No fair! I've been so busy being a good capitalist, that I'm just getting to look at our blog today. And what am I all excited to post? The quote I had copied down last night from that 70-something Iraqi ex-patriot (yep, I think she voted in Farmington Hills), saying: "Anyone who doesn't appreciate what America is doing --and President Bush-- let them go to hell."
And the only word I could think of to explain the tone of her voice was: vehement
I wish these liberals would put the shoe on the other foot. Think how you would feel if you grew up in an oppressed country always living under the threat of death and torture, not knowing freedom. Think how you would feel towards the country and president who freed you? The expressions on the Iraqi ex-pats they showed on the local news last night voting here said it all.
But I guess liberals don't really care about freedom for the Iraqi people. Actually, they aren't too interested in freedom at all --unless it's for captured terrorists, christian-bashers' freedom of speech, etc. Remember, at the end of the day, they'd really just like us all to be good little communists.
I
Oh, and Mother sheehan makes me want to vomit. WHY is she still in the news? I'd like to take odds on a head to head battle --that Iraqi woman v. sheehan. Bring it on! PPV. I would LOVE to see what Sheehan would have to say to an Iraqi citizen...
Sage, I took care of Sheehan... Old School.
Peace out
Evil
Sorry Sage! I saw it and couldn't post it fast enough. Isn't that great? Take THAT CNN and your stupid bogus polls.
But good for you being a good little capitalist. 
We're proud of you.
Sheehan is being called a "Media Whore" now - even by her peeps the liberals. Even THEY think she should give it up. I say keep her and Dean and Kerry talking. heh. All the better for us in 08.
Hey-- Does that roller have Texas plates??
Scenario: Iraq becomes a democratic nation, and the people of Iraq decide they want to sell their oil to China, not The U.S.
Will the U.S. still support a democratic Iraq?
"But I guess liberals don't really care about freedom for the Iraqi people. "
I only consider myself a half-blooded liberal (kind of a liberal libertarian I think). I would say you are right. I don't care about Iraqi people's freedom, or China's, or Korea's, or Iran's, or Saudi Arabia's, or.....
I don't believe it's our job to free the world. We should not be the world police going around nation building.
We should support our allies and encourage friendly forms of government.
Not fighting wars for nation building.
Yes, the Iraqi elections... I was very excited to see that 70% turnout. If I remember correctly, that's about what the turnout was in the Viet Nam elections, remember thoem? No, probably not...
Not sure you really want to link the two. Sure there was an estimated 83% turnout in Vietnam, but then the war continued for the next 8 years.
Ali, and previous elections in Iraq, Syria, Russia were 99% for the dictator in power. I know you are groping for a thought, but be aware that groping is a crime.
So everyone agrees nation building is good foriegn policy?
Yes. That's what we all agree on.
No more calls, please, we have a winner.
*sigh*
"I don't believe it's our job to free the world. We should not be the world police going around nation building.
We should support our allies and encourage friendly forms of government.
Not fighting wars for nation building." --This statement from NoWingForMe is actually the most honest arguement we've seen so far.
This is what we should be arguing, not about Bush "lying" and Halliburton, etc.
The answer, as DP said, is YES, we do. Just like Clinton didn't think the Bosnians deserved to be ethnic cleansed, we didn't think the Iraqi people should be tortured, raped and murdured. And after 9/11, we realized we needed to do something drastic to "pre-emptively" fight terrorism and prevent future attacks. A stable democracy in the middle east is good for America and good for the world.
it's cool that you don't care about other countries. Isolationism is pretty common in America. It always has been. But that's the argument --to be isolationist or not.
Frankly, like with WW2, we recognize here that we no longer have the choice of being isolationist. The war came to our shores on 9/11. And this is increasingly becoming a global world. Businesses are global, countries interact more. We need to deal with the whole world. And as the most powerful, prosperous lone Super Power, yes, I believe it is our job to care about the oppressed.
Oh, and to answer Robert's scenario-- no, I wouldn't care if they sold oil to China. I don't like China much --the whole commi thing. But Iraq can sell oil to whoever they want. I'd care more if they started selling to Iran... but I don't think we're in much trouble of that.
I have no reason to think that the grateful Iraqi people would turn around after all we've done for them and sell oil to our enemies. But if they did, we'd deal with them like we would deal with any other country --we could put economic pressure or sanctions on them, etc.
Cynical question from a disbeliever. You probablly still think SuperEvil Karl Rove and Halliburton are working on that weather-making machine.
Oh, and if we would have started drilling for oil up in alaska 15 years ago instead of caving to the envrionmentalist whackos, we wouldn't be nearly as dependent on bad countries like Saudi Arabia.
My SUV is HUNGRY!
Oooh, duck and cover, Sage. You crack me up.
My SUV is hungry, too!
Hey Sage thanks for the reply.
I am an isolationist, but only to a degree (more as a core philosophy). I believe we should be limiting our reach, as oppose to streatching it thin. And this "nation building" as a strategy for the War on Terror doesn't sound like a realistic long term goal. And the War on Terror is a long term commitment. I feel like we are setting ourselves up for many military actions and larger debts. And possibly making more enemies (this would be a minor point however, and debatable).
I think if this administration talked about the bigger picture more openly it would help ease some of us "middle of the road" types.
BTW, I'm more of a sedan man.
I came over from Amy Ps blog. I love the picture of the steamroller! Lol!!
That is hilarious!
With the possible exception of NoWing, I doubt you unhinged imbeciles can be counted on to wipe you own arses clean. Alaska drilling making us independent from OPEC oil? Jesus, talk to a petroleum engineer before mouthing off something so ignorant that would make Michelle Malkin blush. Learn, THEN write "sage" for the love of God.
10 bucks says none of you dimwits that actually find the steamroller picture so humorous EVER stood a post in harm's way.
Ignorant rednecks... good night and good luck...
Thanks for visiting, Robert. We always welcome opposing viewpoints. (could do without the name calling and would appreciate you making a coherent point...but I guess you can't have everything)
And yeah, we like NoWing too.
DP
DP-
Your point is well-taken. Last night's combination of small batch bourbon intake and reading the insanity of how Sheehan is "bashing our troops" was a bit too much to stomach. Consider this an apology to any who read my note who does have a clean arse and is not a redneck.
I would think those who appreciate a coherant point would have a lot of trouble with President Bush (by any chance did you see him stutter and blink through the "Newshour" PBS interview last night? His degree of being out of touch was only outdone by his stubborn repetition of inane platitudes in lieu of logic. But I digress...)
Getting back to the argument with an eye towards "coherence", please indulge me to expand my position on drilling in Alaska:
Sage's position that drilling in the arctic "15 years ago" would make us less dependent on foreign demonstrates a simplistic reactionary viewpoint as well as a utter lack of understanding of geopolitics and energy consumption.
Firstly, oil is certainly NOT a dependable resource. The fossil fuel age is coming to an end. A plurality of petroleum scientists now say that world oil production will start declining in less than 10 years. So even ignoring the detrimental environmental effects of continued dependency on this fossil fuel, it should be obvious we need to focus our future on renewable energy. Countries like Japan realize this and are gearing government policy and subsidy proactively to be better positioned with the spigot dries.
Secondly, driling in ANWR wouldn't lead to less dependency, but rather, more. If you support drilling, you're saying that we'll continue to favor oil and give the Arab states the upper hand. History confirms this- After the 1973 oil embargo, Congress passed legislation that allowed for the creation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which vastly increased the amount of oil that could be pumped out of the area. But U.S. dependency on foreign oil only increased. During the '70s and early '80s, the U.S. imported less than 30 percent of its oil from abroad. Last year, about 54 percent came from foreign fields.
Thirdly, when will the light come on for folks that the time is NOW to agressively focus on supply-side solutions such as fuel cells, which run on hydrogen, and solar power? Demand-oriented solutions must also be considered. Forcing automobile manufacturers to make cars more fuel-efficient, for example, should be a priority. President Carter started doing this in the '70s and Clinton continued to carry the torch but political resolve died off in the '80s and '90s. The current administration couldn't be less interested in such strategy- there is far too much money to be made by campaign contributors in the auto and oil business. To wit: today's average mileage is about the same as it was 13 years ago. And with all the SUVs on the market that get under 20 MPG, the overall gas mileage of auto manufacturers has slipped. If, instead, cars got an average
continued..
...of 45 MPG (say light trucks getting 34 MPG), oil demand would diminish by about 2 million barrels a day, according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, which is more than the estimated oil available from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And isn't it ironic that General Motors bonds are now relegated to "junk bond" status? I wonder if there is any connection between production of a vehicle fleet with piss-poor efficiency and miserable sales figures? Care to guess how far ahead Honda and Toyota will be if we continue to ignore, or at minimum just pay passing attention, to efficiency issues?
Finally. consider the security ramifications of transporting the arctic oil to the CONUS. The pipeline is completely insecure and can not be secured, a fact conceded by the oil industry. It is vulnerable to terrorist attacks and it is beginning to deteriorate as it is over 25 years old with more and more accident and transport disruptions with every passing year. It is arguably the most vulnerable link in our energy chain and doubling our dependance on it is a terrible idea from a security perspective.
Just because the president can't seem to decipher causal relationships doesn't mean we can't think this through.
OK, rant off,
the "other" Robert
Your writing talents are wasted commenting, Robert! (and the other Robert...)
You should get your own blog. We'd visit. Often. Promise!
p.s. Hey Sage, I think we have a new post idea brewing...
Um, Robert, maybe you should read what I write more thouroughly before blasting off your comments. With all due respect, I wasn't the one sounding "unhinged."
I said that we would not be nearly as dependent, not that drilling in Alaska would make us independent. Big difference there. And I don't need to consult engineers for everything I write because I have common sense.
No matter what the number of barrels we could get from drilling in Alaska, that would be X less barrels we'd be buying from the Middle East. Get it? We'd be LESS dependent.
We should be exploring oil drilling anywhere we can in this country to lessen our dependence on a volatile region of the world. We should offer tax breaks to oil companies for them to build more refineries here in the U.S., again making us less dependent.
Heard (via Sean Hannity, that great Ameican) about a study done that says there is enough oil shoal in 4 western states that, if we could develop a way to extract and refine, could fulfill America's complete oil needs for 100 years.
We should continue trying to develop other sources of energy, but in the mean time I'm realistic about our need for oil right now.
I'm sure you'd rather have us all driving Priuses or riding our bikes to work, but I live in the real world. I also live in a state that gets a lot of snow and the speed limit on the highways is 70. You couldn't pay me to drive a Prius.
And I ask to you remember, as 'Sheed would say --the blog don't lie.
Umm, Sage, I was just getting ready to repeat my explanation, that drilling in Alaska for oil certainly wouldn't have made us not "nearly as dependent" (which, if you read my post you certainly should have understood), but then I got to the part in your post where you describe Hannity as a "great American".. There is obviously nothing more I can do here so I repeat: good bye and good luck...
Robert
ps- Seems like Norwegians and Scandinavians and Swiss live in the "real world" too, likely with greater inclement weather and higher speed limits than in Sage's locale- you don't hear these folks whining about "needing" SUV's, do you?
So should Sean Hannity move to Scandinavia to drive a Prius and then he'd be a better American in your estimation? Maybe if he and Ann Coulter shared one - like a timeshare? - then you'd feel better about their collective American-ness? And then somehow that would keep us less dependent on Iraqi oil?
I'm confused.
DP
Ya know how liberals always like to blame america first? Global warming is all our fault, etc.
Now apparently they've extended it to American auto companies.
Hey Other Robert-- Let's forget the whole they have to hire Union employees and pay them more, hence their vehicles cost more to build than Toyota or Honda (who don't employ Unions). Yet in order to sell the cars, they have to price them competitively. Oh, and the health care? U.S. Auto co's pay health care benefits until their retired employees die and those costs keep going up. Rising health care costs (thank you, lawyers!) is the #1 reason why the U.S. Auto makers are in such trouble now.
As far as using more oil now than we did in the 70s... that's because it became a lot cheaper (supply, demand --you know) after Jimmy Carter was blessedly voted out of office, and the american auto makers invented this wonderful thing called the SUV. They became really popular around here. You may have seen them around...
Did you not read the title of our blog? Right from New Fallujah? That's Detroit, hon. Don't talk to us about American v. foreign auto companies. And drive your Prius around here at your own risk.
Europeans spend a lot less time in their cars than Americans. Considering, their entire countries could probablly fit in my state... Their commutes aren't as long.
Completely different lifestyle over there. Personally, I favor our lifestyle here in America...
I knew mentioning Seany would have its benefits. : ) See ya
Commenting by HaloScan
