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
- 1
- 2
A Conversation About What’s Worth the Fight
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
In your discussions with Sarkozy and Brown, did you agree on any sanctions that might be adopted beyond what has been put in place by the Bush administration?
No, we didn't get into those specifics … What I discussed with them was this concept of nations acting together in an emphatic and impactful way to hopefully successfully dissuade the Iranians and convince them that the path of nuclear-weapons acquisition would lead to consequences which would be too high a price to pay, economically as well as diplomatically.
Do you agree that we are engaged in a "War on Terror," as President Bush has defined it?
I think it's a military, intelligence, diplomatic and ideological conflict. Most importantly, in the long run it is an ideological struggle ... within the Muslim community, between those who are extremists and those who are moderate. And then another struggle exists between everything we stand for and value and the extremists who have gained significant influence in some parts of the world.
I notice you use the word "struggle" and not "war."
I don't like to use the word "war" particularly because it's a multifaceted struggle, which may have armed and military components. But at the end of the day I think it's a matter of ideology.
In your book "Worth the Fighting For," you say your temper "has caused me to make most of the more serious mistakes of my career." Which ones?
I was referring to when I see corruption, when I see earmarks and pork-barrel spending that goes to wasteful and unnecessary projects when the men and women who are serving don't have what are obviously higher priorities, the equipment and training. When I see people who are disrespectful of standards and values we sacrifice for, sometimes I have—although certainly not in recent years—lost my temper and said intemperate things. I feel passionately about issues, and the day that passion goes away is the day I will go down to the old soldiers' home and find my rocking chair.
In your speech in Los Angeles, you said anyone who doesn't accept that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century isn't fit for the White House. Is it fair to dismiss the view that perhaps other major challenges—like the credit crisis, global warming, the resurrection of Russia—might be equal or greater?
I'm not dismissing [that] position. But no one, I believe, should sit in the Oval Office and not understand that this is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century. I believe this economic challenge is deep and tough and maybe the most difficult since World War II. But I have the fundamental confidence in America's economy. I do not believe that anyone who fails to understand the dimensions and enormity of this [extremist] challenge is qualified to serve as president of the United States.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Discuss