Should we get out of IRAQ poll

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 11 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]476970[/snapback]</div>

Simply because politics has become less about doing the right thing, and more about controlling the media that controls the masses.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 11 2007, 01:10 PM) [snapback]476972[/snapback]</div>

Not yet, but it's on my to-do list... i have, however, been to the Chilkat Bald Eagle preserve in Alaska, and can tell you that it was amazingly beautiful. I have the same expectations of ANWR, whenever it is that i'll manage to get there.

 

Let's clear cut the loges in ANWR, burn them to make steam generated electricity, and a little polution.

We could plug our hybrids in to that electricity and save the planet. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 11 2007, 01:10 PM) [snapback]476972[/snapback]</div>

Why do you ask? Why is that salient to this discussion?

Are you suggesting that its remoteness and inaccessibility somehow make it less valuable? I'm hoping that's not your implication, but it is my inference.

 

There is no guarentee ANWR oil would be delivered to the US consumers (WHO OWN ANWR as a public land).
China is a lot closer to it than the US refineries and would make more money for the oil companies doing the investment/drilling.

When lobbyists push for opening up ANWR, there is no discussion on where the product would go to, just that we should let the oil companies go drill holes in the ground as a way to reduce gas prices. It would reduce prices, but not by much and would just keep the hummers coming out of the factories. No thanks. We need a MUCH higher gas price and a sense of urgency accross the public to conserve before we should open up that spigot. It IS NOT a replacement for OPEC imports and it IS NOT going to end our reliance on foreign oil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 11 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]476996[/snapback]</div>

I know someone who was there. They train industry in OSHA. They said there's nothing there. That the Caribou would just use the roads that would be established for the oil refinery. The "nothing is there" perception comes from those without knowledge ecology, I can only presume. If such an abundance of life can exist in such an inhospitable environment as sea vents, you can be assured there's diverse, abundant life existing in ANWR.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 11 2007, 01:49 PM) [snapback]477006[/snapback]</div>

 

Most people don’t know that the US Navy is sending sailors over to Iraq, Cuba, Pakistan etc from duty onboard ships and shore duty to supplement or “augment†the Army.
These numbers are very high, I’m told around 40K.
These augments are around one year total on average. The problem is the deployment for US Navy ships is six months or more, with shorter turn around times between deployments.
After five years at sea you go to shore duty to recoup but every week it seems like at our command another notice comes in to pick a name to submit for a new tour to Iraq.
:blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 11 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]477022[/snapback]</div>

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca..._export17m.html

If Alaska pumps more oil than can be used down the pipeline, they can export, and China is close and thirsty. They haven't done so because Alaskan oil is in decline and is struggling to keep up to demand, but ANWR would rescue Alaskan production for another 10 years. Don't forget that Oil companies are international and could even follow the lead of Haliburton over to UAE. Their allegiance is profit, not to the US.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(not another screenname @ Jul 10 2007, 10:16 PM) [snapback]476643[/snapback]</div>

What forms my opinion is irrelevant. You are the one that graciously spewed yours. I'm not even sure I can get your next comment straight. You believe that because you alone have perfect information regarding what is "actually going on" that all others are incapable of a thought? That doesn't even follow. Care to cite your sources?

 

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

Four million people have died as a result of the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In the Sudan, the long-running north/south civil war that just ended through a peace agreement resulted in the deaths of two million people. The current Darfur crisis in the western Sudan has resulted in the deaths of approximately 400,000 people.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic has killed 2.4 million people. Only 10 percent of those infected with HIV in Africa are able to get regular access to anti-retrovirals.

But terrorism, that's the real problem in Africa, right?
Africa is going to be the next "hotspot" of resource proxy wars (or already is).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tballx @ Jul 12 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]477352[/snapback]</div>

my point is that you should not spew information unless you know the facts...
By doing so it makes you just as bad as say...the right wing Christian Conservatives who hate gays because their pastor told them to..

My sources? are legitimate Pre-media sources and intelligence briefings, first hand discussions from those who were and are over there. Experience.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 12 2007, 08:46 AM) [snapback]477472[/snapback]</div>

Terrorism is part of the problem in Africa... The War in Africa is one to conquer AIDS, Genocide, Corruption, and some yes is to control resources....but again more to prevent others from controlling it.

Terrorism is a result of some of those problems, not the problem itself...How do we fight it? Hearts and minds, diplomact, getting involved early on. We give more aide to Africa then any other country does.

One thing none of you here probably know is that much of our aid in Africa comes from the MILITARY.
Africa is one of the largest areas of concern in the world right now.

AIDS education in Africa is one of the biggest focuses of the Military in regards to the African theater.

Why did we send troops to Africa in the 90s?

The UN does not allow HIV positive troops to serve in peacekeeping missions. A sample polling of the South African military showed about 65% were infected with HIV. Who else is going to send troops to Africa?
The US and the UK.

We did not have the manpower to allow troops to get involved with the Darfur, we provided Nigeria with troop Cargo plans to transport them to the Border to quell it (no small order considering the logistical nightmare of transporting planes across the continent)....Obviously we didn't have enough troops to send them there, but you bet your butt the American people would have opposed it. Just like they did with Somalia.

Africa is HUGE on the scope.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(not another screenname @ Jul 12 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]477688[/snapback]</div>

No your point was that ANYONE who has the temerity to suggest that we should not be in Iraq now is incapable of thought. You wrote this:

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.

Stay on point.

Your replies are hypocritical and are laced with the same practices you complain about: careless non-sequiturs. You undermine your own credibility by these absurd declarations. There is a kernel of truth to nearly every viewpoint. You just need to look for it.

Your vague allusion to experience is laughable.