It defies logic.... :spooked: :confused: :rolleyes:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566719/201103211908/Obama-Drill-Brazil-Drill.htm (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566719/201103211908/Obama-Drill-Brazil-Drill.htm)
Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill! Posted 03/21/2011 07:08 PM ET
Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we'll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?
With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians.
His "What, me worry?" presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:
We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.
We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank's plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil's state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.
Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:
"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers."
Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.
Obama said he chose Brazil to kick off his first-ever visit to South America in recognition of that country's ascendancy. He has also highlighted one of the reasons for America's decline — an energy policy that through the creation of an artificial shortage of fossil fuels makes prices "necessarily skyrocket" to foster his green energy agenda.
In an op-ed in USA Today explaining his trip, Obama opined: "Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours. And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership."
Yet in his alleged quest for "secure-energy supplies," he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia's reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. market.
That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 "shovel-ready" jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally.
Yet it's now being held up by the State Department because it crosses an international border, on the grounds that it needs further environmental review. Shipping oil by tanker from Brazil is safer and more secure?
If Brazil had copied our current energy policy, it wouldn't have discovered in December 2007 the Tupi field, estimated to contain 5 billion to 8 billon barrels of crude, or its Carioca offshore oilfield that may hold up to 33 billion barrels.
Haroldo Lima, head of Brazil's National Oil Agency, estimates that Carioca might hold as much as five times the reserves of Tupi. Somehow the Brazilians aren't too worried about oil spoiling the pristine beaches of nearby Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro in the tourist season.
We suggest that President Obama return home and start worrying about an unapologetic American renaissance in which we focus more on American energy and American jobs and less on mythical environmental hazards and foreign accolades.
Another swipe at Obama, but you know that the Republican congressmen will break their butts to do it with him. Right? Them Republicans sure do love oil and the smell of it. As one oil driller said, what you think smells bad is the smell of money. :biggrin:
So you want to send 2 BILLION plus dollars to Brazil so we can pay more money to import their oil. Why not spend it here developing our own power sources?
Quote from: The Troll on March 22, 2011, 12:43:25 PM
Another swipe at Obama, but you know that the Republican congressmen will break their butts to do it with him. Right? Them Republicans sure do love oil and the smell of it. As one oil driller said, what you think smells bad is the smell of money. :biggrin:
Are you dodging a bullet or just ignoring the fact this POTUS is all about spending $2 Billion dollars so ANOTHER country can "Drill Baby Drill"?
I thought HE was going to make us energy independent.....He was going to balance our budget.....HE is nothing more than another lying POS. Except he is a Democrat lying POS, and that must make it okay. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Anne on March 22, 2011, 01:19:36 PM
So you want to send 2 BILLION plus dollars to Brazil so we can pay more money to import their oil. Why not spend it here developing our own power sources?
Anne, where do I say, anywhere in my post, that I supported it. Some how anything the oil companies want, the oil companies get.
I will believe Washington is against importation of oil is when the Republican Party comes out publicly and denounce it in the halls of Congress and on television.
And Henry, you know that Obama can't not give Brazil $2 billion without the OK of the Congress and your Republican Party controls half of it. :yes:
But good old Henry is trying to say it's all Obama's fault and he knows better. He surly know how much George W. loved oil. He went to war for it and we are still there. :yes:
So if the democrats still controlled both houses it wouldn't happen, President Obama was made to do it by the republicans?
Quote from: The Troll on March 22, 2011, 04:09:17 PM
He went to war for it and we are still there. :yes:
AND WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?.....................I THOUGHT YOU GUY WAS BRINGING US HOME......HELL, NOW HE HAS GOT US INVOLVED WITH LIBYA, WITHOUTH CONGRESS APPROVAL...
Troll, the point is that Obama is
willing to give $2 Billion...and allow drilling in deep waters, just 165 miles off of our coast ...
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/03/18/Petrobras-gets-permit-for-US-deep-waters/UPI-87891300453143/ (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/03/18/Petrobras-gets-permit-for-US-deep-waters/UPI-87891300453143/)
just because he is a democrat, THAT makes ALL okay for you, doesn't it?
He is bad, bad, bad......
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 22, 2011, 04:33:01 PM
AND WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?.....................I THOUGHT YOU GUY WAS BRINGING US HOME......HELL, NOW HE HAS GOT US INVOLVED WITH LIBYA, WITHOUTH CONGRESS APPROVAL...
Troll, the point is that Obama is willing to give $2 Billion...and allow drilling in deep waters, just 165 miles off of our coast ...
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/03/18/Petrobras-gets-permit-for-US-deep-waters/UPI-87891300453143/ (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/03/18/Petrobras-gets-permit-for-US-deep-waters/UPI-87891300453143/)
just because he is a democrat, THAT makes ALL okay for you, doesn't it?
He is bad, bad, bad......
Oh I'm damn tired of arguing you Republicans. You sure have a case of memory loss. All the crap you people have put this country though.
A depression, two wars and you guys don't want to stop a genocide by one crazy bastard and you both claim to be Christians. If Jesus Christ came back and he claimed he was a Democrat, both of you would start to build a cross to crucify him. :yes: There is no one so blind as someone who will not see. Pretty well cover you two. :thumbsup: :genius:
Quote from: The Troll on March 22, 2011, 06:56:13 PM
Oh I'm damn tired of arguing you Republicans. You sure have a case of memory loss. All the crap you people have put this country though.
A depression, two wars and you guys don't want to stop a genocide by one crazy bastard and you both claim to be Christians. If Jesus Christ came back and he claimed he was a Democrat, both of you would start to build a cross to crucify him. :yes: There is no one so blind as someone who will not see. Pretty well cover you two. :thumbsup: :genius:
So.... invading Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong but Libya is OK??
That is ALWAYS his response to a civil question that sheds any negative to any democrat.
ALL democrats are good nighthawk, have you not yet figured that out?
ALL republicans are BAD!!
Troll, would you like to try again to answer the question, without blaiming BUSH or REPUBLICANS...
the question is......"So.... invading Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong but Libya is OK??"
yes or no?
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 07:02:26 PM
So.... invading Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong but Libya is OK??
That an easy on Henry.
I would go along with the war in Afghanistan for two to three years. This war has gone on for over six years. World II only lasted four years.
Iraq was a fools war, oil war, a war to prove that George W. was more of a man than this daddy. NOT! Another war that has lasted over six years.
I am for the Libya Freedom Fighters. I am for killing Gadhafi a murder of first magnitude. Being against the Libyan Freedom Fighters would be like saying that when France came to the aid of the American Freedom Fighters was wrong. Save them and kill an dictator.
:fireworks: :4th4: :fireworks:
Holy Jumping Jackasses! You guys spin more than a friggin top!
Not all that long ago you (the conservative media) complained about the fact that additional permits had been issued to "a certain oil company" to drill in the Gulf; the same area in which THE spill happened. And used it as a switch with which to beat the POTUS.
But wait a minute. . . How could that have happened "with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest "?
And I suppose the POTUS was "lying" when he stated publicly, just a few weeks ago, that "domestic US drilling and oil production are up, and continue to increase above historic levels?" (paraphrased)
And now, when the US upholds its global obligation(s) as it relates toward support of UN International initiatives you want to pound him some more? (Despite the fact he declined to commit ground forces to the initiative in recognition of the financial strains surrounding "current obligations").
And oh, by the way, republicans are the ones pushing the "drill baby drill" agenda; despite the FACT that the US owns only 2% of the ENTIRE worlds oil reserves, and that increasing production exponentially increases the nations progression toward that eternal "empty" mark on the oil gauge.
So, I guess it does not make sense to build partnerships with countries who own additional oil reserves does it. . . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And, at the risk of awakening a sleeping dog, I will once again point out that this senseless, endless, and insidious sniping taking place toward the POTUS, only serves to accentuate that the true motivations behind such are highly suspect and globally atrocious.
Quote from: The Troll on March 22, 2011, 07:48:14 PM
That an easy on Henry.
I would go along with the war in Afghanistan for two to three years. This war has gone on for over six years. World II only lasted four years.
Iraq was a fools war, oil war, a war to prove that George W. was more of a man than this daddy. NOT! Another war that has lasted over six years.
I am for the Libya Freedom Fighters. I am for killing Gadhafi a murder of first magnitude. Being against the Libyan Freedom Fighters would be like saying that when France came to the aid of the American Freedom Fighters was wrong. Save them and kill an dictator.
:fireworks: :4th4: :fireworks:
Afganistan: the only reason this war is lasting as long as it is is because of the ridiculous rules of engagement the dems and Obama have imposed.
Iraq: Saddam was torturing and murdering his own people too. If it was a "war for oil" then where is the damn oil??
Libya: He is about as bad as Saddam was but supposedly we are not there to oust him. Just 'protect civilians'
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 08:03:51 PM
Afganistan: the only reason this war is lasting as long as it is is because of the ridiculous rules of engagement the dems and Obama have imposed.
No. . . BUSH started it to go after terrorists / terrorism, THEN he diverted troops to Iraq, which reversed all the initial progress achieved in Afghanistan and forced a restart once the Iraqi initiative began transitioning to Iraqi personnel. THAT's why we are still there.
Your commentary surrounding the ROE, I am wondering what you are basing that opinion on?
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 08:03:51 PM
Iraq: Saddam was torturing and murdering his own people too. If it was a "war for oil" then where is the damn oil??
OMG, working on our 8th year since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and this is
still being used as a moral justification to cover for the fact there were NO WMD in Iraq; which was the "justification" used in initiating the action! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 08:03:51 PM
Libya: He is about as bad as Saddam was but supposedly we are not there to oust him. Just 'protest civilians'
Define "we". If by "we" you mean the United States of America, then you are
totally wrong.
This is a UN initiative and the US is a member of the UN. A permanent member. The US is committing resources as an obligation toward what the global community and majority of the UN Council views as criminal actions toward civilians that may constitute crimes against humanity. . .
Ironic that you want to morally justify US involvement in Iraq due to the very same actions of its former dictator, that the current dictator of Libya is guilty of undertaking; and yet the situation in Libya is wrong? Why?
Please show me were I said what we are doing in Libya is wrong.
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 08:03:51 PM
. . .
Libya: He is about as bad as Saddam was but supposedly we are not there to oust him. Just 'protect civilians'
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 08:27:31 PM
Please show me were I said what we are doing in Libya is wrong.
The bolded quote implies non-support of the subject; which is an indication of disagreement, or IOW "wrong".
Now, what, about the current ROE in Afghanistan, are you basing that opinion upon?
Sorry I was probably a bit vague on that but while I don't like war in any form I can see the need for intervention in Libya.
ROE in Afghanistan are very restrictive. They were supposed to be disigned to reduce civilian casualties. These rules are too restrictive though and severely cripple our soldier's efforts. They can't get air support or artillary cover when needed for the fear of hurting civilians. They sometimes can't even get smoke rounds or illumination rounds because someone is afraid that the canister might hit someone.
As for Iraq, he killed thousands and thousands of his own people. Used chemical weapons on his own people and harbored terrorists. not to mention his unprovoked attacks on us too.
If you don't think he had WMD's then you are just fooling yourself. He had months of warning before the invasion and had ample time to move and hide any he had. Did you forget the shells that were found with traces of serin gas in them or the Russian fighters found buried in the desert?
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 10:07:06 PM
As for Iraq, he killed thousands and thousands of his own people. Used chemical weapons on his own people and harbored terrorists. not to mention his unprovoked attacks on us too.
If you don't think he had WMD's then you are just fooling yourself. He had months of warning before the invasion and had ample time to move and hide any he had. Did you forget the shells that were found with traces of serin gas in them or the Russian fighters found buried in the desert?
Well Squawk, he did not attack us. Nothing was proved that he made any attempts of terrorism on us. And he did have poison gas, we sold it to him. But when they searched for weapons of mass destruction, They could not find any, anywhere in Iraq. They looked every where and no weapons of mass destruction.
I followed the Iraq war very close and I remember the Russian built fighters that the Iraqis buried, no where did I see or read anywhere that they found poison gas. Remember the hydrogen generators they found and tried to pass off as chemical gas generators. The whole war was a lie. From the start to give your George W a reason to go to war. Are you happy about that?
Quote from: The Troll on March 22, 2011, 11:00:54 PM
Well Squawk, he did not attack us. Nothing was proved that he made any attempts of terrorism on us. And he did have poison gas, we sold it to him. But when they searched for weapons of mass destruction, They could not find any, anywhere in Iraq. They looked every where and no weapons of mass destruction.
I followed the Iraq war very close and I remember the Russian built fighters that the Iraqis buried, no where did I see or read anywhere that they found poison gas. Remember the hydrogen generators they found and tried to pass off as chemical gas generators. The whole war was a lie. From the start to give your George W a reason to go to war. Are you happy about that?
Qaddafi hasn't attacked us either but yet, there we are.
Of course the WMD's weren't there. After months of warning they were all moved out of the country.
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 23, 2011, 05:04:21 AM
Qaddafi hasn't attacked us either but yet, there we are.
Of course the WMD's weren't there. After months of warning they were all moved out of the country.
Quaddafi hands are covered with our blood. He was up to his turban in terrorism. George H. Bush almost killed him and his family. But :dam: Old George H missed. :mad: What about the blowing up our American PAN-AM 747 airliner with all the people killed. But I surmise that he's your kind of a guy. :rolleyes:
So? Sadam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That means he listen to the United Nations to remove them, how he did no one knows. The people under him said they destroyed them. That was good. Do you know what happened to them and prove it from some reliable source. Again you're talking out of your toothless tooter.
Quote from: The Troll on March 23, 2011, 09:07:36 AM
Quaddafi hands are covered with our blood. He was up to his turban in terrorism. George H. Bush almost killed him and his family. But :dam: Old George H missed. :mad: What about the blowing up our American PAN-AM 747 airliner with all the people killed. But I surmise that he's your kind of a guy. :rolleyes:
So? Sadam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That means he listen to the United Nations to remove them, how he did no one knows. The people under him said they destroyed them. That was good. Do you know what happened to them and prove it from some reliable source. Again you're talking out of your toothless tooter.
So was Saddam's. He also sponsored terrorism and also invaded an ally nation thus the reason for the first Iraq war. His air force also attacked a US Navy ship in 1987 killing 37 sailors. Or do you not remember the USS Stark?
No, I don't have proof of what Saddam did with his WMDs but given his know possession of them, his willingness to use them and his thumbing his nose at the UN resolutions and weapons inspectors leads me to believe that he was in possession of them and got rid of/destroyed/hid them before the invasion.
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 23, 2011, 09:17:29 AM
So was Saddam's. He also sponsored terrorism and also invaded an ally nation thus the reason for the first Iraq war. His air force also attacked a US Navy ship in 1987 killing 37 sailors. Or do you not remember the USS Stark?
No, I don't have proof of what Saddam did with his WMDs but given his know possession of them, his willingness to use them and his thumbing his nose at the UN resolutions and weapons inspectors leads me to believe that he was in possession of them and got rid of/destroyed/hid them before the invasion.
If you will check a little more, you find that the United States forgave Saddam for the attack on the USS Stark. The Iraq military mistakenly took the USS Stark for an Iranian ship. :yes:
We will have to keep this up so I can teach you a little about the Iraq war. The war brought on by the most stupid president in United States histroy. George W. Bush. :trustme: George W. Bush was stupid. :yes: :biggrin:
After the war even Saddam admitted he didn't have any WMDs. He had destroyed them secretly. He said he wanted his neighbors Iran and other to think he did have the weapons. He didn't want them to jump on him. :yes:
Check a little more and you will find that the United States gave Saddam a whole lot of different kinds of WMDs while fighting Iran. :yes: :biggrin:
If you noticed, I have been nice to you. Because a whole lot of people have been mislead by the administration that got us into the mess. :yes: :smile: :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Troll on March 23, 2011, 12:52:53 PM
If you will check a little more, you find that the United States forgave Saddam for the attack on the USS Stark. The Iraq military mistakenly took the USS Stark for an Iranian ship. :yes:
We will have to keep this up so I can teach you a little about the Iraq war. The war brought on by the most stupid president in United States histroy. George W. Bush. :trustme: George W. Bush was stupid. :yes: :biggrin:
After the war even Saddam admitted he didn't have any WMDs. He had destroyed them secretly. He said he wanted his neighbors Iran and other to think he did have the weapons. He didn't want them to jump on him. :yes:
Check a little more and you will find that the United States gave Saddam a whole lot of different kinds of WMDs while fighting Iran. :yes: :biggrin:
If you noticed, I have been nice to you. Because a whole lot of people have been mislead by the administration that got us into the mess. :yes: :smile: :thumbsup:
And the 'news stories' you will find about the USS Stark are very misleading also. You see, I served with 36 of the 37 killed. I transfered off the Stark the day before it went on that deployment. There is no way that the pilot mistook a 445 foot long ship that was warning it off for a 1000ft+ long tanker. When this happened the lesser of two evils in the United States eyes was Saddam so to keep the peace 'we' forgave him so to speak.
And I guess you are right. Saddam was such a noble, upstanding guy that he would never have lied to us about what weapons he did or didn't have and what their disposition was. :rolleyes: Kinda makes me wonder why he wouldn't let the inspectors in to do their jobs and mandated by the UN. If he had nothing to hide then why not let them in??
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 23, 2011, 02:35:04 PM
And the 'news stories' you will find about the USS Stark are very misleading also. You see, I served with 36 of the 37 killed. I transfered off the Stark the day before it went on that deployment. There is no way that the pilot mistook a 445 foot long ship that was warning it off for a 1000ft+ long tanker. When this happened the lesser of two evils in the United States eyes was Saddam so to keep the peace 'we' forgave him so to speak.
And I guess you are right. Saddam was such a noble, upstanding guy that he would never have lied to us about what weapons he did or didn't have and what their disposition was. :rolleyes: Kinda makes me wonder why he wouldn't let the inspectors in to do their jobs and mandated by the UN. If he had nothing to hide then why not let them in??
I thought you said in one of you past post that you hadn't served in the military.
None the less you are so wrong on so many things. No where did I say Saddam as nothing but a killer. But where do you get that is was alright to go to war with Iraq. Why don't we go after Jim Jong-il. He a killer, he's a dictator, he has poison gas and atomic weapons and rockets. His father as killed thousand of American soldiers and I think he would like to do it a again against South Korea.
The more I argue with you, the more incoherent you get. :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 22, 2011, 11:27:23 AM
It defies logic.... :spooked: :confused: :rolleyes: ...
Sooooo, Hank, are you saying you (would) have a problem of using up everyone else's oil resources and saving ours for last?
Quote from: Anne on March 22, 2011, 01:19:36 PM
So you want to send 2 BILLION plus dollars to Brazil so we can pay more money to import their oil. Why not spend it here developing our own power sources?
I'll pose the same question to you I did to Hank (see above).
What power sources beside oil would you be referring to, or are you?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 22, 2011, 01:52:49 PM
...I thought HE was going to make us energy independent.....He was going to balance our budget...
Quote on both, please. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 22, 2011, 04:33:01 PM
...HELL, NOW HE HAS GOT US INVOLVED WITH LIBYA, WITHOUTH CONGRESS APPROVAL...
Ahem! IINM, the U.N. is involved in Libya. The U.S. is part of the U.N. and provides military forces for U.N. as do several other countries.
If you are positing that the U.S. can't legally provide those military forces to the U.N., I might agree with you after some research and debate.
Quote from: The Troll on March 23, 2011, 04:10:22 PM
I thought you said in one of you past post that you hadn't served in the military.
None the less you are so wrong on so many things. No where did I say Saddam as nothing but a killer. But where do you get that is was alright to go to war with Iraq. Why don't we go after Jim Jong-il. He a killer, he's a dictator, he has poison gas and atomic weapons and rockets. His father as killed thousand of American soldiers and I think he would like to do it a again against South Korea.
The more I argue with you, the more incoherent you get. :biggrin:
the point about Saddam is that you seem to be for this little invasion of Libya yet against the war on Iraq. Both of these actions were started on basically the same reasons. genocidal dictators who need to be stopped/taken out. In fact, I think we had even more reason to go after Saddam than we do Qaddafi.
You can't have it both ways.
As for North Korea I agree, this another nut case that needs a Tomahawk enema but that isn't my call.
Iran is another one that needs taken out and is even more dangerous than N. Korea.
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 09:07:58 PM
Sorry I was probably a bit vague on that but while I don't like war in any form I can see the need for intervention in Libya.
ROE in Afghanistan are very restrictive. They were supposed to be disigned to reduce civilian casualties. These rules are too restrictive though and severely cripple our soldier's efforts. They can't get air support or artillary cover when needed for the fear of hurting civilians. They sometimes can't even get smoke rounds or illumination rounds because someone is afraid that the canister might hit someone.
While that may have been true under Gen McChrystal, (And was one of several factors in his eventual replacement within the leadership role in the current theatre of operations), the ROE was a paramount task for his replacement Gen Petraeus.
While the full directive is, understandably, classified; excerpts from Petraeus's rules released on the ISAF ( International Assistance Force in Afghanistan - http://www.isaf.nato.int/ (http://www.isaf.nato.int/) ) website place more emphasis on the appropriateness of lethal force than the McChrystal order it replaces, and was specifically designed to address the concerns and abject situations driven by it.
Understanding that collateral damage is a key component utilized by the insurgency within it's campaign efforts to win over civilian support, and the high level of emotional response its utilization drives, (thereby creating ambiguity within the individual decision making process), it was and is imperative that the ISAF undertake efforts to remove that obstacle from the path toward progression.
Soldiers and sailors understand this, as does leadership within the chain of command, which is why the ROE was revisited, and very likely will be revisited numerous times before US forces are drawn down.
QuoteAs for Iraq, he killed thousands and thousands of his own people. Used chemical weapons on his own people and harbored terrorists. not to mention his unprovoked attacks on us too.
If you don't think he had WMD's then you are just fooling yourself. He had months of warning before the invasion and had ample time to move and hide any he had. Did you forget the shells that were found with traces of serin gas in them or the Russian fighters found buried in the desert?
Thousands, hundreds, ten twenty - intention is the same, and in Libya he is using military armaments against the citizens of the country simply because he disagrees with their position surrounding the path of national government and dare enough to publicly protest.
Same violation - morally and legally.
WMD - THAT is the question which neither side has been able to prove one way or another, with the singular point being that NONE were found.
IF they were there, and subsequently moved, the reason(s) for that are the UN's. (IIRC the gas shells discovered were, at least in part, supplied by the US.) And lets not forget the fact that the whole reason he was in power to begin with (SH) was our, (US), own doing! WE propped him up and facilitated his rise to power, and it came back on us.
NONE of which has anything to do with the reasons GIVEN at the onset of the Iraqi initiative, wherein it was stated as fact that they had WMD's. Which they did not.
Are you forgetting the Russian Afghanistan conflict???
Quote from: Y on March 23, 2011, 04:45:54 PM
Sooooo, Hank, are you saying you (would) have a problem of using up everyone else's oil resources and saving ours for last?
Y over 30 years ago I meet an old man who had worked with a oil wildcatting team who hunted oil all through out the West. He had a very close friend on this team who was a geologist who had connections in Washington DC.
This geologist said that there was a huge amount of oil and natural gas reserves out in the west. From the Old U.S. Naval reserves in Alaska though America clear down to South America. The amount of oil here in the United States far exceed what the oil companies and the government says there is.
Isn't it amazing how they have just discovered all of the natural gas in the west and many other places. It was there all along. You don't think it's because they want to run 18 wheelers and maybe trains on it. Do you think T. Boone Pickens knows something that the American people don't know. :wink: :biggrin:
He said his geologist that in Washington DC. the consensus was that we the Americans will use up all of the easy available oil in the world and when it runs out we, America will control the price of oil. Now remember that this was over 30 years ago and he said the geologist said the the price of a gallon of gas would be over $5.00 a gallon. There would be no cheap gasoline in America when the United States oil companies in America controlled the oil.
Quote from: Y on March 23, 2011, 04:45:54 PM
Sooooo, Hank, are you saying you (would) have a problem of using up everyone else's oil resources and saving ours for last?
I'm saying that we need to be aggressively seeking alternative sources to our fuel situation. BUT, let me share this with you. Just read it, and disprove it if you can.
Top 3 Myths in Obama's Lecture on Gas Prices President Obama held a press conference on March 11, to discuss rising gasoline and oil prices. Gasoline at the pump now costs an average of $3.50 per gallon nationwide, and experts project prices to eclipse $4 per gallon this year, possibly by the beginning of the summer driving season.
But instead of providing a solution that most of America wants — more domestic drilling — President Obama used his presser to recite misleading talking points to justify his anti-energy policies, arguments that have all been thoroughly debunked.
Here are the three biggest myths from President Obama's remarks during this press conference:
•
"We can't escape the fact that we control only 2% of the world's oil." This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and it's repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, it's 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling America's proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world's oil is clearly false.
•
"Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren't producing a thing." President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to "encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold." While this sounds like a common sense fix, it's actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government's refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
•
"Last year...our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years." This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obama's policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obama's drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.
As gas prices skyrocket, Americans are reminded every day that the federal government's refusal to allow responsible domestic drilling can have an incredibly destructive economic impact. Instead of trying to fix this problem, the Obama administration has worked every day to make sure that America produces less oil and has to rely more on OPEC for our energy needs.
No amount of White House spin or misleading talking points can change that tragic fact.
Mr. Chicken Hawk you're always trying to lay blame Obama for everything. Really there is no president that can do anything about the price of oil.
An Arab cartel with 4 super large oil companies, out of the many oil companies we use to have and we had competition in the oil market and when they really tried to find oil, have bought both sides of congress, Republicans and Democrats with their money. After years and years of super profits, just look a EXXON, and the Congress's still wants to give 4 oil companies money.
What we really need to do is break up their monopoly, spread out the competition and stop all of the lobbying with their money to congress. Maybe if we get the congressmen of the oil companies tits maybe we will have some justice.
but for you, Fhawk trying to lay this at Obama's doorstep just won't pass the muster. :wink: :biggrin:
What is it, too large to fail. How about to large to stop and control.
Troll, I am over the blame game....I just want to do what is best for this country.
Do me a favor and read what I attached, with an open mind. I have no more room for arguing...I just want to put those in charge that will do what I believe is best.
That is it in a nut shell. :)
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 22, 2011, 10:07:06 PM
As for Iraq, he killed thousands and thousands of his own people.
Our invasion of Iraq is responsible for more non-combatant deaths than HUssein was during his entire 28 year reign.
QuoteUsed chemical weapons on his own people...
Chemical weapons sold to him by the U.S.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 24, 2011, 10:47:00 AM
I'm saying that we need to be aggressively seeking alternative sources to our fuel situation. BUT, let me share this with you. Just read it, and disprove it if you can.
Top 3 Myths in Obama's Lecture on Gas Prices
President Obama held a press conference on March 11, to discuss rising gasoline and oil prices. Gasoline at the pump now costs an average of $3.50 per gallon nationwide, and experts project prices to eclipse $4 per gallon this year, possibly by the beginning of the summer driving season.
But instead of providing a solution that most of America wants — more domestic drilling — President Obama used his presser to recite misleading talking points to justify his anti-energy policies, arguments that have all been thoroughly debunked.
Here are the three biggest myths from President Obama's remarks during this press conference:
• "We can't escape the fact that we control only 2% of the world's oil."
This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and it's repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, it's 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling America's proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world's oil is clearly false.
• "Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren't producing a thing."
President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to "encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold." While this sounds like a common sense fix, it's actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government's refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
• "Last year...our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years."
This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obama's policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obama's drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.
As gas prices skyrocket, Americans are reminded every day that the federal government's refusal to allow responsible domestic drilling can have an incredibly destructive economic impact. Instead of trying to fix this problem, the Obama administration has worked every day to make sure that America produces less oil and has to rely more on OPEC for our energy needs.
No amount of White House spin or misleading talking points can change that tragic fact.
I will leave the field to Y, however I must interject briefly here:
Interesting that you neglected to provide the source for this anti Obama propaganda. Just an oversight I'm sure. . . We've covered this ground hundreds of times already, but once again I will state:
Industry experts calculate that if the US were to tap into all known (Proven and unproven) oil reserves and ramp up production and processing- they would be depleted totally within an 8 year period, leaving the US with NONE to tap into. ~(Paraphrasing of USEIA statement by PH)
(Source: US Energy Information Administration 2007)
http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=16920.15 (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=16920.15)
Now, I will concede that there is a potential margin of error within the above educated and validated hypothesis surrounding the length of time the US owned portion of the global supply will last, but there is no way it will ever outlast the middle east under any but the most delusional scenarios.
Strange to hear a conservative statement assuming the "alternative energy" position though, I must say. When the POTUS was saying the very same things the oil lappers were crying "end days"! :rolleyes:
When the POTUS called for an alternative energy approach via legislation designed to encourage it, (resulting in wind farm increases, fast tracking of electric vehicle hybrids by the auto industry, etc.), the "opposition" squealed like a stuck pig. Now all of a sudden it is the topic du jours? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: