Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[Arrian]

Far more damaging would be to make oil worth a whole lot less (to us, at least). That's a long-term project, though, and far less sexy than aircraft carriers.

Oil prices will stabilize and/or drop, we will forget, and the alternative energy programs' funding will dry up. Rinse, repeat.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

So what's this? A trip to the circular logic village?

Welcome to Osama world.

Oil prices will stabilize and/or drop, we will forget, and the alternative energy programs' funding will dry up. Rinse, repeat.

I suppose that depends on how cheap those alternatives get before then.

[Arrian]

And even if I do recognize that our foreign policy is the cause, doesn't mean in the big picture that policy is not correct.

Am I supposed to destroy my economy to satisfy a group of disaffected upper class muslim wannabe revolutionaries?

No, of course not. You might consider, however, policies that do not destroy our economy (but perhaps harm it a little) and help remove popular support for the disaffected upper class muslim wannabe revolutionaries.

It's not as simple as run away vs. stay, as I think you'll agree.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

It's not as simple as run away vs. stay, as I think you'll agree.

Absolutely agree. But that is the a problem when you have 300 million people all wanting a different FP, especially since once someone does something like "hurt our economy a little" they will be replaced in the next year or two by someone who will do the opposite.

[Arrian]

Yes - consistency in FP is difficult when you're a democracy. That's an irritating problem to be sure.

Which is all the more reason, IMO, to concentrate on reducing our oil dependency. That will cost money, thus "hurting our economy a little" but it's something we have more control over than events in the rest of the world.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I can't understand why any candidate isn't making this the linchpin of their candidacy. Emphasizing (ala Kennedy pronouncement that we will be on the moon by the end of the decade) energy independence goals as the key to strategic foreign policy and security initiatives. It appeals to all stripes consies and has some bones for the greenies. The only people hating it would be big oil and automakers who should view as opportunities to diversify and gain share.

Yes I realize it is a bit off and that technical challenges exist but....

[Arrian]

Anyway, Guiliani has always taken this line re: 9/11. He's the guy who was refusing money from wealthy Arabs in the wake of the attacks, remember?

It's a much more politically viable position than "they hate us because we've bombed the **** out of them, occupied their countries, supported Israel, etc."

Duh.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

It's not like going to the moon wasn't technically challenging...

Then again, that was far sexier and was a pride thing with the Russkies.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

The space race was entirely in the hands of the government. Or yours if your a president.

This initiative relies on consumer choices. The oh so consistent and logical American consumer. How are SUV sales this year?

[Arrian]

The gummint can influence those consumer choices, of course (having said that, I just lost the conservatives, I know).

If we view reducing oil consumption as a foreign policy goal as well as an economic one, then gummint involvement makes sense.

I'm not sold on ethanol, but that's not the only option. More funding for research, more subsidies/tax breaks for emerging technologies, etc. Yes, it'll cost money. I'm up for it.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

From a national security and strategic importance role one can easily see how this could be sold to even consies like myself.

As long as the lefties don't get their opportunities to use it as a means to bash industry and limit growth. The energy independence initiative needs to be done such that it isn't all about conservation but that it also means marked investment and incentivizing other energy as a top national priority.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian
Far more damaging would be to make oil worth a whole lot less (to us, at least). That's a long-term project, though, and far less sexy than aircraft carriers.

Oil prices will stabilize and/or drop, we will forget, and the alternative energy programs' funding will dry up. Rinse, repeat.

-Arrian

That's the real problem I think. People in the 1970's were serious about conservation and greater energy efficiency then oil prices dropped in the 80's and everyone forgot. Now we're back to high oil prices and suddenly everyone has new interest.

[PLATO]

Utter ignorance on so many brainwashed lefties here.

Go read Osama's own words in AQ's manifesto.

They are killing us because we are not muslim, have power, and keep them from imposing islamic law on all of us.

That's their position on things...not Bush's. Bush just happens to agree with it.

The lefties live in a fantasy world where everything can be solved by talking it out. Would be fantastic if it were true. Unfortunately, the fact is that these people do not want us to talk...they want us to die or surrender.

Thanks to you fantasylanders, they are winning. Hope you have a nice prayer rug.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Now we're back to high oil prices and suddenly everyone has new interest.

People SHOULD have renewed interest because as they look at the suppliers of foreign oil they have marked animus towards the US. Price of gas may be something for Joe Shmoe who doesn't follow international news to get his panties in a bunch about. But allowing your livlihood and fate to be in the hands of your declared enemies is another kettle of fish.

[Dinner]

I agree. Arrian and I were saying the hard part is keeping up interest in conservation and improving efficiency when oil prices fall. In the 1970's everyone wanted to push up CAFE and improve energy efficiency then once oil prices fell the US slowly slipped backwards. The best year for fuel economy in the US was 1987 and we've been going down ever since because Trucks, SUVs, and Vans aren't included in the CAFE numbers or at least have their own separate accounting system.

We'd greatly improve our energy position if we could just restore the standards we met in 1987.