Thursday, July 20, 2006

Toward a greater war

Was George Bush's comment earlier in the week that the latest strife in the middle east (Syria, Lebanon) can be solved by simply 'stopping that shit' a hint that his administration is unwilling to try negotiation and simply use some of its dwindling military strength to head off the impending conflict? Will it, too, lead to his ultimate goal of 'spreading democracy' throughout the middle east? Will that move include countries that threaten America's oil supply such as Iran and Syria as well as the already-invaded Iraq?

I know that's alot of questions but after seeing the unwillingness to try diplomatic measures to solve potential conflicts, it appears imminent that some show of military strength in one of the forementioned countries is at the very least a possibility.

We can only hope that the geniuses in the house and senate vote down any proposed war effort put forth by Bush. After all, will destroying more countries who pose no immediate threat to America secure more oil? How, after all, did oil climb from $20/barrel in 2000 to $76/barrel in 2006? What exactly justifies a $56/barrel increase (380%) in six years? Why are we after even more of such a volatile commodity whose supply is finite? Why not find NEW sources of energy or, GASP, try conservation (a V-6 Kia minivan instead of your V-8 Chevy Tahoe SUV) instead of war?


SlimAdam said...

i saw a video of a fuel that was developed and can heat up faster and melt shit faster than almost any other heat source yet it's cool to the touch. the people involved used this fuel to power a car and as i recall are currently trying to not be bought out by oil companies as many alternative fuel manufacturers have in the past. oh, and the fuel, by the water.

SlimAdam said...

the first link is the video about the water fuel. the second is the company's website. the third features an opposing view of why it might not be practical. enjoy.