25 May 08
Originally posted by RagnorakI don't see why only those 2 options are available, Rag. Could we not start drilling in some choice spots like Alaska, or more offshore in the Gulf?
If enough american people are of your attitude "I'm not going to cut back on my gas usage just to stick one up at the rest of the world" combined with your "US is best, don't provoke us to wrath", then the US is going to have absolutely no option but escalated military aggression as time goes by and oil gets scarcer and scarcer.
We're being fleeced at th ...[text shortened]... change their mindsets, or the US will have to invade more and more countries.
D
Another option-- how about, rather than invade a country for their oil (which I'm still not believing the USA has done or will do), what would happen if the US speculators and buyers and magnates and all the other movers and shakers simply BUY whatever we need--simply pay whatever it takes. Put China, India, etc. outta the game by continuously raisin' the ante. {"China, you say you're willing to go 200 bucks a barrel? Okay Abdul, we're all in; we'll pay $300 per. Whadya say?"}
25 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungApparently you don't understand the purpose of rhetorical questions.
How much oil were they getting before attacking and conquering it? How much of the money they are 'paying for it' is actually staying in Iraq and not going to US companies?
Apparently you can't elaborate. All you can do is ask me to provide you with information. So not only can't you explain your vague comments, but you're ignorant about the situation you're criticising in Iraq.[/b]
Why does the US education system suck so badly?
26 May 08
Originally posted by Ragnorakit'd only be for their own good ...
Top oil producing nations:
1. Saudi Arabia: despotic regime in cahoots with U.S.
2. Canada: Ok, neighbour state in no immediate danger
3. Iraq: Illegally invaded and taking of resources by force is ongoing as we speak.
4. Iran: propaganda machine is building Iran as a big danger to US. Military action would be accepted by US people.
5. Kuwait: under ...[text shortened]... e above would the US have to invade before you started to believe you are the bad guys?
D
27 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydGiven the urgency of the environmental crisis facing this planet, it's entirely reasonable for the rest of the world to expect the US (plus China and India) to make the same effort that most other countries are making. If you think that the US should be above the rest of the world and not care what anyone else thinks, then isn't it *you*, rather than Obama, who's in fact being an elitist by taking this position?
Man, this guy must WANT a Republican in the White House! He's said some boneheaded things, but that quote out of Oregon today? That sealed it. He announced that the rest of the world was not going to just "keep saying it's okay" for us (Americans) to drive our SUV's, eat all we want, and keep our thermostats set at 72 all the time.
1. Just who does ...[text shortened]... effete elitist in this jerk. Once again, the party "of the people" has feet of clay.
27 May 08
Originally posted by karnachzYou make a good point. I think of an elitist as one who thinks they should decide issues based on some mistaken belief that they are somehow better, or smarter, or in a different social class, than the masses. By that definition, I think I'm more of a nationalistic jingoist redneck than an elitist.😀 But you have made me see the light, partially. I don't think the US "should be above the rest of the world". But I do think that the USA gets reamed in a lot of ways that a true superpower should not put up with.
Given the urgency of the environmental crisis facing this planet, it's entirely reasonable for the rest of the world to expect the US (plus China and India) to make the same effort that most other countries are making. If you think that the US should be above the rest of the world and not care what anyone else thinks, then isn't it *you*, rather than Obama, who's in fact being an elitist by taking this position?
27 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydI am from the rest of the world and I say it's ok to drive your suv's that consume like a bajillion gallons of gas while a normal car would do exactly that but for half gas and, granted, without making the owner think he is driving a tank.
Man, this guy must WANT a Republican in the White House! He's said some boneheaded things, but that quote out of Oregon today? That sealed it. He announced that the rest of the world was not going to just "keep saying it's okay" for us (Americans) to drive our SUV's, eat all we want, and keep our thermostats set at 72 all the time.
1. Just who does effete elitist in this jerk. Once again, the party "of the people" has feet of clay.
I am saying that it is ok for the american to eat like a pig until he gets so fat only a crane can get him out of the house or to eat half a stake and throw the leftovers out or feed it to their pedigree dog because hey, there is no such thing as world hunger, the skinny africans are just minions of the evil empire that is trying to kill the american spirit with guilt.
I am saying that it is really ok to keep the thermostat at any temp you want because you can't possibly be expected not to stay in your shorts in the middle of the winter. Who does this guy think saying you should put on some clothes in winter so you save on energy?
EDIT I hope you were being sarcastic
27 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydthat would be nice. maybe the suv's would then dissappear when it would cost more to "fill her up" than to buy a new car
I don't see why only those 2 options are available, Rag. Could we not start drilling in some choice spots like Alaska, or more offshore in the Gulf?
Another option-- how about, rather than invade a country for their oil (which I'm still not believing the USA has done or will do), what would happen if the US speculators and buyers and magnates and all t ...[text shortened]... to go 200 bucks a barrel? Okay Abdul, we're all in; we'll pay $300 per. Whadya say?"}