>>Pardon je pour écrire seulement en anglais.
No need to apologize, I have absolutely no problem with that, on the contrary. After all, French is mostly used for abusive (and quickly deleted) comments down here.
I noticed you dismissed the poet and introduced the engineer, and thank you for a very informative comment.
However, I'm afraid I stand by my point as far as your initial equation is concerned: I found nothing in your argument to back up your demonstration - that I would summarize roughly as "no oil = end of Islamist terrorism" (I don't suggest your equation is so blunt. It could be of course, any kind of variation: "no oil", or "less oil" or "from a different source" or even "bankrupt the Saudi" equals "decisive blow to Islamism" or "victory is near")
I'm not an engineer myself, so I may enter a mine field here, but still, I'll have a go on the topic. The V8 bit was mostly an image, yet I understand it might not have been a proper one, since you seem to take it literally.
My point was (is) that scaling down our activity is not the good thing to do, particularly in the current context. I would be the first to see particular interest in high capacity batteries. Really. Not particularly for cars (because there is something with the gasoline engine that cannot be purported by other alternatives: any driving nut such as myself can tell you that there is a lot more to it than just the efficiency factor "“ but I digress.)
That our current car engines still have room for improvement, as you noted, is actually nothing new or surprising. Last time I looked, this is precisely what is happening since the beginning of this blessed invention (which was itself already an improvement over the previous means of transport and sources of energy). Improvement. Better engines, etc.
That was indeed the reason why I wrote "Our current state of technology doesn't allow us to give up on "their" oil yet."
And emphasized on "yet".
I learned quite interesting facts thank to your comment, but you apparently failed to provide the viable alternatives I was err, "demanding" "“ Instead, you're still talking about a prospective future. How close it can be is actually of little importance: I never argued that it won't happen or that we shouldn't pursue these goals.
We are, and we will reach them (Unless you involuntarily made my point, I guess we're in fact right on the same track, judging by your paragraph on the successive stages of lightning fuel).
You have reason to believe that these viable energy sources are right under our noses? I'd say we're already using some of them (let's not forget about our nuclear reactors, which already helped us a lot to become more independent "“ and far less polluting - from Middle East thugs such as the Saudi) and I guess the other are actually a bit farther than our nose.
Maybe say, right after the next turn.
In short, we're going there and the day we could say "FY" to the Princes of the Desert (as well as "behave, or else…") is coming closer. My point is: it's too early yet, and since we need to keep on going at fast pace, we shall not starve our V8s.
Guess what? I have reasons to believe that the Saudi KNOW we don't have any alternative ready right here, right know. Check this if you please: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3410
(actually a very important read for every American voter, if I may)
Back to what made me feel uncomfortable with your equation. I believe you misunderstood the reason why I mentioned Pakistan. You seem to hold a grudge against the Madrassas (and God knows I won't blame you for that), but at the end of the day, there are two reasons why I don't believe they're so much of a concern: first, these are only indoctrination centers, not weapon factories or military bases. We have to keep an eye on them, but there's nothing here out of the reach of any decent police forces and secret services. (And death squads too, if they start wearing explosive jackets and heading towards the next bus stop or train station.)
Next, the "students" are eventually nothing more than a ragtag good enough for Djihad. They can claim success against a dying Soviet army, but that's just about everything they can do. They're cannon fodder, no matter how expensive "“ or not "“ their training was for the Saudi princes. At worse, they will reach our cities, like they did in New York (I don't think they could try the planes again) in Bali or in Madrid (that's more of a concern, but again, I imagine that with some serious work and international cooperation, they could be traced and eliminated fairly easily)
So yes, the Saud are funding Madrassas in Pakistan (again, not really big news for this frogman), but that was not the reason why I mentioned Pakistan.
Nuke plans, remember?
We're talking about state terrorism (I have a hard time believing that Musharraf "didn't know"). Pakistan has little concern about the quantity of gas Americans are pouring in their SUVs. We could add North Korea "“ same story, with a record of state terrorism abroad. And we could notice that Pakistan's expertise in nuclear came from China. Also, it seems that Iran is quite in the news with nuclear handiwork lately.
We won't stop these people simply by cutting down our oil orders to the Saud. If you allow me this little irony: No it's really not about Oil!
At least, it's not that simple.