Posted on 09/27/2014 8:21:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai
“A minority view again it seems, at the moment.”
I don’t think it’s a minority view. I guess it depends on what crowd you’re speaking to. It always comes down to what you have (resources etc.), or what you can make. Manufacturing capability is a huge reason we won WWII (not taking anything away from the bravery and fighting capability of all those who fought for us). If the question was asked “What country can produce the highest number of fighter jets, ships, tanks, guns, and ammunition in the shortest period? I think I’d still put my money on the U.S., but I think the gap is starting to close in an uncomfortable way.
I don't believe there is any benefit to having Putin.
I would think after Fukushima and the 5.? earthquake near the Virginia nuclear plant people are having serious second thoughts. I was about 80 miles away and my walls vibrated intensely for about 15 seconds and I and several neighbors had cracks in chimneys, and one person’s chimney collapsed.
Regarding solar and wind versus oil and coal, a level playing field would be nice. However, the carbon fuels have about 100 years of government subsidies and benefits which gives them a major advantage. Either subsidies for all or free markets for all is the fair thing. For example, I know someone who sold a number of acres with underground coal. Once they realized that coal prices had gone down between the time they got the property and then sold it, they were able to take a nice little tax deduction rather than having to pay income tax on the sale. Then there are oil depletion allowances, etc.
“Conservative” attitudes such as nationalizing all the gas and oil?
Or...Christians, rallying to a God-made nation, are moving to revitalize not just their faith, but their faith in this great nation. America will overcome and we will be the vanguard.
Speaking just for myself, I’ll not lay down and die so neo-communists and Islamofascists rend my beloved country. Will you join me in this fight?
That was about protecting American maritime interests and the rescue of hostages that formerly had been saved by the paying of ransoms. Regime change and entering of alliances to fight full scale wars on other continents was not the intent of the early govt. of the United States. “Entangling alliances” was to be avoided at all costs.
Are Russians generically, racially evil? When did that start, with Stalin, Lenin, Tsar Nicolas? Peter the Great? Was Russia ever invaded and ravaged by Western powers? Or far eastern powers?
Russia is evil, you support Russia against the free world, you need to rethink your loyalties.
“Western liberals are disturbed that conservative attitudes are being cultivated in Russia.”
Undoubtedly, they are conserving traditional Russian values over there.
“Are Russians generically, racially evil?”
I think so.
“When did that start, with Stalin, Lenin, Tsar Nicolas? Peter the Great?”
Russian expansionism started a thousand years ago, from the region around Kiev.
“Was Russia ever invaded and ravaged by Western powers? Or far eastern powers?”
Yes. By the French in 1812 and the Germans in 1941. The Japanese attacked Port Arthur, a leased Russian naval base in 1904.
I think it is long past time to bring manufacturing back to America.
If Russia is “not ready” for such a conflict, then why provoke it?
To pull off a bluff, to conquer what they can before someone big stands up to them.
Obama sure isn’t big enough. And he’s bending over backwards (forwards?) to demonstrate his “flexibility” while pressing the “reset button” repeatedly.
The United States and our NATO alliance is big enough.
If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result is victory, then you must not fight, even at the ruler’s bidding.
—The Art Of War, 10:23
The Russians are no match.
I don’t know why you want to try to sell that they are?
No match for what? A not-so-secret ally?
Who is ahead in the battle of the wills here? The military does not operate autonomously, remember; even less so with NATO.
Suggesting renewables can replace fossil fuels is ridiculous. Anyone remotely familiar with the power industry knows this.
Nuclear should be our base, followed by oil, coal, and CH4.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.