quote:

Originally posted by LegalAcidity:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaBuckeye311:
Brazil is totally dependant on Ethanol. Thats nothing new to know.

I'm not saying that they're not. All I'm asking for is a link so that I can read about it. I figured that if you highly intelligent folks already knew about it, you would easily be able to point me in the right direction.

If we were highly intelligent like you thought you would take us on our word without a link.

quote:

Originally posted by LegalAcidity:

quote:

Originally posted by RollTideBamaPride:
nice article from nytimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/americas/10braz...=5088&partner=rssnyt

Thanks! And also, another thanks for not being arrogant about it.

no prob, i could be wrong about 100% of cars running on ethanol, but I know they have enough for that to happen.

That's a great article. They're not at 100% but they're getting there. Can you imagine how the U.S. could help speed up the processes they have in place in Brazil if we were to knock down the barriers currently in place?

Sure, it would cost billions at the beginning, but imagine where we'd be 20 or 30 years from now.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaBuckeye311:

quote:

Originally posted by LegalAcidity:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaBuckeye311:
Brazil is totally dependant on Ethanol. Thats nothing new to know.

I'm not saying that they're not. All I'm asking for is a link so that I can read about it. I figured that if you highly intelligent folks already knew about it, you would easily be able to point me in the right direction.

If we were highly intelligent like you thought you would take us on our word without a link.

Sorry, don't take the "word" of people I don't even know. Besides, how can I spread the frutiful knowledge of the bountiful sugar cane without all the facts?

quote:

Originally posted by LegalAcidity:
That's a great article. They're not at 100% but they're getting there. Can you imagine how the U.S. could help speed up the processes they have in place in Brazil if we were to knock down the barriers currently in place?

Sure, it would cost billions at the beginning, but imagine where we'd be 20 or 30 years from now.

yeah, i see that. billions to make our own fuel. wow, billions! can you imagine? a billion dollars? how about a TRILLION? or how about nearly $420 trillion? can you imagine how much MONEY the war in Iraq cost. WOW! where's all that money coming from? how about 3300 dead U.S. soldiers? can you imagine? how about every month we are in Iraq those numbers continue to increase. NOW, do you see why there is urgency to GET OUT!?!?!?!
No offense to you legalacidity. but my point was NOT the fuel in Brazil. My point is, we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons, and it's time to get out!

quote:

Originally posted by RollTideBamaPride:

quote:

Originally posted by peytonloveskenny:
What do you propose we do? Just pull out? That could be more dangerous than staying the course.

An unstable Iraq threatens the entire region. Interruption to the Middle Eastern oil flow could have severe economic consequences for us, not to mention the terrorist threat an anarchic Iraq could breed.

Maybe we shouldn't have gone in, but it's too late to not go in now. I believe we have to stay until we finish the job. Pulling out now may cause the situation in that country to deteriorate to such a point that we are required to return under much worse circumstances than we face now.

wow, do you ever sound brain-washed! Iraq is never going to be stable as long as we are there!....

A few weeks ago, I started a thread titled "Why do you conservatives like W. Bush so much?" Another fact which may surprise you: I never believed W. made the case for invading Iraq, a necessary prerequisite for obtaining my support for this military intervention. However, we are there now, and pulling out precipitously only threatens to push an already unstable country into anarchy.

Can you assure me that if we pull out now that we won't be forced to return within a few years to neutralize a far worse situation than that which currently confronts us? Talk of ethanol is mere avoidance of the true issue; to think we can walk away from this mess, in so critical a geopolitical arena as Iraq, without suffering severe consequences for doing so is a pipe dream. Perhaps the reticence of many Democrats on the issue of complete withdrawal belies the fact that they do understand the dangers of such a course of action. It would be great if we could just walk away from the situation, but we cannot. Iraq is the sort of problem that, if ignored, will not go away. Avoidance, in this case, only allows the problem to get bigger.

Voltrontide, the time to "draw the line" was a long time ago. I truly hope this topic stays bumped for a while so people will have a chance to read some of my thoughts. I also hope that Republican readers don't take this the wrong way. I feel that many Republicans have been misinformed from some sources of "news." If only one Republican will read this and consider if they are voting for the "right" people I will be happy. You CAN be Christian, Conservative, and Democrat. Christ is my Lord and Savior, nothing comes before Him. I don't believe J.C. would be in favor of this war, but that's not for me to determine, nor you. I am "conservative" I believe in conserving our wildlife and environment, I love hunting, I believe in traditional values and marriage, but again I don't think it is my duty to judge or tell people who they can/can't love. If God doesn't want us to be gay He will have His judgement day. I don't believe abortion should be legal, but it is, and as I said before Bush hasn't done anything about it, and God will judge us all. I also don't believe in political wars. Wars that cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, but more importantly cost our best people their lives. I know when George H. W. Bush was President, America had the biggest national deficit in it's 200 year history. Then Clinton became President and passed the Balanced Budget Act. He thought when he left office, the budget would be on the right track. He didn't know that the budget would be Balanced after only 6 years! Now, after 6 1/2 years of G. W. Bush we again have the largest deficit in our history.
To the people that voted for Bush, ask yourself honestly, what has he done for YOU? Do you truly believe that America is a better place now than it was 7 years ago? Do you truly believe that it will get better with another Republican president? As I'm asking these questions, I don't know how you could say 'yes.' I know politics is a touchy subject, but I just HOPE some of you will see what I see.

quote:

A few weeks ago, I started a thread titled "Why do you conservatives like W. Bush so much?" Another fact which may surprise you: I never believed W. made the case for invading Iraq, a necessary prerequisite for obtaining my support for this military intervention. However, we are there now, and pulling out precipitously only threatens to push an already unstable country into anarchy.

Can you assure me that if we pull out now that we won't be forced to return within a few years to neutralize a far worse situation than that which currently confronts us? Talk of ethanol is mere avoidance of the true issue; to think we can walk away from this mess, in so critical a geopolitical arena as Iraq, without suffering severe consequences for doing so is a pipe dream. Perhaps the reticence of many Democrats on the issue of complete withdrawal belies the fact that they do understand the dangers of such a course of action. It would be great if we could just walk away from the situation, but we cannot. Iraq is the sort of problem that, if ignored, will not go away. Avoidance, in this case, only allows the problem to get bigger.

No, I can not assure you that pulling out of Iraq will lead to Anarchy in Iraq... and I hate to answer a question with a question, BUT... Why do you care if there is anarchy in Iraq?
There is Anarchy in several countries in this world. and don't tell me it's because Iraq can house terrorism, because I can name you 10 countries that are in constant war, that "could house terrorism." the fact is, terrorism is here, if the terrorists aren't in Iraq, they are somewhere else, right? We have to defend ourselves from terrorism, that is critical. unfortunately, the U.S. has spent hundreds of trillions of dollars essentially policing a civil war in a relatively insignificant country. meanwhile we have had to decrease intelligence spending, and our true threat Iran is making WMDs and spitting in our faces while they do it. We have to fight terrorism the same way we have done for years, with intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by RollTideBamaPride:
... Why do you care if there is anarchy in Iraq? There is Anarchy in several countries in this world. and don't tell me it's because Iraq can house terrorism, because I can name you 10 countries that are in constant war, that "could house terrorism."....unfortunately, the U.S. has spent hundreds of trillions of dollars essentially policing a civil war in a relatively insignificant country....

Iraq's strategic significance is a little greater than 'relatively insignificant'. Terrorism, oil, the threat to Israel, WMDs, its location at a strategic global crossroads and in the middle of the most volatile spot on Earth....these all are reasons for America to care what happens there. As far as the terrorist issue goes, I'm less concerned with Iraq 'housing' terrorism than with its 'manufacturing' terrorism. If we are to 'drain the swamps' that breed terrorism, abandoning Iraq right now would be akin to leaving the Everglades unattended. Anarchy in this nation threatens to spill over and destabilize the rest of the region. If that happens, all the intelligence in the world isn't going to help us.

You wish to apply a non-military solution to what I believe is essentially a military problem. I don't dispute that it was Bush's mismanagement of the diplomatic and political situation that turned Iraq into a military problem. For a few years now, our nation has sought military solutions where soft-power alternatives would be wiser. However, it is what it is, and containing the fallout within Iraq's borders is going to be extremely difficult to do, even if we remain in the country. The job becomes exponentially more difficult if we pull out.

quote:

Originally posted by HowULvn:
Stay until we finish what job? What is the job we are trying to finish in Iraq? I think that's the problem we have no vision for the outcome. These people hate each other and certainly hate us. At this point this isn't a war to be won....

Of course, the job is to create a civil government that has popular support across the political spectrum. It will take time for such a system to take root after the debilitating reign of Saddam. As of a year ago, the timeline for completing the job was put at 10 years, though most of our forces were expected to be withdrawn in 3 to 5 years.

The problem, as I see it, is that insufficient resources were provided to do the job, thereby jeopardizing the outcome. The war was very ‘winnable’, had we committed enough resources from the start. Now, the question may be one of minimizing our losses. I believe that can be best accomplished by staying the course in Iraq while that nation’s nascent government gains its footing.

quote:

Originally posted by RollTideBamaPride:

quote:

Originally posted by LegalAcidity:
That's a great article. They're not at 100% but they're getting there. Can you imagine how the U.S. could help speed up the processes they have in place in Brazil if we were to knock down the barriers currently in place?

Sure, it would cost billions at the beginning, but imagine where we'd be 20 or 30 years from now.

yeah, i see that. billions to make our own fuel. wow, billions! can you imagine? a billion dollars? how about a TRILLION? or how about nearly $420 trillion? can you imagine how much MONEY the war in Iraq cost. WOW! where's all that money coming from? how about 3300 dead U.S. soldiers? can you imagine? how about every month we are in Iraq those numbers continue to increase. NOW, do you see why there is urgency to GET OUT!?!?!?!
No offense to you legalacidity. but my point was NOT the fuel in Brazil. My point is, we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons, and it's time to get out!

Belittle much? Message to you: I get that you're FIRED UP about what's going on in Iraq. POINT TAKEN. I was able to deduce that you think we should GET OUT of Iraq by your INITIAL POST. No offense to you, RollTideBamaPride, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it. I haven't even disagreed with you!

You brought up fuel in Brazil; I asked a few questions about it; you reciprocated with an article at my request. I commented on the article in a positive light and you decide to blast me? My comments about the Brazil situation had nothing to do with Iraq. What, exactly, is your problem? (And please...no long rants about how your PROBLEM is the WAR in IRAQ, ok?)

quote:

Originally posted by LegalAcidity:

quote:

Originally posted by RollTideBamaPride:

quote:

Originally posted by LegalAcidity:
That's a great article. They're not at 100% but they're getting there. Can you imagine how the U.S. could help speed up the processes they have in place in Brazil if we were to knock down the barriers currently in place?

Sure, it would cost billions at the beginning, but imagine where we'd be 20 or 30 years from now.

yeah, i see that. billions to make our own fuel. wow, billions! can you imagine? a billion dollars? how about a TRILLION? or how about nearly $420 trillion? can you imagine how much MONEY the war in Iraq cost. WOW! where's all that money coming from? how about 3300 dead U.S. soldiers? can you imagine? how about every month we are in Iraq those numbers continue to increase. NOW, do you see why there is urgency to GET OUT!?!?!?!
No offense to you legalacidity. but my point was NOT the fuel in Brazil. My point is, we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons, and it's time to get out!

Belittle much? Message to you: I get that you're FIRED UP about what's going on in Iraq. POINT TAKEN. I was able to deduce that you think we should GET OUT of Iraq by your INITIAL POST. No offense to you, RollTideBamaPride, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it. I haven't even disagreed with you!

You brought up fuel in Brazil; I asked a few questions about it; you reciprocated with an article at my request. I commented on the article in a positive light and you decide to blast me? My comments about the Brazil situation had nothing to do with Iraq. What, exactly, is your problem? (And please...no long rants about how your PROBLEM is the WAR in IRAQ, ok?)

that post wasn't meant for you at all, legal acidity. It was meant for people to read and see that, even though, yes, it would be expensive to change from oil to ethanol, the cost would never even begin to be what this war is costing. again, the post had nothing to do with you, or brazil. i just don't want people to miss my point.

quote:

Originally posted by peytonloveskenny:

quote:

Originally posted by RollTideBamaPride:
... Why do you care if there is anarchy in Iraq? There is Anarchy in several countries in this world. and don't tell me it's because Iraq can house terrorism, because I can name you 10 countries that are in constant war, that "could house terrorism."....unfortunately, the U.S. has spent hundreds of trillions of dollars essentially policing a civil war in a relatively insignificant country....

Iraq's strategic significance is a little greater than 'relatively insignificant'. Terrorism, oil, the threat to Israel, WMDs, its location at a strategic global crossroads and in the middle of the most volatile spot on Earth....these all are reasons for America to care what happens there. As far as the terrorist issue goes, I'm less concerned with Iraq 'housing' terrorism than with its 'manufacturing' terrorism. If we are to 'drain the swamps' that breed terrorism, abandoning Iraq right now would be akin to leaving the Everglades unattended. Anarchy in this nation threatens to spill over and destabilize the rest of the region. If that happens, all the intelligence in the world isn't going to help us.

You wish to apply a non-military solution to what I believe is essentially a military problem. I don't dispute that it was Bush's mismanagement of the diplomatic and political situation that turned Iraq into a military problem. For a few years now, our nation has sought military solutions where soft-power alternatives would be wiser. However, it is what it is, and containing the fallout within Iraq's borders is going to be extremely difficult to do, even if we remain in the country. The job becomes exponentially more difficult if we pull out.

you asked me if I can assure you that there will not be anarchy in Iraq. can you assure me that there will be??? one thing that i can assure you is that if we stay in Iraq, and continue to send American soldiers to Iraq, is that more Americans WILL BE KILLED. THAT I can "assure" you. I'm just saying, I don't want that on my conscious. Why is it costing us a trillion dollars to fight these people. If Iraq does begin to knowingly "manufacture terrorism" all we have to do is find out where this is happening and drop a $50,000 bomb on the compound where the "manufacturing" is occurring. I have no problem with that at all!