KD93

BarryG, you are the man. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with what you've written, (although for the record I found only one point that I differ in thought on.) It's because what you wrote is thoughtful, articulate, well presented and intelligent. Well done to you Sir.

Mexstan

BarryG, great posts! Thank you for taking the time to answer the way you did. I really did not expect any positive right or wrong answers to my questions, because like you, I am not sure if pure answers exist to questions like I asked. That could be one reason why so few chose to address the questions. I do believe however, that over the years that your so-called leaders have primarily for reasons of greed, caused America to lose it's foundations and is now a house of cards in imminent state of collapse. How far that collapse occurs will to some extent be based on the few firm foundations remaining. The pending turning it's back on Israel will hasten the death throes of America.

Keep the opinions coming. (but no flaming of individual DTR members)

KD93

How so Stan? I didn't realise the U.S. was considering pulling aid/trade from Israel. Not a good buisness move for sure...

Mexstan

Was waiting for someone to challenge me on this. How about this for starters:

https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...m-t285641.html

BarryG

First KD and Stan thanks for the kind words.

Boy Stan you sure like to stir the pot dont you or maybe you are just inquisitive and looking for true dialogue on some of your posts.

Since this has not dragged down low I will continue playing. However this may very well turn more political at this latest turn of the thread.

First off I am not up on this specific issue with Isreal so forgive the very high potential of me talking out my rear on this so I will try to keep it more general.

While I have no issue with Isreal we (as a country) really need to think about why it is we think they are such a good ally. And is it one sided. To be honest I feel we really are just using each other to further our own interests (from a government perspective, which I guess is a DUH thats what allies do). Obviosuly from the Isreali point of view who wouldnt want a superpower as an ally to help them partcularily one that has a great need for an ally in that portion of the world. So I think Isreal is more than happy to take/use us for everything they can get for what it costs them in return. I may very well be wrong but I do think Isreal would be an entirely different place without the huge support and backing that the US has provided over the years. All the US gets out of it is an ally (a democratic ally at that, a poster child in some repsects) in a portion of the world that we in reality could care less about except for one thing. That one thing is obviously oil. Now the US needs a presence in that area to further its interests to keep the oil flowing. There is no mistaking that right or wrong, good or bad the US economy, Country and its citizens needs that oil so why we do it is quite clear, at least to the extent that we do. ( I will try to avoid going off on a tangent as this is actually going somewhere).

The following report has some good if not interesting info in regards to aid to Isreal. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

I guess the point I am getting to is that just because Isreal wants something doesnt mean we have to comply or put our full force behind it. At times they act like a spoiled child. The settlement issue has been gone over and over again in our government houses even to the point of witholding funds to Isreal. The Isreali goverment cant even get a handle on it when they have tried. They in effect have given up on trying to stop it. If their defined borders are X what makes them think they can just keep doing it. It would be no different than the US moving across some designated agreed upon line into another country such as Canada. Do you really think Canada would just say eh ya go ahead no problem we dont mind ceeding some of our soveriegn nation to you. They would go bonkers just as we would. Ok it is not quite the same thing but pretty close in principle. Now some of Isreals neighbors are our allies or maybe better said psuedo-allies or at least we want them to be, once again to further our interests in the region. So do we for sure irritate/incense them buy not supporting this issue or do we thumb our nose at them and support Isreal on this even though in the past we have withheld aid for the same thing. A tough call, all we know for sure is that we need as much stability in the region as possible to keep the oil flowing, which provides the energy (or a significant portion thereof) to fuel this country's economy and all that that includes.

Once again not a simple answer (and you may have noticed I didnt give one just food for thought) as it has far reaching repercussions and is intertwined with many other things. Truthfully probably beyond what most of us could answer correctly as not many folks know all the real intertwined issues, behind closed doors meetings, policies and agreements between all the affected players. In general most Americans support Isreal but I think most Americans (including me) dont know the whole story either and if they did it may or may not effect their view.

Mexstan

Barry, stirring the pot is fun. Never know what can come up. Seriously, maybe I do stir the pot occasionally, but the bottom line is that I do it to get folks thinking and also because I seriously am very interested in the diverse way people think. While the DTR members may not truly represent all cross sections of American society, with the quantity of members here and the few that respond, perhaps some elements of truth and reality will rise to the surface, sometimes with fascinating differences of opinion. Of course, I know my opinion is the right one, every time.

In regards to Israel, that is really a completely different thread and I will not go there in this thread. Just briefly, (and I am hijacking my own thread) the Hebrew people and the land of Israel are God's chosen (favored) people. The Bible says that those that go against Israel will have God go against them. There is evidence that this has happened in the past in various countries and is happening now, but that also is the subject for a totally different thread. America has been blessed in the past because it supported Israel, but now that it is starting to turn it's back on Israel ( a Biblical prophecy), more and more bad things will start to happen to America. Bottom line for the entire middle east problem is Satan against Christ, (religion) but that is obscured by various factors.

So to go back to the subject of the original post, thanks to all that have taken the time to respond and for not forcing the mods to move this to the political section.

Mexstan

I thought this thread had died, but have just read something that appears to go along with the original questions. What do you think?;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110222/...dying_counties

BarryG

Intertesting article Mexstan.

I have only had time to quickly peruse the article but a few things did jump out at me.

First I think this is something that has been going on a while now as the rural areas that were settled originally for one reason or another are no longer viable for various reasons. Mainly ones that were built around a particular business such as lumber, farming/ranching, resource extraction even railroad building. Once that industry or reason is no longer active/downsized the town must adapt to stay afloat. Some have shifted and others have languished into ghost towns. Moab, Utah (originally a Morman outpost) for example was a big Uraniam mining area had a mill etc. When they stopped producing the town was going down. However they had the saving grace of being very close to a couple National Parks and Monuments. However even those were not really enough for that town to prosper. Then mountian biking hit the scene and the town courted it, grew and thrived and is on fairly solid ground as long as tourism keeps up. However the locals and particulary the long time locals complain bitterly about what their town has become now. Somewhat ironic I think.

Sorry I may have digressed a bit there. A few things that jumped out at me in the article are "the government downsizing is affecting this" which I read as the government has been supporting these communities with projects so these communities were not self sustaining without goverment help. And to add to that the one lady is waiting for the freeway which is going to bypass many of the two lane roads. While building the freeway may help in the short term with jobs if you are bypassing the towns wont that in the end keep people from traveling through the small towns and the money they might otherwise spend in them making the problem even worse once the freeway is done. It will make it easier for the locals to get out of town to a new place though.

The next thing that jumped out at me was someone actually said
"In some cases, the only thing that can pull an area out is an influx of young Hispanic immigrants or new economic development." Well no crap sherlock on the economic development point but in the article it also points out that overbuilding is the cause for some of the woes in some areas. In any case isnt that what they should have been doing all along trying to get out of a one industry economy to get diversified so to speak. Complaceny at its best I guess.

However the point about young hispanic immigrants I am not even sure where to start with that. First why must they be hispanic is it because they are thought to have a lot of children. Secondly I must assume that most of those would be illegal otherwise you would not get that large of an influx. Third whether legal or illegal immigrants if there are no jobs what are they going to do for employment. How are they going to live? Would that be from the US welfare system, various subsidies etc more government spending to keep a town/county afloat. Hmmmm that seems to just rub me the wrong way. (I have nothing against legal immigration from whatever country)

I think there are places that do not need to be inhabited. If they cannot support themselves (town, city, county, area whatever) then so be it. We do not need the entire country inhabited with prospering areas. That is not realistic nor sustainable. In our history you will find many population centers that did not survive. The people moved on for various reasons. Why would this change. Granted it happens a lot less in modern times but if you want your children to do/be better off than you were (which is probably a natural tendency) then why would you expect your children to remain in a depressed area. In general rural areas are rural for a reason they dont have the resources (whether it be usable land, natural resources, population etc), the industry, the economic wherewithall, or any combination of those items to stand on their own and if built only upon one of those foundations once it is exhausted what choice does the area have but to wither away to nothingness.

Stan I am sorry I just quickly reread what I wrote and realized that I pretty much railed on the article and not how it related to the original post questions. Maybe later.

Mexstan

Just read another opinion on this subject:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...e-east-empire/