Should we get out of IRAQ poll

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]476357[/snapback]</div>

I believe that domestic oil production peaked in the 1950's.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ Jul 10 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]476267[/snapback]</div>

"follow us home" is pure republican spin....
terrorism is something we as a people will have to learn to live with---
there is no winning the war on terror....
until politicans realize what is required is
to make it more worthwhile for the 3rd world
to put down the gun,
than to pick it up....


Froley

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 10 2007, 12:55 PM) [snapback]476318[/snapback]</div>

When did the Senate Majority Leader switch states and since when does Arizona get three senators, Jon Kyl, John McCain and Harry Reid?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 10 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]476595[/snapback]</div>

erK! :blink: LOL! My bad, I meant Nevada.

Wildkow

 

For those of you who think we should have left or should leave, it is obvious that you are uninformed and cannot form a thought of your own.
First off it is not as messed up in every part of the country as the media and the left would like you to believe.
There are a few small geographical areas that are causing resistance
Second, it is not the Iraqis who are fighting us.
It literally is camps of "professional" terrorists who train in Africa and have "tours of duty" only to return to their terrorist camps at the end of their "tour" to train some more terrorists.
Third: they are TERRORISTS. and TERRORISTS do not negotitate and want to KILL YOU. They don't care that you are a liberal who thinks we should be out of Iraq..to them you are an INFIDEL.

The question you should be asking is "WHAT CAN I DO AS AN AMERICAN TO HELP RECTIFY THE SITUATION"

In this day and age there is a lot of "what can my country do for me"

While I support and defend the idea of open debate and discussion, the prerequisite Must be: TO BE INFORMED.
And by informed I don't mean the Washington Post, New York Times or the international Herald Tribune. Or Fox news.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Froley @ Jul 10 2007, 09:03 PM) [snapback]476537[/snapback]</div>

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life...you and Neville Chamberlain are two and the same.

The world needs to live with Aparthied...
The world will need to learn to deal with the Nazis killing Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS.


The war is not about oil.
Even if it was...would any of you sitting in here want Russia, China, Iran controlling that resource?

I sure as heck wouldn't...not because cheap gas for us, but because of regional stability.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(not another screenname @ Jul 11 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]476638[/snapback]</div>

So why is the US in Iraq? They should be in Africa according to your information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(not another screenname @ Jul 10 2007, 10:08 PM) [snapback]476638[/snapback]</div>

Do you actually read what you post? Do you seriously believe what you wrote?

What an utterly ill-conceived, ridiculous, sophomoric statement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tballx @ Jul 11 2007, 12:12 AM) [snapback]476642[/snapback]</div>

If you knew what was actually going on, vice what you hear from the news, than you too would agree...what forms your opinions on the subject, friend?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fjef @ Jul 11 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]476640[/snapback]</div>

Who says we aren't?
Ever heard of the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative?
Probably not.
Ever heard of the Kofi Anan Center?
Probably not.
Do you guys even have an idea how much aide goes into those third world countries?
Today the US just announced the formation of a new Regional Command called AFRICOM.

We ARE in Africa...just fighting a different kind of war...one that WOULDN'T and DIDN'T work in IRAQ

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(not another screenname @ Jul , 10:08 PM)</div>

It's actually much worse than the media reports. I remember as a kid seeing clips from the Vietnam battlefield every night on the news. That kind of reporting is non-existent these days. Most of the news hour is filled with celebrity naughtiness, car chases, and the latest missing college student. The U.S. deaths in Iraq are grossly underreported because we have contracted out the majority of the personel there, and we don't have access to even the most basic information about the contractors - such as the number killed.

What does the geographical size of the fighting have to do with anything? The fighters are where the fighting is, of course. What good would it do the insurgents to spread out the resistance thinly throughout the country? Of course it's going to be concentrated.

I don't know where' you're getting your information, but let's assume this is true. So how do we distinguish these "professional" terrorists from the Iraqis who are not fighting us? If you're a serviceman out on the field, do you wait & see who points a gun at you? No wonder so many of us are dying. That's the whole problem with our presence there. You can't fight a "war" against "terrorists". Not effectively anyway. The "war on terror" was doomed before it began.

Agreed. Now why do you suppose they want to kill us so badly? It's because we're occupying their land. Our presence in Iraq is fueling their anger.

No, what most of us here strive for is self-sufficiency, so that the U.S. has control of its own resources.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Jul 10 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]476287[/snapback]</div>

Its ok, just continue to wear your rose colored glasses & believe that it was only a one time deal...

Posts 4 & 5, pretty much sum it up before the thread has time to veer off of the paved road.

 

It'd be hard to find a more uninformed group than here on PC for such a subject. So... Let's take a poll on how our government should act on it and then hope the people in charge will do it that way.

And, the American people think that would be a kick butt way to handle things. We have very little information to base the decision and we're not that smart on anything besides Paris Hilton and Harry Potter, but let's make a random decision about how to handle something as serious as the war on terrorism. Brilliant!!

Thankfully that was the previous administration. This administration could care less what the uninformed poll takers/responders have to say. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 10 2007, 07:28 PM) [snapback]476443[/snapback]</div>

lots of oil in and around the continent - including oil from shale, biofuels, etc.i

i like prohibiting us from drilling now. that way we will have so much left later to use. there was a great article in the WSJ today on oil we are getting from Canadian shale - they just reversed the flow of a pipeline down to us and they are considering adding one or two more - several million more barrels a day flowing our way. (imagine if we started drilling anwr years ago - that would be another 1-2 million barrels a day).



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 10 2007, 07:28 PM) [snapback]476443[/snapback]</div>

lots of oil in and around the continent - including oil from shale, biofuels, etc.i

i like prohibiting us from drilling now. that way we will have so much left later to use. there was a great article in the WSJ today on oil we are getting from Canadian shale - they just reversed the flow of a pipeline down to us and they are considering adding one or two more - several million more barrels a day flowing our way. (imagine if we started drilling anwr years ago - that would be another 1-2 million barrels a day).

 

"lots of oil in and around the continent - including oil from shale, biofuels, etc.i
i like prohibiting us from drilling now. that way we will have so much left later to use. there was a great article in the WSJ today on oil we are getting from Canadian shale - they just reversed the flow of a pipeline down to us and they are considering adding one or two more - several million more barrels a day flowing our way. (imagine if we started drilling anwr years ago - that would be another 1-2 million barrels a day). "

I think I'll bookmark this one. It will be proven so wrong in the next few years. I won't laugh about it though, it won't be a funny matter at that time.

We use well over 20 mb/d.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

The two sources you just pointed out are a drop in the bucket and will only serve to cover the decline of imports we get from Mexico, north shore, and other declining fields. This does not address the fact that those imports will continue to decline and their is nothing else big enough to replace them. Just treading water with every little source such as the ones you mentioned will only delay the inevitable changes we need, and also cause the dropoff off supply to drop off all that much sharper. Those sources ARE the supply on the downslope of worlwide oil production. If you pump them up like crazy to cover declining conventional oil, the bell curve production curve turns into a ramp shape with a steep cliff like drop. This is the very scenario we need to avoid through conservation, biofuels, and renewables.

Shale, oil sands, deep well drilling, and other nonconventional sources take massive amounts of energy & money to get out. As bad as 3-1.
It used to take a barrel of oil to get 20-30 barrels out of the ground.
That same input now gets us 3 - 10 barrels. That massively increases oil usage before the oil even gets to the consumers. So to maintain the 20 mb/d of usage, we actually will need more like 30 mb/d due to the high energy cost of recovering the oil. This is totally unfeasable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 11 2007, 04:19 AM) [snapback]476704[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(not another screenname @ Jul 11 2007, 12:08 AM) [snapback]476638[/snapback]</div>

Well then, the choice is obvious to me. If Iraq is going as smoothly as you imply, then we should withdraw immediately. Why spend billions of dollars each year to stabilize a region that isn't in need of stabilization? We could use those billions of dollars to secure our airport, our borders, our populated areas and our nuclear power plants that are in need of increased protection.

We can just let Iran work out the new hierarchy with the neighboring countries, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]476874[/snapback]</div>

Best ANWR can do is 3% of our current needs for a decade (this is what I've read, I'm sure there are other numbers, though)...if we'd started drilling and pumping there years ago, wouldn't it be dry now?

How concerned should we be about the massive exodus of dollars from the US, as we trade our wealth for oil? Are we giving away too much of 'ourselves,' doing what you suggest?

Suppose the value of the remaining oil goes down, as other folks transition to other forms of more sustainable power which may (or may not) yield untold benefits? What if our relationship with oil actually prevents us, economically and scientifically, from advancing into other areas of energy generation...and ends up putting us behind other countries? This has been suggested, not just by me.

I'm asking...not asking like I know the answer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 11 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]476961[/snapback]</div>

He knows all of this. Don't waste your breathe as he'll post his support of drilling ANWR in the next thread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 11 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]476704[/snapback]</div>

Woah...you're right. I was a preteen during the 1960's/early '70s and...yes...my dad watched Walter Cronkite every night and ---sure enough--- the memory of that grainy footage of the fighting remains with me still. Why *don't* we see more of this?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 11 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]476704[/snapback]</div>

Especially in our sacrifice-free, "business as usual" way of going about it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 11 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]476704[/snapback]</div>

I can only hope they'd expect no less of us.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 11 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]476704[/snapback]</div>

This is too logical, selfless, and nonviolent to *ever* happen, I fear.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 11 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]476964[/snapback]</div>

Anyone here been to ANWR? <_< :lol:

 

It comes down to this:

Do we spend all of our available wealth and energy to prepare us for post oil (and alleviate environmental concerns)?

OR

Do we spend all of our available wealth and energy keeping the ME functioning (code: fight terrorism) to our advantage as a means of keeping the status quo? (Only to have to make an even bigger investment for option 1 at a later date)

Dick Cheney eloquently stated the Republican view that "the American way of life is non-negotiable".
And the democrats won't even pick an answer for fear of dividing their base. They want to please everyone and end up pleasing no one.

And the media says what the party in power at the moment tells them to say.