T
Joined: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 293
|
T
On 2003-02-27 08:14, TheMuggler wrote:
On 2003-02-27 01:01, floratina wrote:
To those who say "this is about oil", I respectfully say, "Duh". It is, partially.
There you go. Ask yourself this question: which is more valuable -- blood or oil?
Like it or not, we need oil to keep this economy going.
Again, I say if we are in a state of war, why is the administration not acting consistently with their campaign? A war for oil requires that we support our troops by USING LESS OF IT. Yet Bush tries to push through TAX CUTS FOR SUV's! The Republican's KILL raising the CAFE standards! Conservative pundits go on TV and proclaim that they'll continue to drive their Lincoln Navigators because -- and this always makes me laugh since it is such a foolish thing for an adult to say -- "this is America!"
If we are going to shed US Military blood for oil, I would like to see the administration fight this war on both fronts -- home and abroad. Until I see that, I will continue to question the Bush administrations motives and continue to speak out against this "war."
The objections of France, Germany and Russia are hardly driven by altruism. These countries have entered into contracts with the current Iraqi government, contracts that may not be honored by a new administration and they involve - OIL!
Everyone has motives. Yep. Doesn't change my opinion of the Bush administration one bit. France, Germany, Russia, and the majority of the population of the UK have their own opinions and motives -- it is not all tied into one big "anti-Bush" coallition.
To those who say that we need to develop other sources of energy, I agree with you. Until most of us are driving fuel cell vehicles, we still need oil. We have a large domestic source in ANWAR...
What is ANWAR? Are you talking about the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge? Gimmie a break, I'm not even going to go there. Why don't we just slap oil wells off the coast of all our beaches?
The answer is very simple, and exists within the realm of technology today. Reduce our need for fossil fuels to a minimum. If America's need for oil is so great that we must go to war, then where is Bush's support for alternative fuel research? Non-existent, because Bush is an OIL MAN.
It would be easier for Bush to just walk away and let Saddam have a free hand, as some would apparently have it. It wouldn't make any difference to the left. They will just find another reason to call Conservatives "nazis" anyway. :)
Again I will say that the issue is not whether to deal with Saddam, but how to deal with him. Nobody wants to "walk-away" and let him have a "free hand." That's just more conservative rhetoric designed to simplify and confuse the issue at hand. As far as the Nazi name calling is concerned, I am against it. Whether it is Rush Limbaugh calling Hillary Clinton a "feminazi" or some progressive protestor holding up a sign comparing Bush to Hitler, I think it doesn't do either side any good.
And the left will ALWAYS find a reason to criticize the conservatives, and vice-versa -- it is politics, after all! :P
-The Muggler
|
