Random Politics & Religion #00

How far away is the world from purging its need of oil? A century? An eternity? I don't deal in your fantasies. This is reality, there are plenty of countries in the Middle East that have vast wealth, and there are other countries that could easily obtain it should they desire to.

Ummm k?

Nuclear has its own set of problems but is absolutely a better choice than coal or other more-readily-used sources.

The problem is when your populace contains a large number of illiterates that put all their stock in imams/elders/authority figures who can manipulate their every whim at the behest of the ruling class.

Revolution is an option but as we've seen with the Arab Spring while there are intellectuals who want better for their countries they have both outside nations to answer to (who can flood their enemies with weapons) and the populace who may not understand their vision. Look at Iran for example. And every time the West has decided some psychopathic dictator is NP so long as they tow the status quo.

It's hard (as a revolutionary) to say you have the people when the people fall right back into Shia v. Sunni, my local clan v. your local clan, my imam v. your imam after any political upheavals and that doesn't count all the good people imprisoned/murdered/exiled who could reslly help uplift their nations.

It would be done already if not for the irrational tree huggers on the left.

Yo Aman, it's called global oil markets. Look into 'em.

Or are you suggesting the US gov't nationalize our oil deposits? Because alot of companies wouldn't be cool with that.

Oh sure, thats believable. Because Democrats in America are responsible for all of China's demand. Its probably time for you to stop posting.

Aww don't get mad buddy. Look, Jet gave you a +. Chin up.

Sounds like a great reason to do it to me, but that's completely devoid of logic and me just stirring the pot.

It would be so nice though to see instability in the Middle East be a Chinese problem. They would at least deal with it the correct way.

Again I say whether I agree or not is irrelevant.

I still laughed.

I will accept this as your surrender. Every single one of your posts today has been factually incorrect. Better luck next time.

Speaking of countries that we actually should liberate except we won't because of their political "allies" who don't even like them...

New North Korean Nuclear Test Could Come In October

Wait... The world would have moved away from fossil fuels already if it weren't for the people rallying against them? Is this one of those "keep your government hands off my medicare" things?

So basically NK will attempt to sink a SK ship, declare glorious victory and continue to be ignored as geopolitical Herpes.

I like South Korea, though. They're fun.

They're practically little America.

When we're done cleaning up the Middle East in time for corn flakes, we'll finish up that Korean adventure and put the peninsula back together again.

You wait Kim! After Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Mali and Sudan we'll find you. And we'll put your regime of evil to bed.

It's always about oil and other natural resources with you!

Basically we're just going to play the whole geopolitical dance until someone straight up attacks us again. At that point, we'll do what we usually do and "Hulk Up". Here's a low-quality gif to demonstrate.

Whatcha gonna do when Bern-/Jeb-/Trump-/Hilldawg-/Walker-amania runs wild on you, brutha?

"Bernamania" sounds the best to me, not because he's my favorite of those candidates, but because he seems like the kind of guy that takes forever to piss off, but when you do, ***just gets ***. up.

That's the kind of person you want leading forces. You don't want to use them but when you do, you ruthlessly complete the mission.

All these screeching hawks do is get good people killed on endless quagmires. There's no glory in that.

Pretty much. I'm no advocate for war, but if you're going to do it, give it everything you've got and get it over with as quickly as possible. I hate to say that the ends justify the means, but a drawn out war is worse for everyone involved.

I think NK would be the first time since WWII we'd actually be greeted as liberators.

Nah, the Kuwaitis loved us in Desert Storm.

That's likely the only case, though. Maybe the Kurds in Iraq II: Desert Boogaloo?

I always forget Desert Storm, since we took care of business and left.

STORMIN' NORMAN.



-the last time your average citizen could name and express a legitimate feeling on a military leader.

You know, I posted that and suddenly realized it might be (at least) juusstt outside of conscious memory for many people posting here.

Ok, I don't contest there are people within every faith who pervert it to justify their violence. That's not the point. You (and everyone else's) refuse to see any further distinction between them. You've accepted the sophomoric and over simplified analysis of "all religions have been bad at some point so therefore they're all bad" and you're not interested in anything remotely resembling a deeper understanding of the issue. I would guess that this might be because of your own experiences with religion which if it's a valid guess, I would urge you to challenge yourself on.

These religions do not operate in the same manner. They are NOT equal in their values and their members do not hold the same opinions on terrorism. Polling indicates many Muslims support suicide bombings on civilian targets to defend / promote the faith. It really does the religion and the more westernized members of the religion a disservice when the media artificially distances Islam and violence.

Christians/catholics do not denounce their faith when some members pervert their faith. They denounce the members and when they do they are supported by their centralized authority (the vatican). In Islam there is no similar authority, the subdivisions (sunni shia) war with each other, and the religious states (IRAN) fund international terrorism.

Does ISIS reign in Dubai?