NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple enaugh question. If you have other ideas, please post them in this thread.

If you live in the states, you should realise how much cheaper your petrol is than everyone else already. Anywhere else, get a bike.

this is my first poll, I hope its a good one.

How about "enforce stricter efficiency rules on new vehicles"?

How about: tax breaks for more efficient designed homes.

How about: tax break for sticking solar panels on your roof, and requiring utility companies to provide "net metering" options to their custmers.


After all - it only affects you if you buy the stuff....

How about "enforce stricter efficiency rules on new vehicles"?

How about: tax breaks for more efficient designed homes.

How about: tax break for sticking solar panels on your roof, and requiring utility companies to provide "net metering" options to their custmers.


After all - it only affects you if you buy the stuff....
all good ideas, thanks Zepp

I vote for all of the above. I even agree with Zep's ideas.

I guess this kinda settles the argument about whether or not we went to
war for oil. If we did, we lost!

It costs me about $5 a day just to commute to and from work. I know, it's my fault for driving a gas guzzler.

How about, Pray to God in thanks that you do not live in Britain, and that you have very cheap prices.

How about, Pray to God in thanks that you do not live in Britain, and that you have very cheap prices.
dude, its $1.79 a gallon here right now. I remember when gas prices were half that!

I would love to pay US prices for fuel, in England we pay 3-4 times the price you do so quit complaining about your low fuel prices.

I would love to pay US prices for fuel, in England we pay 3-4 times the price you do so quit complaining about your low fuel prices.

Having lived on both sides of the pond, let me remind you of one little detail that most Europeans forget:

Size of UK: 244,820 KM sq
Size of US: 9,629091 KM sq.

Round that to : the US is about 40 times the size of the UK.

The fuel costs are not kept low for the car drivers primarily. They are managed to keep shipping costs reasonable.

If gas prices went up to European levels the freight surcharge to get commodities to the people would cause crippling inflation.

-Z-

How about, Pray to God in thanks that you do not live in Britain, and that you have very cheap prices.
dude, its $1.79 a gallon here right now. I remember when gas prices were half that!

Using http://www.xe.com/ucc/
That is £1.00671.

UK Petrol prices are:

UK Average per litre (braketed numbers are per gallon)
Higher Octane Unleaded Petrol: 82.7 (376.0)
Unleaded 95 octane: 77.8 (353.7)
Diesel: 79.3 (360.5)
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/

Have to say it's good to be in Australia. Petrol prices are still hovering around $1 per litre, where they're likely to stay for a little while.

I suggest more effort be put into researching catalytic bacteria, and their industrial applications.

If we account for inflation, the gas prices now are actually the same or cheaper than gas has been in the past. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I remember hearing that 1955 gas prices, when inflation is added, were actually more expensive than gas is today.

How about, Pray to God in thanks that you do not live in Britain, and that you have very cheap prices.
dude, its $1.79 a gallon here right now. I remember when gas prices were half that!

Holy crap, that's cheap.

You're paying AU$0.65 a litre!

Stop bitching, prices haven't been that cheap here for years!

They're currently about AU$0.98/L

:shock:

No wonder you guys think it's okay to drive gas guzzlers.

How about, "elect a government that's not bought and paid for by the oil industry"?

I imagine more Americans have no idea how cheap our gas really is in comparison to the rest of the world--we just know that it's higher for us now than it's ever been. In my neighborhood in San Francisco, the average price for regular is somewhere between $2.15 and $2.29 a gallon, and that's for the cheap stuff.

Enforcement of the CAFE standards adopted back in the 70s would do a lot, as would closing the SUV loophole and removing tax breaks for people who buy H2s. Providing tax incentives for people who purchase fuel-efficient cars or hybrids would help too. Putting money into public transportation systems in cities would help some, but the US and Canada are so spread out geographically and much less densely populated thata European style rail system isn't really workable yet.

But in essence, here's the key--reduce demand for oil and gas, and the price will come down. And as long as oil and gas men are running the country, that won't happen. We have to come to grips with the fact that we're dealing with a finite resource; no matter how much oil the experts is gettable, we'll still come to the point sooner or later, that it will take more energy to get the oil out than we'll get out of it, so we ought to start planning for the next source.

The first and only thing to do is to dismantle OPEC through harsh and across the board economic reprisals against the member countries. Its a cartel which determines the supply of fuel in effect it can dictate the price. Its a protectionist scheme in order to protect (usually) the only economically viable resource they have. Bring OPEC down and prizes will in turn go down.

However, you could instead let prices reach near 40$ U.S. per barrel and then Canada's Tar sands are profitable to exploit and they have as much or more than in Saudi Arabia. The biggest plus is that the transportation costs will be wayyy down.

Just stop taxing and regulating the oil industry (and the rest of them while you're at it). This should solve the problem. Other than that nothing should be done. Ever. Using the police power to manipulate peoples' free and voluntary economic activities is ethically repugnant.

Just stop taxing and regulating the oil industry (and the rest of them while you're at it). This should solve the problem. Other than that nothing should be done. Ever. Using the police power to manipulate peoples' free and voluntary economic activities is ethically repugnant.

Let's go sell some amphetamines to children!

[/hysteria]Will someone please think of the children?????!!!!!!!!![hysteria]
Okay, fine, more accurately, regulation behaviour between adults by using threats of violence is wrong.

Just stop taxing and regulating the oil industry (and the rest of them while you're at it). This should solve the problem. Other than that nothing should be done. Ever. Using the police power to manipulate peoples' free and voluntary economic activities is ethically repugnant.

Let's go sell some amphetamines to children!

To be fair, that's not exactly what Libertovania said: there is an implied level of informed consent there. So "Let's go sell some amphetamines to consenting adults!" would be more appropriate. Mind you, what currency would we use? In an economic free-for-all, anyone should be able to print their own currency and let it find its own value through the mystic workings of the Invisible Hand. It would be tricky, to say the last; imagine how many pockets you'd need in your wallet.

Of course, given such a tax-free paradise, the State per se wouldn't exist and all would be private enterprise (or banditry -- but this is just semantics). Under such a system, the concept of "informed consent" would break down at the margins and become "naked desperation". Plus, given the absence or at best minimal presence of the State, who would do the informing in the first place?

Still, we must close our eyes and put our faith in the Invisible Hand: market forces will cure all ills. Just rub into the affected part or, if necessary, drink entire. A sovereign remedy for falling GDP, unemployment and baldness.

A gallon of gas costs less than a gallon of bottled water.

A gallon of gas costs less than a gallon of bottled water.
A gallon of gas is a hell of alot more expensive than a gallon of tap water.

How about build more efficient vehicles? With a fleet fuel efficiency of 20mpg, America is really lagging behind the rest of the industrialised world. If you got that up to 30mpg, which is pretty damn easy, the higher fuel costs would be offset nicely.

ANWR seems fine to me. That's only a short-term solution, though, there has to be a shift to something like a hydrogen-powered car in the long term.

ANWR seems fine to me. That's only a short-term solution, though, there has to be a shift to something like a hydrogen-powered car in the long term.

I heard that we actually drill up to %60 of our oil on N America. Is this right?

I heard that we actually drill up to %60 of our oil on N America. Is this right?
No, you import 60% and rising fast.

I suggest we lower gasoline taxes. Lower gas taxes will mean fewer funds to build fewer highways, which will lead to less development and, thus, to less driving. ~ Michael.

I suggest we raise gas taxes and dump that money into renewable energy resources VERY quickly. It's highly unlikely that Fusion will be ready in time, however Solar Microwave probably will be able to be developed in our time. That or a vast expansion of our nuclear power stations coupled with strategic development of wind and solar power facilities and the establishment of large hydrogen power battery banks.

And for the love of God, we need to get off of natural gas as fast as we can, I have no idea why we went to burning that stuff so quickly. We need that desperately to maintain our fertilizer production to sustain our agricultural sector.

Look up Mathew Simmons for more on energy related matters.
Oh and here is some more:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18555

Yeah, Simmons is cool. 40% natural gas shortfall by 2010 he says, and his figures are pretty damn solid. It looks like rotating blackouts starting soon and for the forseeable future.

I suggest we raise gas taxes and dump that money into renewable energy resources VERY quickly. It's highly unlikely that Fusion will be ready in time, however Solar Microwave probably will be able to be developed in our time. That or a vast expansion of our nuclear power stations coupled with strategic development of wind and solar power facilities and the establishment of large hydrogen power battery banks.

And for the love of God, we need to get off of natural gas as fast as we can, I have no idea why we went to burning that stuff so quickly. We need that desperately to maintain our fertilizer production to sustain our agricultural sector.

Look up Mathew Simmons for more on energy related matters.
Oh and here is some more:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18555

Raising gas taxes will only make the price of gas higher. People don't want all this R&D put into something where they may not see the result for years. People want the price of gas lowered, and now.

1. Allow drilling in ANWR and relax rules and regulations reguarding oil prospecting and driling.

2. Bring all American troops home and reduce size of the American military to a force that can defend America, in America, and only for America. Sell the surplus oil that this will save into the private market.

3. Reduce oil taxes on federal and state levels.

4. Reduce regulation and taxes on companies which develop alternative fuels technologies.

1. Allow drilling in ANWR and relax rule and regulations reguarding oil prospecting and driling.

2. Bring all troops American home and reduce size of the American military to a force that can defend America, in America, and only for America. Sell the surplus oil that this will save into the private market.

3. Reduce oil taxes on federal and state levels.

4. Reduce regulation and taxes on companies which develop alternative fuels technologies.

I like all but #1.

1. Allow drilling in ANWR and relax rule and regulations reguarding oil prospecting and driling.

2. Bring all troops American home and reduce size of the American military to a force that can defend America, in America, and only for America. Sell the surplus oil that this will save into the private market.

3. Reduce oil taxes on federal and state levels.

4. Reduce regulation and taxes on companies which develop alternative fuels technologies.

I like all but #1.

I hate all but #1.

1. Allow drilling in ANWR and relax rule and regulations reguarding oil prospecting and driling.

2. Bring all troops American home and reduce size of the American military to a force that can defend America, in America, and only for America. Sell the surplus oil that this will save into the private market.

3. Reduce oil taxes on federal and state levels.

4. Reduce regulation and taxes on companies which develop alternative fuels technologies.

I like all but #1.

I understand why #1 would be opposed by many, but the reality of the matter is that America needs oil, and it needs to come from somewhere while #'s 2, 3, and 4 are being enacted and are taking their effect -- which certainly isn't going to be overnight. Once they do take effect, the scarcity of oil will be reduced and we can actually stop relying on drilling in the ANWR and other places.

Raising gas taxes will only make the price of gas higher. People don't want all this R&D put into something where they may not see the result for years. People want the price of gas lowered, and now.

Perhaps you don't understand, prices can't come down, because the demand is outstripping supply. We have projected energy growth requirements of 3% a year. Presently the world burns 80 Million Barrels per Day (BPD) and only has a mere 2 Million BPD spare capacity, ALL in Saudi Arabia.

That means next year we will require 82.4 Million BPD's. The growth of oil reserves is expected to be about 1% or 82.82 Million BPD's.

Take a guess what happens the year after that. And that's not factoring in Field Production capabilities. Currently the Saudi Fields are 40 years old, they can only produce a set ammount of oil for so long before their output begins to decline due to pressure loss. That pressure then needs to be remade with some other source (generally sea water). But that only helps for so long. Those fields have been 'helped' for a fairly substantial time now.

In addition take into account, why did the Saudi's cut production? The stated goal of OPEC is to maintain 26$ a barrel oil. It's currently above 30$ a barrel (I thought 35 but I can't confirm that at moment). Why is Bush, a huge oil industry proponent pushing fuel cells and alternative energy sources and desperately trying to drill ANWR? Why do all OPEC member never report a decline in reserves despite pumping at capacity year after year?

Add it all together and we have some serious problems around the corner.

1. Allow drilling in ANWR and relax rule and regulations reguarding oil prospecting and driling.

2. Bring all troops American home and reduce size of the American military to a force that can defend America, in America, and only for America. Sell the surplus oil that this will save into the private market.

3. Reduce oil taxes on federal and state levels.

4. Reduce regulation and taxes on companies which develop alternative fuels technologies.

I like all but #1.

I hate all but #1.The only one of the four that addresses the long term problem is number 4--the rest of them are all crappy suggestions.

Face it--we're running out of oil and sooner rather than later. Forget prices for a minute--we're running out of it, period. We've got to start looking beyond our own asses and start planning for alternatives. Conservationists started talking about it 35 years ago and people were worried then--we're in a crisis now. There are two good options--more conservation and more work on alternatives.

Freindly Humans, we really should talk sometime. If you have been following the work of Simmons, ASPO and the like, there could be a really good energy discussion in this.

Here, if anyone feels like reading all the old energy resources battles, this was the definitive thread last autumn:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66091

Raising gas taxes will only make the price of gas higher. People don't want all this R&D put into something where they may not see the result for years. People want the price of gas lowered, and now.Personally, I don't give a crap if people don't want higher gas prices. We in the US have been living large on cheap gas for decades, and now that we're getting popped a little, we're crying like babies with skinned knees. I've got one thing to say to these people in their suburbia Hummers--don't bitch at me because it costs you a c-note to fill your tank up with premium. Should have thought about that back when you bought the damn thing.

If Congress had just stuck to the CAFE standards they mandated afer the oil embargo in the 70s, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because we wouldn't be importing nearly as much oil as we are. And I venture to say that more than a few US soldiers would still be alive today as a result.

I want more research and development into renewable and alternative energy. But I also present a glaring reality: I cannot afford a $20,000+ new car with fuel-cell technology! The most I have spent for a car in my life has been $1,650 (other than the truck my parents bought for me for $2,300 when I was sixteen). Here is another glaring reality: I cannot afford to move to a place with good public transit! I do not want to move to any of those places, anyway. So renewable and alternative fuels are great for the grist mill of the rich, perhaps, but not for us lower middle class and working class people. My car may not get 40 mpg, but it runs, and it gets me from home to work. ~ Michael.

Freindly Humans, we really should talk sometime. If you have been following the work of Simmons, ASPO and the like, there could be a really good energy discussion in this.

I was first introduced to peak oil about a month or two ago.
Here was my first site (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

I joined ROE2 a week or two ago and just made my second post on the subject. ROE (Running on Empty) is a yahoogroups list about Peak Oil.

To be honest I never really thought about the subject before, nowadays it gives me interesting insights into energy politics and our current campaign in Iraq. The hysteria related to a potential 'die-off' event jives very nicely with other things I've been doing lately. Mainly it accelerated my desire to learn everything I could about everything. This summer I'm planning on taking courses in welding and agriculture at my local JC. The Fall I'm planning on taking science classes (which will help should I find a way to go back to school for a engineering degree).

1. Allow drilling in ANWR and relax rules and regulations reguarding oil prospecting and driling.

2. Bring all American troops home and reduce size of the American military to a force that can defend America, in America, and only for America. Sell the surplus oil that this will save into the private market.

3. Reduce oil taxes on federal and state levels.

4. Reduce regulation and taxes on companies which develop alternative fuels technologies.


The only one of the four that addresses the long term problem is number 4--the rest of them are all crappy suggestions.

Face it--we're running out of oil and sooner rather than later. Forget prices for a minute--we're running out of it, period. We've got to start looking beyond our own asses and start planning for alternatives. Conservationists started talking about it 35 years ago and people were worried then--we're in a crisis now. There are two good options--more conservation and more work on alternatives.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, but my "crappy" suggestions are only intended to support the current infrastructure in place today while research and development on alternatives is carried out and implemented. Finding sources of oil might be short term, but that short term need to keep the current infrastructure running -- the very infrastructure that will create and develop alternative fuels technologies -- is very important.

We can pretend that these technologies can be developed, tested, distributed and installed overnight, but that would be pure fantasy. The fact of the matter is, our current infrastructure needs oil. Period.

Measures #1, 2, and 3 are intended to meet this need while humanity is working its collective tail off on #4. Again, once (EDIT: alternative fuels technologies are fully developed and in use), the other three are no longer necessary and can go right out the window. :D

(EDIT: all of them out the window except for the "bring the American troops home" bit of course)

I want more research and development into renewable and alternative energy. But I also present a glaring reality: I cannot afford a $20,000+ new car with fuel-cell technology! The most I have spent for a car in my life has been $1,650 (other than the truck my parents bought for me for $2,300 when I was sixteen). Here is another glaring reality: I cannot afford to move to a place with good public transit! I do not want to move to any of those places, anyway. So renewable and alternative fuels are great for the grist mill of the rich, perhaps, but not for us lower middle class and working class people. My car may not get 40 mpg, but it runs, and it gets me from home to work. ~ Michael.

Yes, but the idea is that as technology regarding alternative energy becomes more and more refined, it will cost less and less.

I was first introduced to peak oil about a month or two ago.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Here was my first site

I joined ROE2 a week or two ago and just made my second post on the subject. ROE (Running on Empty) is a yahoogroups list about Peak Oil.

To be honest I never really thought about the subject before, nowadays it gives me interesting insights into energy politics and our current campaign in Iraq. The hysteria related to a potential 'die-off' event jives very nicely with other things I've been doing lately. Mainly it accelerated my desire to learn everything I could about everything. This summer I'm planning on taking courses in welding and agriculture at my local JC. The Fall I'm planning on taking science classes (which will help should I find a way to go back to school for a engineering degree).
Ah cool. I'm in ROE2 and energyresources as Wave_Effect, but I'm mainly a lurker. No time, hehe. I have read all the usual sites and books, Tainter's theory of complexity is a decent resource too, you should look it up if you haven't come across it. I guess I would put myself into the Campbell crowd, rather than the optimist camp. I reckon serious problems in the US by 2010, collapse of industrial civilisation around 2020.

I've been interested in this stuff for years, I'm doing an electrical engineering degree too at the moment. I reckon no understanding of geopolitics is possible without an understanding of energy resources and systems. So yeah. It's all good.

I want more research and development into renewable and alternative energy. But I also present a glaring reality: I cannot afford a $20,000+ new car with fuel-cell technology! The most I have spent for a car in my life has been $1,650 (other than the truck my parents bought for me for $2,300 when I was sixteen). Here is another glaring reality: I cannot afford to move to a place with good public transit! I do not want to move to any of those places, anyway. So renewable and alternative fuels are great for the grist mill of the rich, perhaps, but not for us lower middle class and working class people. My car may not get 40 mpg, but it runs, and it gets me from home to work. ~ Michael.Yes, but the idea is that as technology regarding alternative energy becomes more and more refined, it will cost less and less.It remains to be seen whether high gas mileage will endure in hybrid cars over five to ten years old. Will hybrids age gracefully? ~ Michael.

MC--I still think your first three suggestions aren't very sound--crappy was a bit rude, sorry, Here's why.

First off, ANWR isn't the gold mine that oil companies are making it out to be. The long term ecological damage that would be done to extract a small amount of oil makes drilling unwise, especially when you factor in that we wouldn't get a drop out of there for ten years.

Reducing the size of the US military to simply a defense force isn't realistic. It's politically impossible, for starters, and we have too many defense commitments to get any smaller than we already are. I would actually argue that we've damaged our armed forces by outsourcing so many of the logistical and supply line services that the forces used to handle themselves, but that's another discussion.

Reducing federal and state taxes on petroleum will indeed lower gas prices, but where do we make up the funds from? We're already running a half trillion dollar federal deficit, and most of the states are hurting as well. Oil and gas taxes almost always go toward road construction and repair, and our nation's infrastructure is in bad enough shape already without depriving it of more funding. The equation is pretty simple--we can't afford to make up for the funds from elsewhere and we can't afford to go without, so the taxes have to stay.

Reducing the size of the US military to simply a defense force isn't realistic. It's politically impossible, for starters, and we have too many defense commitments to get any smaller than we already are. I would actually argue that we've damaged our armed forces by outsourcing so many of the logistical and supply line services that the forces used to handle themselves, but that's another discussion.


The political obstacle is indeed very large, however, there are plenty of people working on it. Even drastically reducing our oil consumption with conservation isn't likely to happen by this measure, given the current political situation. But, simply throwing our hands in the air and giving up is certainly not a solution.

As for defense commitments...so what? If a nation cannot stand on it own and defend itself from threats, then it does not deserve to stand at all. It is not the job of the U.S. Military to protect other nations. Only the United States.


Reducing federal and state taxes on petroleum will indeed lower gas prices, but where do we make up the funds from? We're already running a half trillion dollar federal deficit, and most of the states are hurting as well.


The funds are made up from that which we save by not having a huge military running all over the globe. The U.S. defense budget is absolutely HUGE -- reducing that and reallocating the savings would certainly make up for whatever relatively small amount is lost from the elimination of oil taxes...in fact, there is likely to be enough left over to supply the people with a healthy tax refund too...which can be used to garner support for such a move in the first place.

Here is an idea,
ALternative Gas Pricing,

SUV's pay for gas at a higher rate than say Little fuel effieicing cars, and Motorcycles pay the least.

SUV's pay for gas at a higher rate than say Little fuel effieicing cars, and Motorcycles pay the least.

How do we keep track of who has to pay what, and how much will such an agency cost? Post a man in a suit at every gas pump in the nation?

The political obstacle is indeed very large, however, there are plenty of people working on it. Even drastically reducing our oil consumption with conservation isn't likely to happen by this measure, given the current political situation. But, simply throwing our hands in the air and giving up is certainly not a solution.

As for defense commitments...so what? If a nation cannot stand on it own and defend itself from threats, then it does not deserve to stand at all. It is not the job of the U.S. Military to protect other nations. Only the United States.

But it is in the national interest to see a safer and more peaceful world. We benefit enormously from the prosperity of other nations and are harmed when they suffer. A prosperous global economy does benefit everyone--that's part of the reason that there hasn't been a head on conflict between superpowers since WWII--it's bad for business. The money we spend guaranteeing the security of other countries is more than made up by the economics of peace.

The funds are made up from that which we save by not having a huge military running all over the globe. The U.S. defense budget is absolutely HUGE -- reducing that and reallocating the savings would certainly make up for whatever relatively small amount is lost from the elimination of oil taxes...in fact, there is likely to be enough left over to supply the people with a healthy tax refund too...which can be used to garner support for such a move in the first place.I thinkwe're just going to have to disagree on this because not only am I not in favor of reducing the defense budget--although I'd like a lot more spent on soldiers and a lot less spent on boondoggles like missile defense--I'm not in favor of reducing taxes. I think we need higher taxes, especially on upper income earners. I also think we need to revamp the payroll tax system, lowering the rate but removing the cap, or at least tripling it from its current level. But that's another discussion completely.

My Vote is...

NUKE the bejesus out of them and then we wont have and more problems down there.

SUV's pay for gas at a higher rate than say Little fuel effieicing cars, and Motorcycles pay the least.

How do we keep track of who has to pay what, and how much will such an agency cost? Post a man in a suit at every gas pump in the nation?

Not to mention that it would be illegal most likely because of the 14th Amendment.

The money we spend guaranteeing the security of other countries is more than made up by the economics of peace.


Unfortunately, the spreading of our troops all over the world has not brought peace, but only war. Korea, Vietnam, South America, Cold War standoffs, both wars in Iraq...

If being the "world police" actually helped to stabilize the world and bring peace, then I might agree. But from what I have observed, from history and my own lifetime, it is doing the exact opposite.

The money we spend guaranteeing the security of other countries is more than made up by the economics of peace.


Unfortunately, the spreading of our troops all over the world has not brought peace, but only war. Korea, Vietnam, South America, Cold War standoffs, both wars in Iraq...

If being the "world police" actually helped to stabilize the world and bring peace, then I might agree. But from what I have observed, from history and my own lifetime, it is doing the exact opposite.

Oh, in case you were wondering the actual numbers we've spent on the DoD lately.

This is WITH supplemental budgetary increases!
And remember '04 is simply projected, it probably won't decrease, but it could INCREASE.
'04: 462
'03: 445
'02: 346
'01: 317

The United stateses Model of "Do whatever we feel like As long as It benefits us" Is not sustainable.

Interestin Side note: The U.S spends more on the Military now than During the cold war.

DP

Unfortunately, the spreading of our troops all over the world has not brought peace, but only war. Korea, Vietnam, South America, Cold War standoffs, both wars in Iraq...

If being the "world police" actually helped to stabilize the world and bring peace, then I might agree. But from what I have observed, from history and my own lifetime, it is doing the exact opposite.I guess it all depends on how you look at it. Korea has actually worked out well for the South Koreans thus far. Their economy is in good shape, or at least it was--these things change so quickly--but the boom can be credited in part to the fact that the South Koreans weren't having to worry so much about going it alone against their cousins to the north. The one success story we're having in Iraq--the Kurds--have succeeded because we guaranteed their protection from Saddam (with the no-fly zones) and let them build their own economy and society. The places we've screwed up, we've screwed up because we've tried to impose our own systems on them instead of just letting them build their own societies. That's what I'm taking about--admittedly, that's not the situation right now, but it could be in the future.

SUV's pay for gas at a higher rate than say Little fuel effieicing cars, and Motorcycles pay the least.

How do we keep track of who has to pay what, and how much will such an agency cost? Post a man in a suit at every gas pump in the nation?

Make a ten foot roof for SUV pumps, five foot roof for little cars and a four foot roof for motorcycles. And make the hoses short.

The money we spend guaranteeing the security of other countries is more than made up by the economics of peace.


Unfortunately, the spreading of our troops all over the world has not brought peace, but only war. Korea, Vietnam, South America, Cold War standoffs, both wars in Iraq....

Germany, Japan...

The money we spend guaranteeing the security of other countries is more than made up by the economics of peace.Unfortunately, the spreading of our troops all over the world has not brought peace, but only war. Korea, Vietnam, South America, Cold War standoffs, both wars in Iraq....You know the saying, "Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it." Then you should have figured out by now that nothing will end war. War does not end war. Neither does war beget war. There is war, and there is peace, and how you wage war and keep the peace determines how much time will transpire between wars. We have had wars ever since Cain slew Abel, and we will continue to have wars until Jesus Christ's return. You may not agree with me and my religious point of view, but you should have learned by now that wars have occurred since the dawn of recorded history, and none of your efforts can stop war altogether. ~ Michael.