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.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3797)	1/2/2009 1:26:33 AM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Nope. I'm no pacifist, but I'm also not eager to stick our big beak into every fight between other nations. Then obviously you're fully in favor of disbanding the United Nations, which we created for the VERY PURPOSE of sticking it's "big beak" into every act of state aggression. That's its VERY PURPOSE.. I can think of a thousand other ideas how our money could be better spent than in defending South Koreans as well. Actually, I'm fully in favor of withdrawing all US forces from S. Korea as well, every time we see their protests against our troops there. But it's a UN cease fire that REMAINS in effect, and we're part of the UN. And we're ACTUALLY THERE to keep the S. Koreans from going after the North and launching a war that would eventually involve both us and China. Their military really hates the N. Korean government for their constant infiltration and spying and there have been instances where only US restraint prevented the ROK from going to war. If you are so altruistic and charitable with my money, why is it that you don't think about the Americans that need the helping hand? I actually am.. I don't want people like you to force them to pay far more than they currently need to for the fuel they require to get them to work (or the unemployment line) each day You're trying to make them pay more than they can afford for a electric vehicle that has insufficient manufacturing and logistical infrastructure. You're trying to make them pay for a solar/wind power generation capacity that cannot provide the 24x7 availability they require when we have plenty of Coal, Natural Gas and nuclear. In fact, you want to deny them an economic advantage that will help them compete against economies that cannot/will not spend money on such advanced alt energy technology. Hawk