It's been demonstrated of late to be an excellent source of power.

This objective seems to change though...when it seems that the objective simply cannot be reached for some reason, it shifts. First it was WMD. Then when it came out that there were no WMDs that matched what Bush said was there, the focus shifted to terrorism in general. Right now we're basically fighting the bogeyman. It manifests as all kinds of things but isn't something that can be touched itself. Terrorism is an adaptable creature much like the cold virus. It changes and mutates itself whenever it realizes it can't get things done the old way. Unless we get a more tangible objective or get an actual GOAL, this war will never ever end...or will at least last 4 more years. Cuz as soon as Bush & Co. 'stabilize' Iraq (ha ha!), we'll be off to some other country the Hill says has shifty, beady eyes and start all over again there; same fight, different playground. Rinse and repeat until all countries with even a history of having terrorists set foot on the soil have been subjugated and Americanized while America itself turns into a rich third world country.

AAAh.....I'll spell out my point. ;)
It's ridiculous to point out weaknesses other people don't have a huge quantity of. It's rabid and none too bright to impose your ideas about how other people feel. Especially if you are known to attack them on some anonymous board. Should I start accusing people of feeling like Losers? How brilliant would I be then? Hey jag you feel great today....get rid of your dog.Impressed? :yelsick: (really not directed anywhere near Jag)

CW the larger objective, not stated so plainly, was to create a more pro-US state in the middle of the Middle East. So far it hasn't worked out, but it still could.

NT Times Friedman column today says so, registration req'd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/op...tml?oref=login

Ehhh...I think I see. That concept is not nearly as marketable as the idea of destroying all who might threaten our way of life. It's be easier to rally the US public to support "putting those 9/11 plotters and US Soldier killers and fuel pipeline destroyers in their place" than it is to rally them to support "creating a political foothold in the Middle East because that's the one place we haven't gotten our feet firmly planted in yet".

Duh, really? I am soooo disappointed! Bart was my role model! Now what do I do? I can't give a cite for this, but about a million years ago I read an article in some respectable magazine - "Atlantic Monthly" or "New Republic" or one of those - that outlined the differences in certification for nuclear power plant operators in Europe versus the US, and the US showed very poorly in the comparison. Maybe things have changed. I'm too tired to look it up, and I don't feel like going to the barricades over a relatively minor point. But it does bring me to my next point, which is this:

Just as "The Simpsons" is a vast over-simplification of the credentials of real life nuclear power plant operators, your statements about alternative energy energy are a vast over simplification of the role of government in a nation's energy use. For example, policies encouraging reliable mass transit systems both locally and nationally could make an incredible difference. Tax breaks for corporations using alternative energy sources could speed up research and development in that area by light years. It's a complex issue where government policy DOES play an important role.

Oh yeah, by the way, since when is shale oil any more "carcinogenic" than petroleum? I've camped on the Uncomphaghre Plateau on a regular basis for 20 years now and have yet to come down with cancer. This despite the fact that the place thrills the latent pyrromaniac (however you spell that) in me, and I spend countless happy hours setting bits of cliff face on fire everytime I'm out there.

Cyber Wolf
That's the beauty of it, he can't fail. The path of least resistance has been a lifelong pattern and he got to be Prez......twice. ;)

Wow,that's actually a really good point. But isn't the path of the least resistant a bread trail to McDonalds management? (at best)

Yeah, it must be nice to have your path of least resistance paved by a parent who's President of the US and richer than a Saudi oil sheik. Given that background, even Homer Simpson could drink himself into the presidency. :eyebrow:

And so clearly all the children of all those other wealthy presidents we've ever had must be lower than Homer Simpson on the intellect scale, since none of them managed to waltz into the White House? :eyebrow:

GWB ain't the only person ever to have the President for a father.

No, actually, the other kids were the bright and sane ones, because they wanted nothing to do with the presidency. ;)

oh please, I wouldn't be shocked if bush couldn't do up his own shoelaces, with everything handled by Rove, Cherny or Dad it's not too hard and having a pliable idiot as president suits the pocket-lining and agenda setting desire of those around him nicely.

Oh, I think he can handle the shoelaces, but why should he if he doesn't have to? His only sucessful endeavors have been in the position of front man and gladhander for people with money and a plan. Just follow the script, but in fairness I don't think the script is completely detailed. More likely an outline with established limits of wiggle room. Think of a bowling ball on an alley or bobsled on a track. :king:

They hate us for their lack of freedom
 

An exerpt from a new report(big pdf) from the Defense Science Board:
Note that this may or not be the motivation for individual terrorists or their leaders, but it is instead the background environment that gives terrorists popular support and access to new recruits. Fixing this environment is immeasurably more important than killing the current generation of enemies.

And why do they hate the Spanish?

Why the Aussies?

Why the Brits?

Why the French?

Why the Russians?