Do you think Americans are still pissed.......

[Scratch 0]

Ok I must go work
The conflict in question is the Malaysian crises in the late 1940's. The British were defending their colony against communist backed guerillas and they did it successfully.
How? By understanding that skilled and intelligent military operations only buy you time while you remove the cause of the conflict and win the hearts and minds of the people.
Always ask yourself, what makes a poor dumb farmer pick up a gun and go pick a fight with a superpower. He is pissed for a reason.
There are fanatics out there who will never see past their hate but for the most part people want to eat, sleep and shag and do the same again tomorrow.
Oh and a tiny percentage want to eat, sleep, shag and skydive.
Ok you guys can take me apart now

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

By understanding that skilled and intelligent military operations only buy you time while you remove the cause of the conflict and win the hearts and minds of the people.
.

This is why we had to leave Vietnam before the war ended. Vietnam vets all say, "we won the battles but we lost the war."
truth is, although the viet cong were a bunch of bastards, so was the anti-communist republic of South viet nam....so ideologically, in the minds of the Vietnamese, we didn't have a leg to stand on, no matter how valiantly we fought...
Speed Racer
"Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!"

[Scratch 0]

In a nutshell.
South Africa lost the counter insurgency war in Namibia for the same reasons.
I am speaking under correction but I think The USA lost 53000 in the 10 years of it's involvement in Vietnam. Much less than it's road death toll for the same period.
The other side lost 2 million and still won. Go figure.

[Scratch 0]

Hee hee

[MarkM 0]

Here's a very blunt article on the Middle East:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105001688

[rhino 0]

LOL!!!
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com

[rhino 0]

I'm a computer geek too!! And I know how to blow shit up!! And fly really cool parachutes!!
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com

[GrumpySmurf 0]

Hmm, interesting - so what would happen if the Western World actually put some real effort into alternative re-newable fuels? Would the Middle East collapse into chaos when thier sole export plummets in importance?
I'm suprised the auto manufacturers haven't played this angle yet (probably a bit too touchy a subject) - that the fuel cell cars they are trying to move would reduce America's demand for oil and thus reliance on the Middle East. Hmm, just random thoughts provoked by the article. Then again I guess the Western World also has to learn that just because helping someone might be in thier best interests - they may not want your help, and may come to resent you for it.

[rhino 0]

Fuck em.. Set up desalination plants out there and teach them how to farm.. Our kids need to breath fresh air.
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

I'm suprised the auto manufacturers haven't played this angle yet (probably a bit too touchy a subject) - that the fuel cell cars they are trying to move would reduce America's demand for oil and thus reliance on the Middle East.

During the Clinton Administration the focus was on pushing auto manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient cars. About a month or two after 9/11 the Bush Administration changed that focus to funding the development of fuel cell cars. The technology of fuel cell cars is way ahead of the infrastructure required to support them. I read somewhere that the earliest that the government and auto manufacturers could commit to changing over to fuel cell cars is about 2006 but infrastructure is driving the timeline.
The Bush Administration is also pushing to open up Alaska to more drilling to provide more oil during the interim.
Although is wasn't presented as such, it seems to me the plan is on the table to reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern oil considerably. Not sure why they are not presenting it that way. Probably trying not to alarm our Middle Eastern 'Allies' while we still would like a little support.

[Muenkel 0]

You know I started this thread and have not made a comment. I find it interesting where this conversation has gone.
Anyway, in regard to the drilling in Alaska...Tom Daschle just announced that there are not enough votes in the senate to get it passed.
Our dependency on foreign oil is not going to go away overnight, but we better get aggressive in reducing this dependency or else the Middle East is going to have us by the balls.
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Anyway, in regard to the drilling in Alaska...Tom Daschle just announced that there are not enough votes in the senate to get it passed.

Daschle for president huh. It's in his best interest right now for Bush to fail. Hard to figure out what everyone's motives really are.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Tom Daschle just announced that there are not enough votes in the senate to get it passed.

And the reason for that is because there's another bill that increases the mileage standards for new cars. When they sat down and looked at the numbers, it turns out increasing mileage reduces oil consumption far greater than the amount of oil that could be produced by drilling in Alaska. And guess what, both not drilling and increasing mileage are good for the environment.
Back to the original subject of the thread. I don't think anyone is less pissed, but I am glad that the entire political focus is no longer concentrated on this one subject. Yes it's important, but there are other important issues that were being ignored, and if that continued, their attack would have been successful.
cielos azules y cerveza fría
-Kevin

[quade 4]

Fuel cell cars as fuel efficient cars?
Really?
Maybe I'm missing something about the first law of thermodynamics here or something, but doesn't it require energy to extract all that hydrogen?
Kind of like being taxed twice if you ask me.
I think a better solution to all this dependancy on foreign oil would be to outlaw SUVs and pickup trucks for personal use. Or maybe just regulate the hell out of them so that they're too inconvienient. Maybe just restrict them to the right two lanes on the freeway like "normal" trucks.
Hell, if everyone used Honda Insights for their commutes instead of SUVs imagine how quickly the power of the Arab world would crumble.
But, uh, that's just not going to happen in the U.S. -- we like 'em big.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I think a better solution to all this dependancy on foreign oil would be to outlaw SUVs and pickup trucks for personal use. Or maybe just regulate the hell out of them so that they're to inconvienient. Maybe just restrict them to the right twon lanes on the freeway like "normal" trucks.

I thought this was a free country. Why are you judging people's reasons for driving the vehicles they drive? You are assuming the individuals have some sort of selfish motive. I happen to drive a big motha SUV that gets 19 miles per gallon. I am spewing less emissions into the air than the rusty old VW buses the leftover hippies are driving. I also travel 21 miles each way to work through mountainous, snowy, icy and muddy terrain...therefore I need my 4 wheel drive. Of course the heated leather seats, 6 CD in dash stereo system with 10 speakers, solid mahogany steering wheel, climate control, moonroof, etc are luxuries I could do without...but why?
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[quade 4]

Quote

I thought this was a free country.

It is. That doesn't make it intelligent. ;^)
quade
http://futurecam.com

[scottbre 0]

Couldn't have said it better myself. 20 million bathtubs can't be wrong. . .

[MarkM 0]

Yeah, it takes energy to extract hydrogen but that energy doesn't have to come from oil. Fuel cells are just a way to store energy, same as gas, but they're a lot more effecient and cleaner.
Some areas of the country and even some countries could develop energy excesses and devote it to exporting hydro. That energy excess might be oil, but could just as easily be hydro-electric, solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, etc.
There's a lot of ways to get hydrogen, but only the one way to get gasoline. We've really needed to get off that stuff in awhile. But with gas prices being so low in the US(1.20 per gal) I won't be holding my breath waiting around for any mass conversation onto anything else. But I've love to see fuel cell cars. They're really overdue IMHO.

[quade 4]

Quote

Why are you judging people's reasons for driving the vehicles they drive?

then later . . .

Quote

. . . rusty old VW buses the leftover hippies are driving.

Uh . . . Mr. Pot? I have a phone call from a Mr. Kettle. ;^)
I was talking about fuel efficiency and my guess is that the VW Micro-bus with the half a ton of garbage on its way to Alice's Restaurant probably still gets pretty good gas mileage compared to a Lincoln Navigator.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Maybe I'm missing something about the first law of thermodynamics here or something, but doesn't it require energy to extract all that hydrogen?

Well, you must be 'missing something'. The point is that they reduce our dependency on foreign oil and their main byproducts are heat and water so they are 'environmentally friendly'.
In case you are interested:

Quote

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that produces electricity by separating the fuel (generally hydrogen gas) via a catalyst. The protons flow through a membrane and combine with oxygen to form water – again with the help of a catalyst. The electrons flow from the anode to the cathode to create electricity. As long as the reactants – pure hydrogen and oxygen – are supplied to the fuel cell, it will produce electrical energy.
A single fuel cell is basically a piece of plastic between a couple of pieces of carbon plates that are sandwiched between two end plates acting as electrodes. These plates have channels that distribute the fuel and oxygen.
A factor that draws interest to the fuel cell is that it can operate at efficiencies two to three times that of the internal combustion engine, and it requires no moving parts. Since it converts the fuel, hydrogen, and oxygen directly to electrical energy, the only by-products are heat and water. Without combustion, fuel cells are virtually pollution free.
Although hydrogen is the most common fuel used to power a fuel cell, research is being done on a new type of fuel cell that operates using methanol (without using a reformer to convert it to hydrogen) and oxygen. However, this type of fuel cell remains in the early stages of development.

Yes, they do require energy to separate the hydrogen into usable form but the engine is actually two to three times more efficient.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

It is. That doesn't make it intelligent. ;^)

If Americans are not so intelligent, why do we have so many people from other countries studying in our universities?
We get criticized for being the "wealthiest" nation. How did that happen if we are so stupid?
The fact that we live in a country where we are free to express our opinions, makes us one of the more intelligent nations on the globe.
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[MarkM 0]

Actually I don't think he's missing anything. You still need energy to get the hydrogen used in fuel cells from someplace, and honestly that's as likely to be oil as anything else.
If you destroy all the deserts in Arizona putting up solar panels to create hydrogen it really isn't any more 'environmentally friendly' as pumping gasoline byproducts into the air. Clean energy is always going to be a problem. But at least with fuel cells we can pick and choose how we're destroying the environment to get that energy.

[quade 4]

Quote

That energy excess might be oil, but could just as easily be hydro-electric, solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, etc.

Hydro-electric -- you can only build so many damn dams and they can have devastating effects on the environment. Particularly the area they cover with water!
Solar -- Developing, not quite there yet. Depending on the type may also be associated with large amounts of toxic waste -- look at what goes into making a solar panel sometime!
Wind -- viable in certain parts of the country. Banning, California is pretty cool, but other than that where ya gonna put up a wind farm? Certainly subject to a lot of nimbism.
Tidal -- Yeah, ya get a lot of tidal action going in Kansas huh?
Nuclear -- Come on! Now you're just baiting me!
You did make one really good point and one which I usually state as, "The U.S. will never conserve gas as long as it sells for less than people are paying for bottled water."
quade
http://futurecam.com

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I think a better solution to all this dependancy on foreign oil would be to outlaw SUVs and pickup trucks for personal use

You are from California aren't you. This is exactly the reason I don't normally get along with people from California....
"I only have a C license, so I don't know shit..right?"-Clay

[quade 4]

Quote

If Americans are not so intelligent, why do we have so many people from other countries studying in our universities?

Individuals can be smart, but as a whole, people are stupid.

Quote

We get criticized for being the "wealthiest" nation. How did that happen if we are so stupid?

It doesn't take a "smart" person to exploit natural resources or people or even to survive a World War. If you want to know why we're one of the wealthiest nations, then you have to go back to WWII and look at how much damage we sustained compared to the rest of the world. That was mostly a function of the distances involved.

Quote

The fact that we live in a country where we are free to express our opinions, makes us on of the more intelligent nations on the globe.

I'll agree that it makes our consitution one of the more intelligent documents ever created. I do not agree that its intelligence trickles down to everyman.
quade
http://futurecam.com