Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PJr who wrote (57391)	3/9/2006 2:29:03 PM
From: Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Pat: Just had to tell you. Your last 3 posts here rank up there as some of the best I've read on SI, extremely well thought out. Thank you. Regards. Bob

To: PJr who wrote (57391)	3/9/2006 3:35:04 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

I agree, the proper way to deal with the terrorism issue is to disengage from that volatile part of the world, which means kicking our oil habit. I seem to remember a time when there was no arab terrorist problem in America when I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s. Then, in the 1990s we started putting troops in the region and fought a war with Iraq and put harsh sanctions on Iraq; and suddenly we have arabs attacking us. There is definitely a connection. We get out of their business and they will get out of ours. The high road to take would be to do whatever is necessary to develop an economy that uses home grown renewable energy that does not have to be purchased from the Middle East. That would do more to alleviate our terrorist problem than any military approach. BTW, the port deal sounds like it is off.

To: PJr who wrote (57391)	3/9/2006 4:25:22 PM
From: D_I_R_T	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Patrick, I agree with your "Manhatten Project" idea. I wrote to one of my senators last fall saying the same thing. I used the Marshall Plan as my view of what we need to be doing as a country. Getting away from or lowering significantly our reliance on oil as soon as possible is critical for us. Besides getting away from such high involvement in the Middle East it also lowers our impacts on the environment and the effects of fossil fuels on global warming.

To: PJr who wrote (57391)	3/9/2006 8:21:49 PM
From: xcr600	Respond to of 57584

I didnt know radical Islam wanted to change America. Have you read Bin Laden's declaration of war? I bet less than .5% of all American's have. It's worth a read to help understand what drives our "enemies". (there's nothing in there about changing America per se, but plenty about changing American foreign policy. That's a big difference.) One other factor that's been ignored in the recent posts here is Israel and the Palestinean issue. Giving the jews carte blanche all this years has made us plenty of enemies in the ME. (btw, Congress has yet to recognize the Israeli nuclear program. if they did, they'd have to cut funding to Israel as it was developed clandestinely.) with the soire into Iraq, there are no easy answers for a generation or two. sad. (recommended reading: "Through Our Enemies Eyes") full of insight and info

To: PJr who wrote (57391)	3/10/2006 10:37:18 PM
From: SteveinTX	Respond to of 57584

To make it simple, assume the US could, all of sudden, produce enough cheap fuel (probably bio diesel) to internally satisfy all domestic transportation needs. What would happen? As you stated, our interest in the mideast might revert to zero over night. Also, the worldwide price of oil would plummet, to what level I don't know, but assume it would be quite low. The biggest winner in that scenario? In my opinion, China. China is patiently putting the infrastructure pieces in place to create a super economic and military power Unlimited cheap oil would simply help them to do it faster. Who knows where that would lead, in terms of US interests.