Debate on anything relating to these topics

Ill start it off by replying to Kathryns reply to my post

Clinton did little to affect the boom of the nineties, and did little to affect the bust. It was the whole dot com rush that did it, and you can look it up, because i dont feel like diving into economics.

But anyways
Plan-wise, the administration should have had some plan on how to secure Iraq after the liberation. Also, by attacking the smallest threat, you leave the larger threats safe, and worse still, more likely to attack. even though that didnt happen, look at Iran, its supplying weapons and men to the insurgency, and still trying to get nukes.
NK, thank god, is starting to take its nukes down, with all its people starving and in need of aid.

i have to agree with that...the administrations huge mistake was disbanding the iraqi army..but as for nk you cant trust them..thats the problem with nations like them and iran...a treaty is just a piece of paper to them..they take our aid but chances are they will soon get back to work on their nukes..

true, you can never truly trust a rogue nation like North Korea. But remember, without the UN aid, the people will starve. And history tells that starving commoners equal a revolution. I think Kim Jong would prefer to keep his head on his shoulders (not to mention his hair do) rather than have nukes, which arent exactly top-of-the-line either.

thats true but they arent exactly harmless either. Rogue nations are dangerous and, in my opinion, they cant be trusted. Like john said, to them, a treaty is just words on a piece of paper. I do feel bad for those people who are starving, they need help.

Yes but you see, its the fact that they cant be trusted is why we should trust them. By acting concerned and openly talking to their leaders, we give off the effect that we are open to their demands, making them feel like they dont need to go hostile. By effectively using diplomacy, and by using the humanitarian aid as leverage, NK can be brought down without war

That is true, I agree with you there. But I also think that NK is danger even while talking. Even if we pacify NK by talking to them and sending humanitarian aid, they aretill a threat.

yes, which is why we should use all options to get Kim Jong to democratize. Take their big brother, China. If we use diplomacy to show the Beijing regime why it would be beneficial to have Kim Jong out of power. They could then aid us in getting Kim Jong to democratize the nation a little, which will undoubtably lead to more demands for democracy, and a revolution. NK needs China, so if we get the Chicoms on our side, then we would easily be able to talkto NK

Good strategy, but do you think that the US and the UN would be able to get China on their side?

perhaps.
You see, the reason why i dont like China at all is how much we depend on them, for so many products. Another reason is how much money they have given to us. We are so indebted to them that they could collapse our economy if they felt like it. So we need to find other ways, more political ways to put pressure on them. they also depend on us for much of their business, although they could survive without us. Maybe if we began cutting contracts with china, and instead brought our needs to India or another country (heck, maybe even bring jobs back to the US), then we might be able to convince the Chinese to help us. Also, just talking to them on why helping us would be beneficial to them would help, i.e. that without a rogue NK, there would be one less risk of WWIII breaking out near China

Thats true, most of the product in the Us have "made in china" tags on them. Just because its cheaper to import products, doesnt always mean it is the best strategy.

totally. im no isolationist, but i hate outsourcing, especially when it results in Americans losing their jobs. Perfect example was when the New England factory that made the Winchester Rifle, the "gun that won the west," was being shut down so that the company could cut costs by setting up in Belgium. BELGIUM!!!, the Winchester being made in Belgium! needless to say, i got pretty P-O-ed after reading that

I KNOW! Im not an isolationist either but when the US invents something and then decided to have it made in another country just because its cheaper...i get so mad. ITs ridiculous, if we just kept factories and other businesses open in the US, there would be almost a non-existant unemployment rate!

Its just the downside to globilization. Better business, but less jobs for Americans. Everything like that has pros and cons.

Unfortunately, thats true but I guess its good for other countries that have poor economies and an even higher unemployment rate...and as bad off as some are in the US sometimes the people in poorer countries have it way worse.

yeah. lol, well lets move on to another subject

The future of fuels

Obviously, oil is one of the biggest national interests America has, thats undisputible. And many experts are predicting that by 2020 (when most of us will be like in our 30s, and Captains or whatever if youre going to the military, oil production will be so low, that worldwide recessions will break out, and conflicts will erupt over it. I think everyone, Dem or Rep, can agree that oil is something that blood shouldnt be spilled for. That is why i think that instead of focusing on getting oil and such, we should instead focus on researching alternative fuels, like hydrogen or ethanol.

Also, it has been my ideae for a long time that it would be greatly beneficial to America if we lead the world in a fuel-efficient military. Think of the applications: Not only will tanks, APCs, humvees, jets have to refuel less (better effectiveness), but will lessen global warming and will allow our military to keep on going when others run out of fuel.

I agree with you on that but the companies that manufacture all the vehicles wont see it that way because its cheaper for them to stick to the gas or diesel models. They wont want to spend extra money designing new models that are ethanol or hydrogen compatable. Plus the fact that there are very few ethanol or hydrogen refueling stations.

that is true. The big businesses in oil will continue to oppose alt. fuel until the day they die. Thats why we gotta make sure that our generation cuts down the corruption from the government and oil lobbyists. Also, we could cut some of the defense budget and put it towards government research, so as to not get interferance from oil companies

Thats all true, and right now, people are experimenting with ethanol and hydrogen powered vehicles. Hopefully, one day our generation will see what a big difference using alt. resources would make. I know at my school, a lot of kids are interested in alt. resources for powering vehicles.

thats awesome. It was our parents generation that started this great problem, and it will be the mission of our generation to save the planet.

Now where's that guy with the blue skin and green mullet when you need him?

lol, yeah...that would definitely attract attention..