[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by RBatson :

ROFLMAO!!

I just realized something Jim. Why the hell do I need an opinion? You can just give me yours. Unfortuately the rest of us don't have the liberty of knowing everything.

I pay close attention to and study political issues, Rick. I then form considered opinions on what I learn. I post those opinions here and elsewhere, so that they have a voice. I don't expect everyone who reads my posts to automatically agree with everything I state. Nor should you expect the same for your opinions. When you make definitive statements and take 'stands' then you should fully expect to be challenged. I do. Why shouldn't you? If you cannot deal with that it's not my problem but perhaps you might want to reconsider continued posting on political issues.

Oh, 'deterrence'. I never saw that before Jim, how enlightening. Exactly which country did we invade to deter Russia?

We challenged the U.S.S.R. by having more and better missiles than they did. President Reagan then went further and not only deployed missiles to Europe in a direct confrontation with the U.S.S.R. (who had deployed their missiles to eastern europe) but also began SDI, a ballistic missile defense system that the near-bankrupt communist society of the U.S.S.R. could not match. Gorbachev knew it because President Reagan told him so in a summit meeting in Iceland in '86. Within months, the U.S.S.R. backed down, removed many of there nuclear missiles from eastern europe and stopped demanding that we dismantle our SDI program. Less than three years later, the U.S.S.R., still under Gorbachev, dissolved.

Of course, the major difference between Iran and the old U.S.S.R. is that, unlike the well-organized U.S.S.R., Iran is a rogue nation, run by unstable, hostile Islamic fundamentalist mullas who are a major force for terrorism (funding, arming) and must be considered a major foe of the U.S., as they have been since they kidnapped our embassy employees in 1979. By the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of the dictator Saddam Hussein and the democratization of that once-repressive nation, the U.S. has shown that we have the capability and the will to destroy a regime - any regime - that threatens our national security; whether with missiles, biological or chemical weapons or anything else they can dream up. Also, having a democratic Arab nation next to Iran can't do us any harm and it gives us an excellent military base, allowing the U.S. to withdraw out forces from our dubious 'ally': Saudi Arabia.

Oh and if solar power is so complicated and unfeasible then why does the government give low interest loans so folks can buy them?

Because solar power helps conserve energy, no argument, but not in a way that can ever come close to replacing oil. As I've stipulated: alternative energy sources such as wind and solar are nice and help a bit but don't come close to being anything that will replace oil as a fuel for power in the U.S. or the developed world.

That article I gave the link to said that 2 windmills were enough to power 785 homes.. what a joke, huh? I'm not saying windmills are the wave of the future, which they may be, (but solar seems more logical) all I'm saying is that alternative sources should be explored.

That rosy '785 homes' figure assumes enough wind to make the power needed on a schedule you can count on. Highly unlikely. Look, I agree that we might need to look at alternative fuel sources but so far, wind and solar haven't cut it. If you want to build a solar-powered home, be my guest. For now, I'll pass and just go with natural gas or oil for my heat and power.

Let this be a lesson to me for getting involved in political/religious discussion. I was warned the extremely conservative were close minded to anything but thier views.

No, Rick: let this be a lesson to you that when you make statements and post political comments on a nationally-seen messageboard, there just might be others reading it that, (a) disagree, (b) can articulate their disagreement and, (c) are more than willing to do so. If you don't like that, you might reconsider your definition of 'narrow-minded'. You can do that by simply looking in the mirror.