An interesting read on the Middle East and OIL - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #76 03-11-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

And only Iran is a Muslim country.

Suadi Arabia is funding all this, I beleive the Royal family is quite Muslim.

I don't really think the Vatican is sending people with bombs on them into shoping centers, and doing all of that terrorist type stuff. But I could be wrong.

Hatterasguy · #77 03-11-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

A terrorist is always a freedom fighter in someone else's view. The US has supported a number of so-called "freedom fighters" in recent history as well. The mujahadeens fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan is only one example. Talk about a fall-out from that "program".

Yes but they are the enemy, who cares what we did or didn't do in the past. So what we screwed up? Are we supposed to role over because of that and let them kill us?

Palangi · #78 03-11-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

.
Lets see, it is republicans that started this war,

What?? Soddem Hussein was a Republican???

Holy crap, I must have missed that.....

DieselAddict · #79 03-11-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

That European Intelligence that you speak so highly of is the "cherry picked" intelligence that was used. In fact, the British have never rescinded their claim that Hussein was pursuing uranium in Nigeria and other weapons platforms. In addition, that exceptional European Intelligence, German this time, provided us with the "inside man" that made many erroneous claims about Saddams chem/bio capabilities on which we acted.

Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20 and not foresight. It's easy enough to, after the fact, armchair quarterback decisions made based upon valid intelligence at the time. At least this time things weren't treated as a criminal investigation and then agencies prohibited from sharing data (they do that well enough on their own).

Trying to pin intelligence failure on "one day chopping trees and squirrel hunting" while ignoring the deliberate defunding and hamstringing of Intelligence Agencies in the 90's is ridiculous.

As tankdriver hinted at, the Germans were not pushing for war like the US and British governments were, quite the opposite. What I was really talking about is how Europe has been able to infiltrate and round up suspected terror cells on its own territory. They seem pretty good at that and that should be our priority as well. Only a retard would truly believe that invading an unrelated foreign country will somehow keep the terrorists that attacked us from attacking us again, yet this was the logic when going into Iraq. I'm not making any armchair quarterback decisions after the fact here. I was strongly against the war before it even started and I was very disappointed with how the majority of the American public let itself get so brainwashed, even labeling anti-war people as unpatriotic... truly disgusting.

Clinton certainly shares some of the blame for not dealing with Al Qaeda more effectively sooner, but the bottom line is that it happened 9 months after Bush's inauguration and he had plenty of time to start any intelligence reforms that were needed. He didn't even try and he resisted changes and inquires into what happened even long after 9/11 to hide his true incompetence.

Botnst · #80 03-11-2008, 08:55 PM

Clinton was against intelligence reforms before he was for them.

B

DieselAddict · #81 03-11-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

The democrats want energy independence?!
Give me a break!
Energy independence is easy.
Build nuclear electrical power plants ( not popular with the loony left)
Drill in ANWAR (n not popular with the loony left)
Drill in the Gulf of Mexico ( NIMBY)
We could completely replace Military East Oil in 10 years, or less if we really wanted to.

Nuclear does nothing for our oil needs.
ANWAR doesn't have that much oil and wouldn't even replace our Saudi imports.
Already drilling in Gulf of Mexico.

The answer is conservation and biofuels, preferably 2nd generation, aka BTL.

tankdriver · #82 03-11-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Suadi Arabia is funding all this, I beleive the Royal family is quite Muslim.

Our ruling family is quite Christian.
Point is, just because some Muslims conquered up to Spain a few hundred years ago doesn't mean the entire Muslim nation has been of one mind, bent on total global dominance since the inception of the religion. There is no clash of civilizations. Islamic fanatic terrorists are just a bunch *********s who find it easy to hate and enjoy destroying those they are jealous of. Religion is just an excuse. Exalting them to the level of an entire civilization bent on global domination is ridiculous. Most of them are poor, ignorant, usually oppressed, lacking any future, and want to hurt others because their lives suck. Let's not make them some massive tide of evil when they're really just a splash of saltwater in the eye.

MS Fowler · #83 03-11-2008, 09:45 PM

Nuclear does nothing for our oil needs.
ANWAR doesn't have that much oil and wouldn't even replace our Saudi imports.
Already drilling in Gulf of Mexico.

Really!
You don't think that generating more of our electricity with nuclear power would free up some oil?
Why do you assert that there is no oil in ANWAR?

Honus · #84 03-11-2008, 10:36 PM

The thing I don't get about ANWAR is why people say that it is in our national interest to tap that reserve. Aren't we better off keeping that reserve for ourselves?

peragro · #85 03-11-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

As tankdriver hinted at, the Germans were not pushing for war like the US and British governments were, quite the opposite. What I was really talking about is how Europe has been able to infiltrate and round up suspected terror cells on its own territory. They seem pretty good at that and that should be our priority as well. Only a retard would truly believe that invading an unrelated foreign country will somehow keep the terrorists that attacked us from attacking us again, yet this was the logic when going into Iraq. I'm not making any armchair quarterback decisions after the fact here. I was strongly against the war before it even started and I was very disappointed with how the majority of the American public let itself get so brainwashed, even labeling anti-war people as unpatriotic... truly disgusting.

Clinton certainly shares some of the blame for not dealing with Al Qaeda more effectively sooner, but the bottom line is that it happened 9 months after Bush's inauguration and he had plenty of time to start any intelligence reforms that were needed. He didn't even try and he resisted changes and inquires into what happened even long after 9/11 to hide his true incompetence.

I'm unclear to which time period you're talking about. Post 9/11 there have been many terrorist plots uncovered both here and abroad. Sometimes it's British Intelligence, as in the case of the airliners plot, sometimes it's American Intelligence. Usually in all cases it's a joint effort. Prior to 9/11 we were very reliant upon foreign intelligence as we had abdicated ours.

You still seem to think that a robust intelligence program can be implemented in a few months. I would suggest to you that we'll be several decades getting back the abilities that we lost during the 90's. One of the dumbest things we did was destroy our intelligence gathering abilities after the demise of the USSR. It was further compounded by administrative walls placed between agencies.

RichC · #86 03-11-2008, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

The democrats want energy independence?!
Give me a break!
Energy independence is easy.
Build nuclear electrical power plants ( not popular with the loony left)
Drill in ANWAR (n not popular with the loony left)
Drill in the Gulf of Mexico ( NIMBY)
We could completely replace Military East Oil in 10 years, or less if we really wanted to.

Who blocks all these ideas while telling us they are for the little guy?
Who is happy at higher gas prices? ( The answer is the same)

.

That is typical thinking for a right wing guy.

What I said was we do not need all this excess.

Public transportation
Alternative fuels
Wind and solar power
Reducing the amount we consume

That is the way I would suggest we get to energy independence.
Your nut job ideas of nuclear power plants and drilling for oil in
the gulf just show your limited way of thinking.

It is not all about money and power.
You do not need a Hummer.

And quit blaming others for your problems.
I have said it in the first post.
Right wing nut jobs trying to blame Democrats.
And you prove it in your post.

Your self centered views have no end.
Like a little child that just wants more and more.
Where does it end ?
First we conquer the middle east for its oil.
Then we have a timber shortage so we take over Canada?

Realize that you are the problem, and that you have to make the
changes that are necessary to solve the problem.

RichC

peragro · #87 03-12-2008, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

The thing I don't get about ANWAR is why people say that it is in our national interest to tap that reserve. Aren't we better off keeping that reserve for ourselves?

Probably a good point. However, we may not have much of a choice. Saudi Arabia with 270 billion barrels of oil looks to be our trading partner for the future whereas Canada with 1.6 trillion barrels in reserve cannot be utilised thanks to the new environmental regulations our Congress has just passed. Thanks Nancy and Harry!

Personally, I'd rather trade with Canada than SA, but hey at least the American companies will make some money off of China and India buying Canadian oil. At least until they get slammed with some kind of windfall tax and move offshore. No doubt by the same folks who won't allow trade with Canada.

RichC · #88 03-12-2008, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The Democrats voted for it before they voted against it.

B

.

Yes some Democrats did vote for the war.

But, there decisions had to be partly based on the information that was
given to them that has turned out to be lies.

Like...
Weapons of mass destruction
Iraq being a eminent threat to the US
Fearmongering of the terrorists are gonna get you !

And where did these lies and fearmongering come from.
Republicans.

RichC

RichC · #89 03-12-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palangi

What?? Soddem Hussein was a Republican???

Holy crap, I must have missed that.....

.

Huhuhu, snort Hahuha, snort chuckle.

That was so funny !
Did you come up with that all by yourself ?

I mean wow you should be a writer for one
of those comedy shows or something.

Lame !

RichC

.

MS Fowler · #90 03-12-2008, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

.

That is typical thinking for a right wing guy.

What I said was we do not need all this excess.

Public transportation
Alternative fuels
Wind and solar power
Reducing the amount we consume

That is the way I would suggest we get to energy independence.
Your nut job ideas of nuclear power plants and drilling for oil in
the gulf just show your limited way of thinking.

It is not all about money and power.
You do not need a Hummer.

And quit blaming others for your problems.
I have said it in the first post.
Right wing nut jobs trying to blame Democrats.
And you prove it in your post.

Your self centered views have no end.
Like a little child that just wants more and more.
Where does it end ?
First we conquer the middle east for its oil.
Then we have a timber shortage so we take over Canada?

Realize that you are the problem, and that you have to make the
changes that are necessary to solve the problem.

RichC

Thanks for the personal attack and analysis.

I would bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours.
Lets take your pie-in-the-sky idealism one point at a time:
Public transportation---Will work for some, but not all. Unless you are going to mandate that people live only in cities and get permission to live in rural areas. In my job, I carry a radioactive device for work--I am not permitted to use public transportation.

Alternative fuels--OK, but there is a price to pay--Have you seen the rise in corn products since so much is used for ethanol production? Is this cost accounted for?

Wind and solar---OK, but realistically speaking, what % of the solution do they represent? If you cannot see how nuclear power can save oil, than how will wind and solar contribute? Also the Elitist will not allow wind farms to be built if it spoils theie view--think Kennedy and Streisand.
I am all for reducing the amount of power I consume. I drive fuel efficient cars- ( No Hummer--hate them!), but it would be arrogant of me to determine how much fuel and energy you require. Just as it is arrogant of Al Gore to use waste energy while telling me to conserve. My house is about 1200 SF so my impact is not large.
The problem is government types--people who think government should contrrol all resources and parcel them out as they deem appropriate that is the problem.

You say we conquer the middle easr for its oil---so how much oil have we taken in our time in Iraq?

For the foreseable future OIL is the energy source. We need to be loking at alternatives, but solar and wind are not nearly sufficient. We keep hearing that practical electric cars are almost here. But I've been hearing that for 40 years, and still electric cars are impractical for most people. Proponents of electric cars still have not solved the dispoasl issue--so it is simply ignored when they talk so glowingly about them.

Do you really think the Chinese, with their awakening industry will go solar and wind powered?

Do you see yourself as a left-wing nut??

Your impratical utopianism makes me laugh!