Fuel Boycott on the 19th !!

MikePA · May 19, 2004

Can anyone name a instance when the U.S. economy was in the dumper and we were NOT in or on the verge of a robust military excursion? 
DAP's question was not what caused us to get into WWII nor what caused the rise of the Nazis in Germany. It was simply as quoted above.

Was the US economy in the dumper in 1929? Yes.
Were we in a robust military excursion? No.
Were we on the verge of a robust military excursion? No.

AndyM · May 19, 2004

AndyM . . . you and I tend to agree more often than not, but I would have to take some serious exception to what you wrote about NEED.

What type of car do I need? And who will decide it? 

It's all in my last sentence...

"It's all about people taking responsibility for their own actions."

You are more than welcome to buy any vehicle that you feel you need. Unfortunately, many times we fail to look at the consequences in the big picture when we make our decisions.

I was simply refering to American people collectively as a group. Individually (myself included), we each need to think about making responsible decisions in our lives.

For myself personally, gasoline broke $2.00 per gallon, and I started looking at other alternatives. I believe Americans, as a group, will probably let prices get a little higher before they reach that "level" where they change to a different type of vehicle than the one they are currently driving. Automobiles have turned into status symbols to show success, and many people would rather go into more debt as gas hits $2.00 per gallon than to give up their shiny new Hummer.

fivestring · May 19, 2004

"I would wonder if the current race to force a cashless system and the "anti terrorist" laws aren't perhaps designed to be directed against the American people when this thing finally collapses in order to maintain control." 

Interesting angle.
When gummit takes complete control is anyone's guess.
The fact that gummit will take control is fact.

DAP · May 19, 2004

( ...WWII wouldn't start for about another decade.)

Mike ... While ****** did indeed invade Poland in 1939, socially, ecnomically and politically, the global pretext to the war, for both sides, was already in motion for several years. Note that historically for example, the signing of the Versailles treaty (1917) is generally regarded as the end of WWI but many historians also consider it the building blocks of the inevitable rebuilding of European geo politcal reform vis-a-vis the rearmament and repoliticalization of a new German state.

The depression indeed commenced in 1929. It's effects lasted well into the thirties and most likely would have persisted globally had WWII not interrupted.

It is well documented that the western democracies were already ramping up their respective military industrial machines to deal with a world war that was evident in the early 1930s.

Actually the Great Depression turns out to be a quintessential example of my point. WWI, the Civil War, even the Revolutionary war to a large degree were driven to solve economic strife.

Lastly, check your facts Mike. Was the US economy in the dumper in the mid-late 1930s? You bet your bippy it was. So was the UK, France, Italy, Russia, and most of the rest of W. Europe.

Asia (as in Japan) was already at war with China (yet another reason for the **** party to align themselves with the east) and 'dolph already knew his agenda for Stalin (sign the Stalin Pact then strategically backstab and grab the Crimea and it's rich oil reserves). The writing was on the wall. FDR civic programs were noble, but not getting the job done. Unemployment remained in the mid 20 percentile until the industrial complexes started conversions.

BillG_in_TX · May 19, 2004

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm getting ready to head to Sam's to fill 'er up! I figure that there won't be any lines to wait in, since the boycott should be in full swing. Besides that, Sam's may have lowered their prices already, worried that the gas may go bad before tomorrow. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

MikePA · May 19, 2004

Actually the Great Depression turns out to be a quintessential example of my point. 
Guess it all depends on how you define verge.

 WWI, the Civil War, even the Revolutionary war to a large degree were driven to solve economic strife.
IOW, the Civil War was not about slavery(North)/states rights(South) and the Revolutionary War was not about independence?

slowrev · May 19, 2004

The US "Civil War" was not about slavery, that was just a political issue thrown in to get support in the north for the war. Sort of like WMD.

Bob_Skurka · May 19, 2004

( I don't know about everyone else, but I'm getting ready to head to Sam's to fill 'er up! I figure that there won't be any lines to wait in, since the boycott should be in full swing. Besides that, Sam's may have lowered their prices already, worried that the gas may go bad before tomorrow. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif )

Of my 3 cars, one has a full tank, and the other two are over 1/2 full. So I am not buying gas today. Does that mean I am taking part of the boycott???

Junkman · May 19, 2004

My tractor is almost out of fuel. Am I allowed to fuel it from my own dispensing pump without violating the boycott??? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DAP · May 19, 2004

LOL .. Mike we're both typing at the same time! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 WWI, the Civil War, even the Revolutionary war to a large degree were driven to solve economic strife.
IOW, the Civil War was not about slavery(North)/states rights(South) and the Revolutionary War was not about independence?
)

Well ... the Civil war was NOT really about slavery after all. The Emancipation Proclomation - published 2 1/2 years into the war, was a political act of desperation to ease sentiment of an unpoplular war growing more unpopluar in the Union. It is well documented that many slave holders were a: Union supporters and b: living in the northen Union prior to 1863, when honest abe scripted up the E.P. It was about economics first and foremost. The Civil War made the USofA filthy rich and a Power to be reckonned with globally. This is not the forum for a complete discection of Europe's involvement in the U.S. Civil war, but it was well entrenched into the strugge. The war blossomed into a showcase for the expansion of the Industrial Revolution, especially in the mineral rich, water way laden and diverse states of the North. Thousands ... THOUSANDS of [northern] patents resulted in huge wealth for what eventually became the United States, railways, machinery, manufacturing, shipping, arms, tools, the list goes on and on. The south, was mostly an agragarian wealth. Their only geo political strategy was to burn their crops and stockpiles of corn and cotton in an attempt to engage Britain on their side. That failed, thanks to the French naval blockades. The south was too underdeveloped to compete with the wealth of northern industry. Most of us learn in 5th grade that the Civil War was a Slavery/State's Rights struggle. Any history scholar worth a piece of wood quickly dispels that notion however.

The Rev War? Certainly it was about independence. Don't forget the most of the colonists here on this land were so at the expense of the British land patent system and were for the most part loyal to the crown. The Tea Party was about taxes, taxation without representation, and yes, independence. Economic independence, liberatarian independence and religious independence. In that order. It twasn't until George III decided that he could make the Crown's coffers overflow more by having his pupils abroad in America do his bidding. This was short lived however, as we now know from history.

In sum ... saying the Civil War was about slavery or the Rev. War was about independence is oversimplified to a point of being incorrect.