• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should gas prices reflect the cost of war in the middle east?

Should gas prices reflect the cost of military action in the middle east?

  • Yes, there should be a tax that pays for military action to secure oil in the middle east.

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • No

    Votes: 7 63.6%

  • Total voters
    11
TY, I think I am better understanding what you are getting at. IMO your take is not workable in the short term but I know that in the long term we need to foster other sources of energy. I was thinking that the current system of keeping gasoline as cheap as possible is not fostering the changes you advocate.

:twocents:I have noticed in my neighborhood that the most inefficient vehicles on the road appear to be driven by the poorest people. If perhaps, the cost of gas drove them to drive more fuel efficient vehicles rather than the cheaper to buy, but more expensive to run, they would be encouraging the type of reform you are suggesting. They are wasting their money to foster political ideals that do not seem to be in their best interests.

you know, i get that. but higher gas prices will simply pull money from other parts of the economy. they won't buy a very fuel efficient vehicle until it's very old and cheap to buy. it will take a long time to overcome inertia, but i think that we should have started this transition in the 1970s. we should definitely do it now.
 
Well, of course, the illumanati, masons and Jews decide - ultimately.

Yeah, radcen, you should know how crazy that sounds. We were there for the non-existant WMDs and to stop the terrorists that attacked us because we go over there and topple their leaders.

You really should listen to ecofarm; he knows what he's talking about. You won't be qualified to speak on these matters until you've had enough mercury laden Kool-Aid to comprehend all the nuances. Here's a lead cup, now don't stop drinking until you understand as much as eco.
 
Thank you for actually addressing the issues. It appears that you recognize that there is an oil source issue to this.

I admit, the Islam issue is disturbing. How to deal with a bunch of poor, misguided people is difficult. But we are not dealing with that. It seems to me that the current strategy is to secure the oil and then let the "military industrial complex" benefit from a never ending "war on terrorism."

Kill em all or don't. Stop the unending bull**** effort to avert some unending threat.

Frankly you have caused me to bring out my true feelings about the middle east. S**t or get off the pot.

Resources have always been a factor if not the actual cause of war. Protecting economic interests have also commonly played a role.

Our real involvement in the Middle-East dates back to the cold war. While the cold war was about stopping Soviet aggression, to do so, we also had to secure and protect resources necessary to our defense. I have no problem with us being in the middle east, just that we are not using our influence to bring about change there and that we don't seem to know how to handle rebuilding countries. For those who want us completely out of the region, it's just not possible without abandoning Israel and causing massive problems to not only our economy but the world economy, upon which we depend.
 
Resources have always been a factor if not the actual cause of war. Protecting economic interests have also commonly played a role.

Our real involvement in the Middle-East dates back to the cold war. While the cold war was about stopping Soviet aggression, to do so, we also had to secure and protect resources necessary to our defense. I have no problem with us being in the middle east, just that we are not using our influence to bring about change there and that we don't seem to know how to handle rebuilding countries. For those who want us completely out of the region, it's just not possible without abandoning Israel and causing massive problems to not only our economy but the world economy, upon which we depend.

Resources, including oil, was a large part of Japan's motivation prior to WW2, also.
 
Back
Top Bottom