We had astronomical dollars available and I think we all would have been inspired to achieve this.

I'm not sure why you think it's ok to spend billions of dollars on wars when we could feasibly achieve the same objectives by investing in alternative energy technologies.

Why is it so hard for the US gov to figure out what happened in that house?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110503/...Njb21tYW5kb3Nr

I don't think you're proving anything of value in this conversation. Yes, ideally, one can argue morally that we should boycott, sanction, pressure, or otherwise condemn regimes in which things like the beating of women is legal and approved. But in reality, we find ourselves having to form alliances, trade, and so on.

So what? The inability to perfectly live out all our ideals doesn't magically allows to throw all of them away. It's not all or nothing. We can look at each issue case-by-case and try to honor our principles where can, and strive to alter conditions when we can't -- like moving away from slavish reliance on foreign oil that tosses us into muddy moral waters.

Trying mass murderers and the Bin Ladens of the world -- by a military court, by a civil court, by a war crimes tribunal, by the ICC; pick one, it doesn't matter -- is an important principle that honors international and American values drawn from Enlightenment concepts of inalienable rights that apply to all human beings. You don't just toss that out the window because of some vague "security" concern. And you certainly don't value security over alienable rights like "due process" in general and in principle, as you seem to, unless you're closet adherent of the police state a la Orwell.

Not enough to solve the energy crisis. Trillion upon trillions.

I' I've never said this. I'm not sure it was okay, but I do see some positives from it.

You mean why is it so hard to know what happened in a house when the witness are people who just invaded a country, flew within 50 miles of the capital, engaged in a fire fight, and killed 4 people, crashed a helicopter, and then flew back to Afghanistan with a dead body?

Do you sometimes forget where you left your keys?

You have no idea how the the world oil market works.

They would still beat their women without our money. There is ample evidence for this.

Exactly. This is the point I was making.

QUOTE=lagdonk;26408750]Trying mass murderers and the Bin Ladens of the world -- by a military court, by a civil court, by a war crimes tribunal, by the ICC; pick one, it doesn't matter -- is an important principle that honors international and American values drawn from Enlightenment concepts of inalienable rights that apply to all human beings. You don't just toss that out the window because of some vague "security" concern. And you certainly don't value security over alienable rights like "due process" in general and in principle, as you seem to, unless you're closet adherent of the police state a la Orwell.[/QUOTE]

Sigh. That the problem most Americans view the national interest and security as vague, for good reason. It's obvious most do not understand the implications of a trial or captured bin laden. You obviously do not think it would of created an elevated risk to the country and or world but I digress.

LOL....okay since they are going to do it anyways it makes it okay. Its besides the point, I accept that this happebs and its the price of doing business. It was more used as an example to demonstrate american values are compromised every day by idealistic Americans who feel our priciplal should be upheld under any circumstance which is unrealistic based on their own actions.

We don't know that.

For one, we can still source oil from other foreign sources. For example I think Canada is currently our largest supplier and they don't hate us (yet). And we have some of our own oil and natural gas.

We could invest heavily in both known technologies (wind, solar, hydroelectric) and in research that could expedite newer technologies.

And all the money wouldn't necessarily have to come from the govt, as when the research money starts getting pumped into the economy a large amount of additional money would get pumped in by private investment.

Anybody who's at all interested in this should watch "Who Killed The Electric Car". It will open some eyes.

Edit: First 5 minutes http://www.veoh.com/watch/v12581888HJGJyt6s

So do not assume the cost of the war would of paid for alternative fuel.

We disagree on the means to accomplish this. I believe its going to be american private innovation that responsible for this. Boone Pickens type ****.

I do not not think the government should be funding too many things. If anything invest in education. That solves every problem.

Until a private innovator comes up with a more cost effective/efficient alternative to oil the reliance will continue.

Americans will not buy $10 fuel when they can get it for five on the sole reason its alternative and not dependent on middle east oil.

Why dance around it? Let's go straight to the torture.

There are 20 men in a room at a CIA stronghold in whateveristan, tied up with feet soaked in gasoline. You are informed that there is a 50% chance 1 of the 20 knows about an imminent terrorist attack. The others are a mixture of really bad guys, random whackos, total innocents, and a few great people.

Do you set fire to them? What if the chance is 60%? 85%? 50 people? 700 people? What if there is a 100% chance 1 in 10,000 knows about an incoming terrorist attack, but you have to pull off their fingernails with pliers while they burn, and 10% of them are under 14 years old?

Are all of these examples ok? If not, then which ones? Why? Do you see a moral hazard anywhere here?

It would certainly get us a long way toward independence and considering the war in Iraq was not necessary in any way for our security what's the diff?


I see. Govt funding of the giant industrial military complex is fine but all other govt funding is somehow bad.

Well people build those bombs so that adds to our wealth!

And.....umm...and people wouldn't be working on new energy tech I guess.

ahhahahahaha super awesome

As soon as we stop subsidizing the price of oil by stepping on the necks of the rest of the world, it's very likely some alternative technologies will immediately become cost effective.

But I'm not 100% sure about that, so my choice would be to stop stepping on the necks and start subsidizing the alternative energy. A win/win in right wing big business kind of talk.

OMG you're killin it tonight

If you were able to quantify it, it would be a much easier problem and answer. But you cant so your premise is flawed.

However, I'm not going to completely dodge the issue. I do not know about torture. I know extreme torture that you mention should not occur. Sleep deprivation and the like are fair game in my opinion. Especially when we expose our own soldiers these type of tactics.


But I'm more interested in if you think our values and principals should never be scarified at the urge of the greater good.

Omg with the csi Miami joke lllol

Just want to say I fully agree with TomVeil and JBrochu in this discussion. Great points being made.

Discussion is good. But would you want them on your jury?