Thomas Burke

This is very naive. Firstly, China is an economic pygmy and simply can't afford to buy all the oil the Arabs want to sell. If they want to cut off the Americans and sell to China, the Sheikhs had better be prepared to take a significant pay cut - and they are too materialistic and selfish to do that. Secondly, there is oil in Alaska, Texas, the North Sea and plenty in Russia. If the Arabs stop selling oil to the Americans, there's a long queue of other suppliers behind them. Prices might go up slightly, but that's about all. Certainly America will not be brought to her knees by this method. China's only option for war with the USA is nuclear, and while the Chinese/NK nuclear force could do significant damage to the US (mostly on the west coast), the USA could utterly obliterate China and NK in a few minutes. This is not something that the Chinese leadership will be keen upon - I hurt you, you kill me is not a good trade unless you have a death wish. Furthermore, a large portion of the Chinese economy depends upon American business. If America withdraws this, China can look forward to a recession. America uses China as a cheap labour source, but as with the oil, if China cuts America off there are plenty more queueing up - India, Mexico et al. Not even after he appeared on Al-Jazeera and said "I did it"? Naive? I didn't say yet . I said eventually. Believe me, the United States is very dependent on oil from the Middle East which is why it is so heavily invested in the region. Within the next 50 years should the Arabs withdraw and China take the gulp then the US would not be able to resist the movement. Besides, Russia is kind of at only-semi friendly relations with the United States at the moment and is almost at a position like China's (though better considering they are now an ally of the United States). Again, later the United States would not risk such a conflict and I still believe they wouldn't. United States is reluctant for itself to go to war with North Korea for the same reason and their nuclear program is prettttty small compared to the US's or China's. In other words, the United States would rather have China go to war with its allies than risk a small nuclear picnic with North Korea.

You too should see my other post in the American Patriotism thread in the US Politics Forum. It relates to exactly how the Israeli started the most recent conflict by opening fire on rioting Palestinians, mostly teenage children. You have a point in saying that they purposefully minimize the explosive power, but that is because they don't need to. How much of an explosion do you need to kill a large amount of people? Not very much. A few bombs/missiles here and there and you can take out a whole city. Yes, they are taking military action against those who attack her... those who attack her with rocks! Then they respond with automatic rifles and platoons. The real reason the Palestinians carry out their style of warfare is because any other kind would be useless and they are desperate, not because they are more malicious than the Israeli. Free Palestine!

You are ignorant yourself if you think the Palestinians started the war with Israel. Go ahead and see my other post in the American Patriotism thread because I am too disgusted with a brainwashed ignoramus like you to explain myself again. Really. If you want more information on the war go ahead and read some history. Otherwise listen to my arguments and you'll learn alot.

First of all, I believe in abortion in certain cases but I do not believe in it in all cases. Laws should be passed as so: A. If the woman's pregnancy is unintentional but a result of willful intercourse than abortion should not be allowed. B. If the woman's pregnancy is unintentional but a result of rape than the state has the right to decide. C. If the woman's pregnancy will result in a sickly child that will be born still, seriously mentally deformed, or crippled by sexual disease (i.e., AIDS) an abortion shall be allowed by all states. My opinions (braces for the impact ).

Islam? A failure? Personally I can tell you that Islam is in its inquisitional period, the period of religious intolerance and hatred against one another and other religions that developed in Christianity around the same age (1400s). Islam has shown to be the most tolerant Abrahamian religion to date. Judaism persecuted against pagans, Muslims, and even Christians. Christianity persecuted against everything . But until recently, Islam only went against those that weren't peoples of the book (Christians, Jews, and at one point, Zorastrians). Therefore it is unfair and untrue to call Islam a failure.

First of all, look at my earlier post. We still haven't proven that Muslim terrorists commited the acts and though it is highly possible there are several groups that unlike Al-Qaeda, actually claimed responsibility. Second of all, this is not true. Though this is the motive for some in Al-Qaeda it is not the main motive for many or the origin of the secondary motive. The first motive is the fact of our support of the Israeli in their destruction of Palestinian homes and lives as well as our monopoly over Middle Eastern economies. Look at the beginning of the last breakouts, shortly before 9/11 (about 6 months-1 year earlier). Palestinians, angry at Israeli occupation threw rocks at Israeli soldiers (armed with US guns). In response the Israeli shot at the Palestinians, many young teenagers. In this way the Israeli soldiers reacted inappropriately. Third of all, my reasoning is probably not one hundred percent correct but it is very accurate. And also, prove to me that they killed children. Fourth of all, my logic is not flawed. Yours is, I am afraid. Japan had a base of operations. Terrorist organizations do not which is what the government seems to not understand. We are fighting organizations that can operate right within the United States. The Japanese-terrorist analogy is therefore flawed in that the kamikazes attacked aircraft carriers which were not required to retaliate though helpful. The terrorists on the other hand can strike us at whatever position they want whether it be the White House or the Pentagon. They can strike us right there and we would only know when it was too late. Fifth of all, how do you propose to teach them a lesson? By making them hate you? This sounds like United States is an abusive parent that beats their child everytime they annoy them. What the terrorists did is wrong but you cannot harm them by attacking the so-called terrorist-controlled nations (like Saddam had anything to do with 9/11). This causes resentment which is the reason that they attacked in the first place. Unless people like you are taken out of office the United States Empire's doom will be closer than ever.

Withdrawing supply of oil (ever read Dune?) is an easy way to do so. More would be needed however. Another way the Arabs could cause our downfall is simply by changing their supply to others. If they feel a deal with China is better for them, then they would do it. The United States would not at its current state, risk war with a nation backed by a nuclear power (China) that is allied to another nuclear power (NOrth Korea). Yet another way is through terrorist acts. Terrorism can destroy the United States through a planned attack that would make the 9/11 terrorists (I hesitate to say Osama as it has still not been proven that he did it) ashamed of their "genius". Economic and political catastrophes would topple the United States' government power. No problem.

Apparently you don't get the point. It was because of our foreign policies that 9/11 happened. And it is because we continue such foreign policies that they will continue to appear. I expect that it will be the Arabs that cause our downfall. Primarily because the economy is dependent on the Middle East but mostly because we are making the situation worse, not better.

I disagree completely with the idea that an American patriot is a man that will fight to bring Iraq under the domination of the United States. It is a true that a warrior policy is sometimes called for to keep order and achieve dominance but these attacks in the Muslim world are clearly misguided or false. The United States government (more specifically Bush and the CIA) has already admitted to lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. More to the point, if this is meant to stop terrorism (with no evidence to say that archenemies Osama and Saddam collaberating) than why not consider the points that attacking men with the white flag up, bombing villages and innocent cities, dropping pamphelts across the country telling of the "liberation of Iraq" will cause at least as much resentment as gratitude to the government of the United States. Expect more terrorists to appear because with a foreign policy like this, we cannot avoid being hated as the British Empire was hated in the 19th century during its height of power. This will eventually bring our fall.

I'm not a Californian and I am unsurprised but disappointed in the Californian people's decision to elect Arnold Schwartzeneggar. Arnold, first of all, is in support of major drilling off the coast of California. Something that Californians have been opposing for a long time. Second of all, though the Bush Administration says he doesn't want Arnold as governor in California, Arnold has the same political advisors behind him. Third of all, Arnold has already shown to be better at getting away with his little misconducting than Clinton did. And look at what an outrage that was! Essentially however, from what I do know, Arnold is not as bad as some that could have gotten elected and is a considerably better governor for California is, than George W. Bush is a president for the United States. After all, I don't think Arnold will be revoking California's rights anytime soon.