oh State of the Union

[Charla]

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of this, which we wouldn't call a war crime because it doesn't involve killing anyone. It just can't be done today for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Being prepared for self-defense is a more complicated matter than you're making it sound, because countering the kinds of threats that would be realistic now is the job of the intelligence services rather than the military itself. If a threat that would require a military response were to appear, a draft would have to be called no matter what was happening at the time.

[Enkidu]

Holy balls did Zosi own you here. One of the better ownings I have seen in a long time. And FYI, block-aid instead of blockade is hardly a "typo." Typing chedder instead of cheddar would be a typo. In your case it is just an example of either an IQ below 80 (making you clinically retarded, something tells me you don't this) or a person from your proposed future sent back in time to show us what an national privately run education system would produce.

And your stance on global warming is equally as lol worthy.

You are an hero to your education system.

And his stance on global warming is equally "lol worthy" to the stance of Al Gore or other alarmists.

[Haelian]

This is sort of a general post about why the nation loves Bush.

1. We are a religious nation by majority, although that is changing slowly. Bush firmly believes in Creationism and that the "jury is still out" on evolution. So of course you're going to have a religious man in office when that man has a strong view that can appeal to more than half the nation.

2. Americans have been dooped to believe that the war in Iraq (AKA Operation: Finish Daddy's Business) is some how linked to Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan or that there were/still are weapons of mass destruction present. While this poll shows that Americans mostly disapproved of the war in Iraq (as of 2005), it also shows why 36% of the people said we should be in Iraq. The number one reason: September 11 and terrorism.

3. Because he's such a cutie.

[Demosthenes11]

Well, there are ways to conquer things without genocide (these days we'd call most of them Apartheid), it just doesn't work so well when the conquered area has access to guns and/or explosives and has the will to use them. Subsuming the conquered area's economy and resources also repays the initial cost, but again, it wouldn't work so well these days because the rest of the world (and more importantly your own citizens) would get pissed off about it instantly.

Exactly. The only way to "win" with war are methods that are utterly un-American, not to mention immoral. If we'd marched in, obliterated the existing population to "put em in a reservation" levels, and started building Bush City on the ruins of Baghdad, "war crime tribunal" wouldn't begin to describe the reaction.

Instead, we get a gaping economic wound called "Mission Accomplished." Heck, it's actually making our armed forces stupider- as the war's gotten being a soldier less attractive, the education level of new recruits has been slipping. I can understand attacking another country to provide for the defense of this one, but when the result is exhausting those defenders to less and less obvious purpose, WTF is the idea? The USA isn't properly prepared for self-defense because we decided investing huge amounts of national security on a patch of desert was a good idea for the next decade or two?

Hi, I'm making shit up to further my argument?

[Andarvi]

Holy balls did Zosi own you here. One of the better ownings I have seen in a long time. And FYI, block-aid instead of blockade is hardly a "typo." Typing chedder instead of cheddar would be a typo. In your case it is just an example of either an IQ below 80 (making you clinically retarded, something tells me you don't this) or a person from your proposed future sent back in time to show us what an national privately run education system would produce.

And your stance on global warming is equally as lol worthy.

You are an hero to your education system.

And his stance on global warming is equally "lol worthy" to the stance of Al Gore or other alarmists.

Ok, perhaps touche, i wrote it in a rush, i left out the word "know" and wrote out a sentence where "an" was applicable, deleted it, and instead of writing "a" forgot to remove the "an." This situation is very different from what I am being critical over. Funny thing is english is one of my majors O.O

And you can hate Al Gore and other "alarmists" all you want but if you think global warming in its current form is natural and the proposed problems with it manufactured so someone can make a profit then you need to pull your head out of your ass. You are taking one extreme and arguing against it with another.

Edit: Lets just end this global warming debate here. Retort if you want but lets not draw this out.

[Demosthenes11]

You know al gore is full of shit if you actually watch his movie.
The timelines in his graphs DONT MATCH UP. when he says shit like "did they ever fit together? harhar" no they didnt, because they are 2 completely different fucking timelines.
I don't understand why Bush is the big meanie for spending so much money in Iraq for his "lies" yet Al Gore is spreading lies that would cost us just as much to do the shit he wants.

[Charla]

Um, because a lot of us think that Gore's shit is worth doing? Or maybe we know they're lies, but we're all elitist, alarmist yuppies trying to start a media frenzy over a completely natural phenomenon just so we can make the rest of the country waste money over nothing.

[Demosthenes11]

Um, because a lot of us think that Bush's shit is worth doing? Or maybe we don't think they're lies because we're all marmongering, neo-con fascists trying to start a war over a hoopla of nothing just so we can make the rest of the country waste money over nothing.

am I doing this right?

[Charla]

Close enough. Now that we've got that straightened out, let's all just wait until there's an election.

[Day]

Am I allowed to agree with both posts?

[archibaldcrane]

I don't understand why Bush is the big meanie for spending so much money in Iraq for his "lies" yet Al Gore is spreading lies that would cost us just as much to do the shit he wants.

Hi, I'm making shit up to further my argument?

[Demosthenes11]

A shift in all the energy sources and the entire way of life in the world won't cost more than a trillion? Are you joking?

[Penthesilea]

A shift in all the energy sources and the entire way of life in the world won't cost more than a trillion? Are you joking?

Shortsightedness much?

[Demosthenes11]

same could be said about the war

lol, and I don't even support the war, just playing devil's advocate

[evilbau]

First, let's keep in mind that the biggest solution to the great depression was world war 2.

There is so much to respond to, i'll just pick the juiciest among them. 'Our solution to the Great Depression was World War II', this is true but you are implying that somehow this war will be good for us and save us from a recession? The situations are very different. At the onset of WWII, we were far behind all other industrialized nations in terms of manufacturing ability. The war built this up, and at the end of the war, we were the only one left unscathed, everywhere else had battles fought on their soil, while we were at full manufacturing capacity. The war-ravaged world became our customers, to rebuild their nations, and that isn't the case now (except to rebuild Iraq to some degree). At the start of the war, our economy was already working full steam. We aren't even the same industrial/manufacturing-focused nation anymore, we focus on services. So the situations cannot be compared.

[quote:1zi6cmu3]People act like ANWAR is the be-all-end-all to our energy crisis. It's not, it's just another source. It wouldn't even come -close- to ending our oil importing needs. We are importing 5+ billion barrels of oil per year - at that rate, ANWAR would be dry in 2 years. It's just another source, it's not an energy panacea.

It's not like we'd be able to get all that oil out of Alaska to the main 48 anyways. Global warming is melting the permafrost oil pipelines are built on. We're going to end up spending billions of dollars just maintaining the Trans-Alaska in changing environmental conditions.

Global warming is god for the godless, it's just another way for big government to get in our pockets. Climate change is very natural. I'm not sure where you get your ANWAR information, i require links, cause from what i've read, that's a lil bit off. I'll post my links when i get home from work.[/quote:1zi6cmu3]

A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³). In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles, technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km³). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km³), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km³).[3]

The 10.4 billion barrel figure was used in publications by the U.S. Department of the Interior while it was headed by Gale Norton, a proponent of drilling in the Arctic Refuge.[10]

The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%) Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[11] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels, would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was used to meet 100% of U.S. demand, it would last for 215 days under the low estimate, and 525 days or just 1.4 years if it contained 10.4 billion barrels.

Sources check out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ref ... ontroversy

ANWAR does not contain as much oil as you seem to think, and also I'm sure the plan is to completely tap reserves in the Middle East and Africa before we touch our own. Reminds me of a scene in Syriana. When the world's wells are run dry, we might touch ANWAR then, but it'll be expensive (pipeline to continental u.s., etc.). Makes sense to me to buy up foreign oil now, while we still have a dominant world trade position. We might not be able to get oil as cheaply as we do now in 10 years (compared to other countries).

[archibaldcrane]

People act like ANWAR is the be-all-end-all to our energy crisis. It's not, it's just another source. It wouldn't even come -close- to ending our oil importing needs. We are importing 5+ billion barrels of oil per year - at that rate, ANWAR would be dry in 2 years. It's just another source, it's not an energy panacea.

I'm not sure where you get your ANWAR information, i require links, cause from what i've read, that's a lil bit off. I'll post my links when i get home from work.

Oh, I've got quotes.

A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³). In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles, technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km³). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km³), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km³).[3]

Ok, breaking this down. Best mean estimate of 7.7 billion barrels in ANWAR itself. 6.8 billion of which are "economically recoverable at current prices". The entire area, including areas outside of ANWAR and on reservations and the like, is 10.4 billion barrels. Let's take the highest number just for math purposes, even though it's skewing the argument in your favor. It's what the pro-ANWAR drilling government likes to do anyway, even though it's misleading:

The 10.4 billion barrel figure was used in publications by the U.S. Department of the Interior while it was headed by Gale Norton, a proponent of drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

So, 10.4 billion barrels. Seems like a lot right? Well, sure, but you have to realize that the U.S. imports oil at the clip of:

Oil - imports: 5.003 billion bbl/year (2006)

5 billion per year imported, 10 billion in ANWAR, 2 years, dry. That's using the inflated and unrealistic stat of "10.4 billion technically recoverable (regardless of cost to recover) in the entire area, inside and outside of ANWAR".

I hope my point is made. Reduction of oil consumption is going to be the endgame for U.S. interests. Energy importing is nearly half of our trade deficit. It's a huge problem, and many, many of the "conservationist" ideas are not only advisable, but necessary sooner than later to solve this issue. Pushing American innovation for better energy solutions, be it via tax breaks or whatever, should be a large priority.

edit: Goddamnit Evilbau, don't steal my thunder.

[Xsaintx-Siren]

Bush is just a pawn for the New World Order.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread328301/pg1

Guartz, is that you?

It was more of a joke than anything. I think he had potential to do something, but failed to put it together.

In other news, Bush and Cheney better watch out in West Virginia.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs. ... 003/NEWS02

[archibaldcrane]

In other news, Bush and Cheney better watch out in West Virginia.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs. ... 003/NEWS02

I was worried there, but they managed to sneak Godwin's into the final paragraph of the article.

Also, it's Vermont, not West Virginia.

[Kyreth]

as the war's gotten being a soldier less attractive, the education level of new recruits has been slipping.

Hi, I'm making shit up to further my argument?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...t_25_year_low/

Nope. Nice try though. Read up, you'll find it as disturbing as I did- and my father was ROTC/Vietnam tour Army.

The percentage of Army enlistees who joined the service with a high school diploma went from almost 84 percent in 2005 to less than 71 percent last year, according to the analysis by the nonprofit National Priorities Project.

The data also revealed a steep decline in what the Army considers "high-quality" recruits, an assessment based on a combination of their education levels and scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test; in fiscal year 2005, for example, 56 percent of enlistees were designated by the Army as high quality, while last year 45 percent were, the analysis found.