War ends We win: when we pass a law that makes the minimum price of gasoline at the pumps: $1.75/gallon.
The ethanol investors do not build ethanol distilleries because monopoly OPEC would lower the price of crude/gasoline to rust out the billion dollar/million barrel a day ethanol stills.
Brazil is energy independent: ethanol; All their cars come built running on ethanol; The gas station fills the tanks with ethanol, no gasoline.
Archer Daniel Midland made millions in the USA selling $1.00 gallon ethanol in the 1990s;
That trumps any canard/invalid objection to ethanol. Use Cellulose ethanol, not corn ethanol.
Cellulose Ethanol energy independence in the USA, will balance the trade deficit, create full employment, bring down the price of fuel, break the monopoly on the pricing of fuel, balance the USA government budget, create less pollution, make the USA energy independent, and end the war because we will stop funding the bad guys everyday at the gas pumps.
With all the cars running on ethanol; the price of oil will collapse and the radical Moslem hordes will no longer have the funds we used to give them from gasoline sales to finance the war against us.
I built a distillery and converted my GM car to 160 proof ethanol by 1982; and tried 25 years to get the USA off of gasoline. Unless the strategy I am outlining is adopted, the war that is coming, regardless of who is elected, will make Vietnam look like a cake walk.
Sharia people are at war with The West because Sharia people believe Islam can not survive against: a free market economy with free speech to criticize Islam.
International law, has defined a set of war rule parameters that guarantee no war can be won by good guys and that guarantee nice long lasting wars with lots of weapons sales.
Generals: Patton. Eisenhower, Marshall , Sherman et al would all be war criminals under international law and Europe would be under Hitler; the American civil war would not be over if fought under the current rules; which, intentionally or unintentionally, are designed for a hundred year terror war.
Cut off terrorist infested countries/areas: no phones, no lights, no motorcars not a single luxury. No food, no water, no ships/airplanes in and out, no trucks cross their borders; nothing till they give up the terrorism. Better the terrorist should die right there than have a war where the world is terrorized for 100 years.
The leadership that sponsors these terrorist suicide murders are the Heads of state in Tehran, Riyadh, and Damascus.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
A Conversation About What’s Worth the Fight
Force can only be the last option, McCain says, but the world is a dangerous place. A NEWSWEEK interview.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Sen. John McCain spoke with NEWSWEEK's Michael Hirsh about the confrontation with Iran, renewed violence in Iraq and his temper, among other issues. Excerpts:
Hirsh: Why do you think radical Islam is the "transcendent challenge" of the century? When did you decide that?
McCain: I was always concerned. When I traveled abroad I saw the madrassas, and I certainly was briefed on the rise of extremism. There were other signs of it you could trace back to bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut [in 1983]. I don't think there's any doubt 9/11 brought it home dramatically.
In 1983, you urged restraint—the pullout of the Marines.
Actually, I was urging that they be pulled out because I feared … [they were] a token force without sufficient planning or support to have an influence on the ground.
I'm curious whether since that time your views on the use of force have evolved. Some people suggest that the success of the U.S. military in the first gulf war made you more willing to deploy forces abroad.
No, I don't think so. If a similar situation such as Beirut were proposed today, I'm sure I would object to that. I have a strong conviction that we have to do whatever we can to prevent the spread of radical Islamic extremism or the increase in influence of Iran in the Middle East, but there has to be a viable proposal to conduct our national-security interests [to commit troops].
In your speech in Los Angeles, you seemed intent on dispelling any suspicions that you might draw America into a wider war, perhaps with Iran.
No, not so much. I first said that in the 1990s, when I wasn't running for president. I was trying to express my views that the veteran hates war more than anyone else, because they mourn the loss of a comrade and know the horrors of war firsthand. I'll repeat this time after time—that armed conflict is the last option.
On Iran, if all diplomatic options are exhausted, and economic pressure fails to force a halt to its nuclear program, would you consider going to war?
Well, if I could not evade your question but put it in a more sensible form, I think we have to exhaust every possible option. I think there are many options that are viable, including those in conversations I had with [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy and [British Prime Minister Gordon] Brown on my recent trip to Europe, on a meaningful path to sanctions. But I will also state unequivocally that we cannot afford to have Iran … acquire nuclear weapons because of the obvious consequences—proliferation in the region, the threat to the existence of Israel, etc.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss