependent upon the price of oil.
So glad your interests are in Bush and Cheney's retirement arrangements rather than your own or anyone elses. Very noble.
rwwff wrote:The way I look at it, you can be behind the bulldozer, or in front of it. I don't see anything noble in being in front of the bulldozer.
rogerhb wrote:rwwff wrote:The way I look at it, you can be behind the bulldozer, or in front of it. I don't see anything noble in being in front of the bulldozer.
Oh, but you are...
rwwff wrote:You don't know enough about any of the posters here in real life to be able to decide who's in front and who's not.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests