After we've drilled ANWR, and that oil runs out (which it will eventually), then what?
Gene
Liberal Source Documentation...interesting...
-
Don Rearic
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Absurdistan
- Contact:
Yes, that is why they are natural resources, since the planet is of a finite size, the "natural" resources that occur won't be there forever.Gene DeMambro wrote:After we've drilled ANWR, and that oil runs out (which it will eventually), then what?
Gene
I've said before that we should be developing solar energy and any other sort of alternative that we can. Imagine only having to pay 25% of what you currently pay for electricity...or perhaps have no electric bill at all.
If we could just get to the place where a majority of people who are homeowners have solar panels, I think that would take alot of stress off of certain power companies, etc.
As far as vehicles are concerned, we are a long way off when it comes to being able to purchase an alternative to the internal combustion engine.
I also think that alternative fuels should continue to be developed. You know what I mean? And if oil companies do indeed stand in the way of that or try to thwart that should be fined out the ass.
But hey, you liberals are very slick. What do you think of CNN hiding these things? After all, the thread is not really about oil although anything having to do with this conflict - oil becomes the issue with some people.
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
Not sure what's sooooo left wing extremist and upsetting about my post there, but I'll tackle some issues:
"We" don't want to drill in ANWAR in the national sense, just like "we" invaded Iraq. There are enough people around who'd like not to use our land like disposable batteries. Up until it ran aground, the Valdez was involved in what was thought to be appropriate use of Alaska's oil resources.
"The oil conspiracies just don't stand up outside of a meeting of the local Democrats Club parading as The Optimist's Club."
It's not really a conspiracy, is it? The fact that the middle eastern oil is important to our national interests hasn't been concealed--nor is it concealable--by recent administrations. I'm not saying our national interests SHOULDN'T play a role in deciding when to employ our military anyway. I'm just saying the assertion oil had nothing, that's right, nothing at all to do with our response in Iraq is laughable.
It's not an army of occupation. If I'm going to hear the Nancy Pelosi line, I'm not going to respond to it because some things are absurd. While it has to be an army of occupation to begin with, it is not going to stay that way for long.
"My whole point above in my post earlier today was missed by you."
I'll leave this as I left it before so IT can't be missed: we've been choosing which nations to invade and occupy (temporarily) and we've been making the decision on more factors than just which are terrorist threats, otherwise we would have invaded more by now.
"But if you want to talk about some really interesting "conspiracies...""
Thanks, I'll pass.
"But hey, you liberals are very slick. What do you think of CNN hiding these things? After all, the thread is not really about oil although anything having to do with this conflict - oil becomes the issue with some people."
That includes our administration(s)! What's disingenuous about MENTIONING the fact that the real estate we're fighting on happens to sit upon the very fuel for our economy? How can that NOT come up? I was careful to explain it is one of many factors rather than the only one; no one is trying to make it the sole issue in the slightest. What would be inappropriate is perpetuating the black and white Stars Wars-esque simplicity to which our public discussion of this matter always seems to slide.
"We" don't want to drill in ANWAR in the national sense, just like "we" invaded Iraq. There are enough people around who'd like not to use our land like disposable batteries. Up until it ran aground, the Valdez was involved in what was thought to be appropriate use of Alaska's oil resources.
"The oil conspiracies just don't stand up outside of a meeting of the local Democrats Club parading as The Optimist's Club."
It's not really a conspiracy, is it? The fact that the middle eastern oil is important to our national interests hasn't been concealed--nor is it concealable--by recent administrations. I'm not saying our national interests SHOULDN'T play a role in deciding when to employ our military anyway. I'm just saying the assertion oil had nothing, that's right, nothing at all to do with our response in Iraq is laughable.
It's not an army of occupation. If I'm going to hear the Nancy Pelosi line, I'm not going to respond to it because some things are absurd. While it has to be an army of occupation to begin with, it is not going to stay that way for long.
"My whole point above in my post earlier today was missed by you."
I'll leave this as I left it before so IT can't be missed: we've been choosing which nations to invade and occupy (temporarily) and we've been making the decision on more factors than just which are terrorist threats, otherwise we would have invaded more by now.
"But if you want to talk about some really interesting "conspiracies...""
Thanks, I'll pass.
"But hey, you liberals are very slick. What do you think of CNN hiding these things? After all, the thread is not really about oil although anything having to do with this conflict - oil becomes the issue with some people."
That includes our administration(s)! What's disingenuous about MENTIONING the fact that the real estate we're fighting on happens to sit upon the very fuel for our economy? How can that NOT come up? I was careful to explain it is one of many factors rather than the only one; no one is trying to make it the sole issue in the slightest. What would be inappropriate is perpetuating the black and white Stars Wars-esque simplicity to which our public discussion of this matter always seems to slide.
--Ian
-
Don Rearic
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Absurdistan
- Contact:
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Carter was a dem, yes? Not party by party, issue by issue.Carter Doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Carter Doctrine was issued in the State of the Union Address on January 23 1980 by President Jimmy Carter. Responding to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan that had recently taken place, the President stated:
An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
This policy thus warned the Soviets away from Iran, which had just had a revolution, and at the time was holding hostages in the United States Embassy, and Iraq.
With the capture of more and more Iraqi Government Officials, more is learned daily. One such official has directed the U.S. military to labs, reports, stores and told us that in the final weeks Saddam was having the Chem/Bio weapons destroyed 24/7 non-stop. It appears the evidence is mounting rather than running thin.Thaws wrote:If not the oil issue, the excuse of WMD is running thin at the moment.
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/ ... index.html
The issue may well continue to evaporate, until no one can remember the difference between the reasons we went to war before we went to war, and the reasons we went after. Surely intelligence is sometimes faulty, but it isn't often completely wrong.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/01/16/harman/
It's nice that someone's upset, but Americans can hardly tell what fraction the spin coming out of Bush's head is or is not true, and too often they take it for granted like most of the excreta smeared on the pages of Coulter's recent "Slander..."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal ... index.html
So is our president subnormal, or is he "misunderestimated," and actually pulling one over on us? Excerpts from the last link:
"O'Neill sounds an alarm against an unfit president who lacks "credibility with his most senior officials," behind whom looms a dark "puppeteer," as O'Neill calls Cheney, and a closed cabal. "A strict code of personal fealty to Bush -- animated by the embrace of a few unquestioned ideologues -- seemed to be in collision with a faith in the broader ideals of honest inquiry."
He is upset at the regular violations he sees against his notion of "sound" government. There is, he concludes, "a pattern: either no process, or a truncated one, where efforts to collect evidence and construct smart policy are, with little warning, co-opted by the White House political team, or the Vice President, or whoever got to the President and said something, true or not."
Invading Iraq was on the agenda of the first meeting of the Principals Committee of the National Security Council, which O'Neill attended, months before 9/11, and it was pushed relentlessly."
Was he pushing to invade Iraq then because of the WMD? Or because ___?And 9/11 just made it easier, despite the fact there is no link besides we're the common enemy of Al Qaeda and Iraq and Osama viewed Saddam as an infidel?
The issue may well continue to evaporate, until no one can remember the difference between the reasons we went to war before we went to war, and the reasons we went after. Surely intelligence is sometimes faulty, but it isn't often completely wrong.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/01/16/harman/
It's nice that someone's upset, but Americans can hardly tell what fraction the spin coming out of Bush's head is or is not true, and too often they take it for granted like most of the excreta smeared on the pages of Coulter's recent "Slander..."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal ... index.html
So is our president subnormal, or is he "misunderestimated," and actually pulling one over on us? Excerpts from the last link:
"O'Neill sounds an alarm against an unfit president who lacks "credibility with his most senior officials," behind whom looms a dark "puppeteer," as O'Neill calls Cheney, and a closed cabal. "A strict code of personal fealty to Bush -- animated by the embrace of a few unquestioned ideologues -- seemed to be in collision with a faith in the broader ideals of honest inquiry."
He is upset at the regular violations he sees against his notion of "sound" government. There is, he concludes, "a pattern: either no process, or a truncated one, where efforts to collect evidence and construct smart policy are, with little warning, co-opted by the White House political team, or the Vice President, or whoever got to the President and said something, true or not."
Invading Iraq was on the agenda of the first meeting of the Principals Committee of the National Security Council, which O'Neill attended, months before 9/11, and it was pushed relentlessly."
Was he pushing to invade Iraq then because of the WMD? Or because ___?And 9/11 just made it easier, despite the fact there is no link besides we're the common enemy of Al Qaeda and Iraq and Osama viewed Saddam as an infidel?
--Ian
I'm sure that you'll want to order your very own Ann Coulter talking doll!
I have a friend that has one...
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/ ... cd=WC00026
It has many of Ann's best comments, such as:
"Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."
"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
"Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster."
"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
and the great "Coulterism":
"At the risk of giving away the ending, it's all liberals' fault."
It will save some of us lots of time if you'd just buy one and everytime you wanted a response to some idea from the works of Marx, Engels or Lenin, you could just listen to the Ann Coulter talking doll!
<- smiley captioned for the humor impaired.
I have a friend that has one...
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/ ... cd=WC00026
It has many of Ann's best comments, such as:
"Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."
"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."
"Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster."
"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
and the great "Coulterism":
"At the risk of giving away the ending, it's all liberals' fault."
It will save some of us lots of time if you'd just buy one and everytime you wanted a response to some idea from the works of Marx, Engels or Lenin, you could just listen to the Ann Coulter talking doll!
<- smiley captioned for the humor impaired.From another thread:
"Listen closely... That silence you hear is the ultra-left-wing working on the best way to spin another Clinton's snub of the U.S. military into the best thing while trying to spin the President's trip into a "political publicity stunt"."
They were both publicity stunts (meaningless photoshoots) and they generated a firestorm of controversy. Meanwhile we've got a firestorm of... dead silence regarding the fact that our President makes screwy policy off the cuff without meaningfully discussing it with his advisers, and among those decisions was to go to war with Saddam long before 9/11, although he used that as a mighty good excuse. WMD data was inflated and now has essentially vaporized, although, gosh, it might have been out there (why trust the intel from prewar guesses rather than postwar unlimited onsite searches?). We had about half the country believing Saddam was INVOLVED with 9/11 although there was no evidence whatsoever and there still isn't....
In short our President invented reasons to take us to war, and most of us happily swallowed them whole without chewing and now, aren't even aware or upset that they've been misled about the most important decisions the country can make.
Does anyone want to harrumph about the photoshoot some more????
"Listen closely... That silence you hear is the ultra-left-wing working on the best way to spin another Clinton's snub of the U.S. military into the best thing while trying to spin the President's trip into a "political publicity stunt"."
They were both publicity stunts (meaningless photoshoots) and they generated a firestorm of controversy. Meanwhile we've got a firestorm of... dead silence regarding the fact that our President makes screwy policy off the cuff without meaningfully discussing it with his advisers, and among those decisions was to go to war with Saddam long before 9/11, although he used that as a mighty good excuse. WMD data was inflated and now has essentially vaporized, although, gosh, it might have been out there (why trust the intel from prewar guesses rather than postwar unlimited onsite searches?). We had about half the country believing Saddam was INVOLVED with 9/11 although there was no evidence whatsoever and there still isn't....
In short our President invented reasons to take us to war, and most of us happily swallowed them whole without chewing and now, aren't even aware or upset that they've been misled about the most important decisions the country can make.
Does anyone want to harrumph about the photoshoot some more????
--Ian
-
Stryke
