Just a few thoughts about the U.S. looking for a fight with Iran. Going to take the name of who gave this interview more than a few years ago out.

***************************************

Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Answer: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

***************************************

Sound kinda familiar? Name an enemy, scare the populace. Tell them without war, we're under siege or just waiting for disaster from this enemy, tell them if they're NOT for going on the war path you are un-patriotic. Worked in Iraq, I just hope it doesn't work so well going forward against Iran.

Oh, and btw, the man who was interview, Hermann Goering. If that doesn't at LEAST make you think, then I worry about our future as a nation.

Kevin,

I'm totally happy that the Pack is rocking. Perfect Pack season being that the once-might Bear are faltering....Pack rocking the NFC and the one loss they have is against the Bear. If we can't be 7 and 1, I'm happy you are, with that 1 being against us.

And on the energy thing: I'm SURE you are more right than me, and I HOPE that companies you're investing in have products that will help us get away from oil! Keeping my fingers crossed and hoping.

People do vote, problem is, all our choices SUCK, a butt, a big butt. Where is a Kennedy, a Reagen, even a Clinton when our country needs it? Gah, sucks to be us.

Iraq: handled poorly, agreed. And I agree that Iran will back down, eventually. But thank the lord that Bush is gone in a year....or you KNOW he'd be heading that direction....FAST!

Oh, yeah, and how about those Packers!!!

If the war in Iraq and a possible war in Iran are about oil, while is oil creeping toward $100 a barrel and why are the financial pundits talking like we'll see $200. If the conflicts in the ME are only about oil, then somebody is screwing up.

EA, you're constantly spouting this nonsense about SUV's and how all Americans care about is their stuff. You need to find a woman, get married and have a family. Spend some time a your kid's school talking to people who have families. Most people like their "stuff", but that isn't what drives their lives. Sorry, buddy, you're reciting worn out cliches, and you sound like a communist.

Now that you're one of the landed class, I suggest you build the biggest McMansion you can possibly afford on your lot. You might as well maximize your investment. I guarantee that's what everybody that follows you up from IL in the next 20 years is going to do. But I suppose you'll just build a quaint little cabin and be pulling a row boat with a Prius because you're so high minded?

Andrew, people vote. The turn out in the last presidential election was enormous. The next one will be even bigger. Bush and Co. will be gone, and most likely you'll get Hillary. I just threw up in my mouth thinking about it.

As far as alternative energy, oil at $100+ a barrel will drive that, and the free market will respond. It already is starting. Type in the following stocks in Yahoo Finance. FSLR, ESLR, STP, JASO, and there's more. These companies make solar power panels and other solar power equipment. Look at what those stocks have done in the last 6 months. Hell, look what they've done in the last two WEEKS, when oil neared $100. What do you think will happen when its $200? These are growth companies, and their tremendous earning increases prove it. Europe is leading the way implementing this tech, and we'll be next. It's already happening in the SW and in CA. College campuses, banks, etc., are buying these products because it makes sense.

U.S. developed technology is going to drive that growth. The technological advances are mostly going to come from this country. Bank on it. Advances in nanotechnology, material sciences, biomedical breakthroughs, etc., mostly take place here. We are not falling behind. I've been researching all this stuff over the last month or so, because I'm trying to find some cutting edge companies to invest in, precisely because this country is where high tech moves forward.

The war in Iraq was handled poorly. Things have been improving there, however. I doubt there will be a war with Iran. They'll back down on the nuclear shit, because China and Russia will tell them they have too. They have too much invested there. If we do go to war in Iran, oil may go to $250 per barrel, and then where's you're war for oil theory?

Wasn't that the plotline of that great Val Kilmer/Elizabeth Shue movie, "The Saint?" We saw how that turned out.

*Huh? Rotten movie. Rotten rotten rotten. Even worse than "Save the Last Dance" or "Dirty Dancing"! Gah, rotten movie. Away you with your rotten movie comments.

>>The incentive is ALREADY there. Whatever person/firm/company comes up with a viable alternative to oil will catapault instantly to fame and fortune, they will become the richest and most powerful entity the world has ever known.

Wasn't that the plotline of that great Val Kilmer/Elizabeth Shue movie, "The Saint?" We saw how that turned out.

I don't think war is the only answer, I don't think it's the best answer. I do think it's the only answer that the public will be willing to buy into, however. You start trying to redefine success in a world of McMansions and $70,000 SUV's and you'll get laughed right out of town. Asking people who worhip their things, who use the posession of those things as a barometer of success, asking them to redefine what has value, reevaluate how we live our lives or our place in the world? I don't see that going well.

The answer must come from a shift in cultural values, from a desire to be the best, from true pride in who we are and what we can accomplish. Right now we can't even get people off their fat asses to go vote, let alone actually learn anything, strive to be anything, or make any difference in the world. I don't have the answer, but I know being lazy, ignorant, complacent, and walking around with a false sense of entitlement isn;t going to get us there.

*I agree. Where I dont agree that the incentive is there to come up with a viable alternative fuel is there (too much power at too many levels to ALLOW that to happen), I do agree to win the in global economy we HAVE TO SHIFT our populace's view on accomplishment. Is new and different leadership at the top, the answer? Do you think a Kennedy of today would spur the populace like he did in 1960 to greatness? Ask not what your PSP can do for you, but what you can do for your country?

Please tell me as a person who cares, you at least believe that war isn't the only answer?

Andrew, you aren't thinking clearly. The incentive is ALREADY there. Whatever person/firm/company comes up with a viable alternative to oil will catapault instantly to fame and fortune, they will become the richest and most powerful entity the world has ever known. On top of that they will solve most of the world's problems, while rendering the unstable regions of the world completely powerless. The oil companies know that the end of oil is a very real thing, in sight for the first time in history. You can bet that there's already a lot of competition for finding that magic bullet. They have the money, they have the technology, they have the distribution systems, the market, and the infrastructure. If there was a viable alternative, you'd already be buying it from Exxon or BP.

And throwing more money into education? One only needs to look about 40 miles to your East to prove that throwing money at it does nothing. There's no incentive for the kids to be or do anything more than the minimum. Why put forth the effort when you can make more in one day slinging dope on a street corner than you can in a month at a regular job? The answer must come from a shift in cultural values, from a desire to be the best, from true pride in who we are and what we can accomplish. Right now we can't even get people off their fat asses to go vote, let alone actually learn anything, strive to be anything, or make any difference in the world. I don't have the answer, but I know being lazy, ignorant, complacent, and walking around with a false sense of entitlement isn;t going to get us there.

the best and brightest minds aren't coming out of this country as of late.

And there is no "should" in this case. Only 50+ years of "should not have's", most significant of those being building an infrastructure and economy around a finite resource that we do not control.

*****************************************

Then let's change that! Let's pour money into education. Let's find ways to get our kids off the Playstation and into the books. Let's teach instead of fight. Let's win in the classrooms, the boardroom, and on the battlefield when we HAVE TO.

50 years of "should not haves".....then we should turn that around.

Here's a question for you:

If our government said in an official RFP/Contest, we will give $50 billion dollars to the company/organization that comes to us with the most solid, most viable, most dependable engine that runs on a renewable resource (ie. eliminating the need for oil), you don't think that the winner there would have the solution? If the parameters were things like:
a. must be able to power a full sized car 2000 miles with only filling up for this renewable resource which can be done with the ease of filling a car currently.
b. engine can also run heavy equipment, can be made smaller/larger as needed.
c. said engine can run planes, boats, trains as well as automobiles, etc.


Go on from there. But, we're talking $50 billion to change our world. you can tell me that if the smartest 100 people in our country with all their resources dedicating to winning this prize and thusly having the contracts to re-equip our nation to be oil-less....you dont think we can do this?

Come on, I'm a half brain dead former Deadhead and I can come up with this hair-brained idea....you dont think that the smartest people in our country cant come up with better ideas?

Think!!! If we're losing, let's win. But let's THINK about how we can win, before going with the "gut" reaction that says "we've got this army, we dont like them, we probably just need to kill them!".

And, btw, the argument you make sound strangely similar to those made by past leaders. Those that come to mind are people like Tojo, Mussolini, and Hitler. They have resources, we need resources, if we cant compete with them in the global economy, we'll take them by force. Mussolini made that land grab in places like Ethiopia, Albania and North Africa. Tojo and the Japanese invaded and took total supremecy over parts of China and the entire Pacific. Hitler argued that Austria was rightfully German, so they moved to take over. Then the Sudentland of Czechoslovakia was taken "peacefully". You know the rest.
All these moves made in the name of needed resources. Millions died so that these countries could try to gain the resources.

My thought is this: if we're losing the races you describe, why not find new ways to win? In the 1960s, when we were locked in the cold war with Russia, YES we built up our missle stocks, our bomber forces....but we also tried to win at things like EDUCATION so we could compete with the Soviets. We won the missle race, but we also won the SPACE race. In the end we beat the Soviets in the Cold War while never actually having to fight the Red Army directly.

I am no Kissinger, I don't fancy myself ready to join the Rand Corp and help set strategy for maintaining our power globally. BUT, I know this: we ARE still a strong and powerful nation, full of bright and positive thinking and feeling people. We CAN win at anything we dedicate ourselves to, BUT if we win by becoming the very things that our nation has long fought AGAINST, what is the gain. If we become a militaristic world BULLY and gain what we need by killing people that we don't "get along with" and enforcing our authority over other countries, I don't have the worlds to express what that makes the United States!!!

We need to think, look at history, find new means of innovation and find ways to win in the new global economy. We put a man on the moon, we have led the technology revolution, we stopped Hitler from world domination, we invented PONG for chrissakes! Are you really saying that we can't compete against Iran because they have oil?

Andrew, the best and brightest minds aren't coming out of this country as of late.

And there is no "should" in this case. Only 50+ years of "should not have's", most significant of those being building an infrastructure and economy around a finite resource that we do not control.

I don't think we "SHOULD" be going to war anywhere in the Middle East, but unfortunately there aren't many other options as I see it.

If the day comes where my country needs me to pick up a rifle to defend our way of life, I will go. I won't be happy about it, but I will go and do the best I can.

So really, what you're saying Jeff is that we SHOULD go to war with Iran? With some of the brightest minds in the world, we NEED to go to war (again) over oil? Are YOU ready to stand up, join up, and carry a rifle to go fight for OIL?

In the end, there are two things holding this country together:

1. Money, which we ar gradually losing control of due to globalization

2. Energy, which we are gradually losing control of due to globalization

Now, when the current administration refers to this country or that country being a "threat", it's not in the way you normally think of, i.e. bombs and guns, but rather a threat to our global stronghold on the financial and energy resources that every aspect of our modern lifestyle depends on. It's not just about $3.30 gasoline, it's about ensuring the future of this country as a global superpower, and assuring that the resources we need to run it all are available to us.

What's more frightening than the thought of another war is the realization that everything from your job to your health to our ability to produce food depends on a resource that lies largely under the feet of our enemies. More frightening still is the fact that unlike decades ago, today those enemies do not need our money, as they have an entire civilization to sell their products to. In fact, they have so much revenue coming in that they are taking the excess and using it to buy up our companies, our stock market, and ultimately our entire system of industry and commerce. In the end it won't matter who sells and buys what, it will only matter who owns it. That ownership is currently going in the WRONG direction.

If you take a few moments to digest what is really going on in the world today, the thought of war is not nearly as frightening as the thought of not winning that war.