Interfering in the Arab-Israel conflict is part of the reason terrorists choose US targets. It's called "blowback", which even the CIA understands. The US should never have interfered in mideast politics, and it has come back to bite us. The League of Nations was an incredibly bad idea which came about because of a TOTALLY unnecessary and unjust war-WWI. Had it not been for Wilsonian fascism, there would have been no Hitler, no WWII, no United Nations, a stable dollar, and a generally more sane world.

Israel could not survive, and would not have survived as long as they have if it weren't for the US.

The last time Egypt attacked they were down to their last reserves and losing until we stepped in.

That is why they would attack so quickly. To gain the surprise.

Our unending and one-sided support of them is also why the Muslim world hates us and we are the targets of so much terrorism.


Once again this is off topic.
Go to another thread to discuss this if its what you want to talk about.

LOL
Poppycock! (a better expression than boulderdash, don't you think?)

The Dems weren't willing to extend the tax-cuts.
Obama took Bipartisanship to a level neither party was willing to go.
Even to the point of angering his own party. Which this did.

He did it to get the pubes to extend unemployment benefits for the millions they put out of work when they proved their economic policies don't work.

Obama, once again, proved he was a President of the people by risking the anger of his own party.
Unlike the pubes, who were perfectly willing to put the people on the chopping block to protect the interests of their rich donors.

Even at the risk of throwing a wrench in the economic recovery. The party of No were going to use the peoples welfare as a political sacrifice to protect the interests of their rich friends.

The US electric grid is a mammoth, complex network of independently owned and operated power plants and transmission lines. Most of the currently available infrastructure was put in place across the 1950s and 60s. Its sheer age is now earning commentary like this, on NPR:

"The U.S. power grid is often equated to a highway system, one that has been seriously neglected and is now being pushed to its limits with the demands of our growing and changing energy needs. As we see the rise in demand for renewable energy sources to combat the environmental ramifications of fossil fuels, the grid will continue to be proven antiquated and in need of reinvention."

The Department of Energy estimates that demand for electricity has increased by around 25 % since 1990 while construction of transmission facilities dropped 30%. According to Media Company Red Herring Inc., energy demand in the US is likely to surge 32% by 2015.

The grid failure of 2003 that affected the lives of over 50 million people is an oft-quoted example to underline the necessity of modernizing the US power grid. This is not just to deal with growing demand, but also to accommodate the new focus on renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydro power: which are not easily inter-connectable to the existing grid without significant refurbishing. The goal, of course, is to address long term energy security. Opting for renewable energy and putting in place infrastructure like 'smart grids', however, calls for a sizable investment.

A key target to reduce energy lost in the distribution process is the emergence of higher efficiency requirements for power and distribution transformers. Currently, transformers are responsible for a sizable amount of the energy lost and it is here that the DOE is introducing rules to increase efficiency. According to the rules published by the DOE, the cost of liquid-immersed distribution transformers increases by up to 12%, but should decrease electrical losses by as much as 23%. It could also raise the cost of medium-voltage, dry-type transformers by up to 13%, but should decrease electrical losses by as much as 26%.

Although much of the energy efficient technology is a little more expensive, private and government-owned utilities have begun to invest in it for the reliability it ensures. Additionally, the initial investment more than pays for itself in the long run, due to the decreased energy lost in the transmission and distribution system.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Aging-Power-Infrastructure-in-the-US&id=4802690
[/quo

From the CIA World Fact Book.

Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

A difference without a distinction. The righties appear to insist on this because "democracy" sounds like Democrat and "republic" sounds more like Republican. This would probably not be a very powerful argument for Conservative politics.

First off if you don't know the difference then why are you here debating? The assumption I state it for effect is a weak argument! Mob rule is why i mentioned in the context of this thread and to point out that democracy is over used by the media and you regergitated the misrepresentation!

Is what our fault? I'm having trouble find the precedent for your remarks in the quotes you cited.

With all that big money to be had by going green, it's hard to understand why the right and the American Chamber of Commerce isn't four-square behind it.

So it is their country its not ours in fact our policies have led to all this...... We have supported the dicator for life for decades now.... I am all for democracy because I am an american!

I believe this,

They want the country to go green because they are all taking oil company donations.

So basicly gulf war 1 was a pack of lies, gulf two a bigger pack of lies.. estimated costs of the wars is over three trillion, a number so big you cant imagine it. Prior to invasion a barrel of oil was 25 to thirty buck. The single gretest factor to our devistated economy was the rapid price rise in gas.

Lets not even mention the human cost of the Iraq war.

The right wing darling Mr Ron Paul before congress said this

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started?

It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack. A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq’s August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.


Ignore it if you choose but when we face tuff economic choices just remember were americas downward slide started, under The republican George Bush with aid of the media and democrats.

You have to ask yourself the what iffs, If we had not given Saddam the impression it was OK to invade Kuwait were would america be today? I have to think we wouldnt be bankrupt and powerless.

You've got to play the game to stay in it.
The effort shows where his heart is.
What was the Republican's effort.

I'll tell you.
They sued in the SC, saying the law was unconstitutional, and had all restrictions on lobbying lifted.
Even those that existed before the effort by Obama, and those that prohibited foreign corporations from lobbying.

The Republicans gave corporations around the world more influence in governing your country than you have.

SAD!

You know why! Because a third party canaidate is doomed for failure in this country and infiltrating the current conservative party and making changes within is a better game plan!

Fact!

If they're a third party then why not run as such?
Why run on the conservative ticket?