> >> Bull. In the transition, Clinton's people warned Bush's people about
Al
> >> Qaeda. Then Bush proceeded to let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora.
> >> Finally, Bush decide to go destroy an inherent enemy of radical Sunni
> >> Islam
> >> (the Ba'ath state in Iraq) instead of committing resources to fight
> >> against
> >> AQ.
>
> > Yes. "we think AQ may be planning something at some point. But you
> > have no resources to find out what where or when". Thanks a lot
>
> Sure they had resources. Google "president's daily brief."
Or you could read the strategy for dealing with AQ that clinton
handed down. basically it says "ask pakistan and SA nicely to deal
with AQ for you and hope they do".
> > guys. That's just great. And I guess that saddam was joking all
> > those times he offered to destroy the US? and probably he didn't
> > REALLY mean it when he gassed his own city?
>
> Uh, how would Saddam have destroyed the US?
Nonetheless, the threats were made.and that's only answering the
first half.
> > Besides, AQ is only the smallest tip of a vast popular movement.
> > really, we're at war with islam and have been since biblical times.
>
> Who's "we"?
Everyone on the planet that is NOT islamic.
> >> Drilling in ANWR wouldn't help much, because oil is a fungible
commodity
> >> traded on the world market. It certainly wouldn't help nearly as
much as
> >> increasing CAFE limits or increasing gasoline taxes.
>
> > Neither would make any real difference in the long term, but
> > short term survival is just as im****tant. Drilling anwr would either
> > push back peak oil or extend the plateau while battery technology has
> > a further chance to develop into something that MAY be useful in the
> > trans****t picture. It would also flatten oil prices long enough to
> > allow the construction of alternative energy facilities.
>
> Of course it wouldn't affect prices much at all, because oil is a traded
> fungible commodity.
Really? so adding 1 mbd wouldn't reduce the prices? supply and
demand do not function in the oil market? Is that your claim? This
is as you say an econ newsgroup, so claiming that supply and price are
unrelated is unlikely to win you points.
> This is an economics USENET group; you're not doing yourself any favors
by
> posting illiterate gibberish.
You could perhaps learn to read. It might help your credibility.
> > Increasing the cafe standards is of limited utility. we will be
> > unable to meet the limits we have recently put in place. There is no
> > fleet on the planet that meets the 40 mpg average requirement. In
>
> Where did I say anything about "40 mpg"?
The new cafe standards call for an average fleet mileage of 35
mpg by 2020. I thought that it was 40 based on a different thread,
but seems I missed. regardless, it's not an easy standard to hit, and
the few vehicles that meet it are expensive and small.
> I'm claiming that currently available technology would easily allow a
> reduction in gasoline consumption that would far exceed what we could
get
> out of ANWR.
Not on a reasonable timescale. Production line retooling takes
time. The current fleet mileage of the US automobile fleet is 27 mpg,
and the age of the vehicles is an average of 8 years. if the average
new car were jumped to 35 mpg and miles driven held constant, that
would mean it would take 8 years to replace 1/2 the cars on the road
with the newer models. that would bring the average MPG for the US
fleet to 31. Now, that would save us 3 mb/d. a nice savings I will
grant, but we're talking about that savings taking effect in the year
2028! at which time the population is expected to increase to 400
million! In addition to which, peak oil is *definitely* between now
and then, so we can anticipate something between 10 mb/d and 28 mb/d
of world oil production decline over the same time frame.
Now, how much good will anwr do? moderate. It will however do
more to stabilize near-term oil prices than any other possible
action. it will buy time for a better solution. It will also take 5
years to come online, during which time the price of oil can
reasonably be expected to double so it isn't like we'll lack for
incentive to mend our habits.
It's simply a fact that we cannot continue to ignore that oil
resource. we need it.
> Besides, taking oil out of ANWR now would be just downright stupid.
Much
> better to leave it in the ground, because it's going to get far more
> valuable with time if peak oil is nearby.
Umm... no! the value may go up, however, it will take an
absolute minimum of 5 years to explore and develop the fields,
probably more like 10. Now if peak oil is 15 years away, then you may
be right, if peak oil is today, then we need to start NOW. The world
really cannot afford the production declines that we are likely to see
if we do not pursue the mitigation sources that are available.
> > fact, there is not one automobile on the market in the US that meets
>
> > those requirements. The best improvements that can be made on that
> > front will be swamped by population increases and emerging markets.
> > we need the PHEVs and we need em soon, but that really is not
> > appropriately a government issue.
>
> >> > the most ineffectual president in US history, partly due to... his
> >> > own ineffectually, and partly due to rampant opposition on the
> >> > political front by those who view his failures as their own
successes
> >> > regardless of the results to the nation (democrats). And all this
at
>
> >> Bush's greatest failure is, of course, the invasion and occupation of
> >> Iraq.
> >> How is the role of the Democrats relevant to his decision to invade
at
> >> all,
> >> except insofar as they were insufficiently opposed to Bush on the
issue,
> >> which hardly bolsters your argument?
>
> > Having failed to get the GOOD ideas past the democrats, he went
> > with the only remaining option. can't blame him for trying.
>
> LOL!! What good ideas would those be?
ANWR, Nuclear power, continental shelf drilling, coal
liquefaction. Basically building things instead of blowing them up.
But the dems shot down all those plans, so something hadda be done.
and since all the good options got killed, he was left with a bad one.
> >> It's clear from the US political scene that, while the Democrats
might be
> >> bad and all, the Republicans are complete thugs.
>
> > Please. The democrats are not the least bit better in any
> > respect. They are BOTH thugs, thieves and liars.
>
> Not compared to the brown****rt Republicans, who impeached a sitting
> president for petty infractions, stole an election in 2000, disgraced
> themselves during the Terry Schiavo episode, have pre-Enlightenment
> attitudes about science and religion, etc etc etc.
Pathetic lies. Why'd you bother?
> >> LOL! Right. When the tanks and fighter-bombers come after you, your
> >> assault rifle won't do squat.
>
> > Assuming that there armies with tanks and fighters at that time.
> > What will they use to run the tanks/ bombers? Tanks do not run on
> > malevolence, they need oil. Oil requires industry. Industry only
> > functions in stable political climates. My hunting rifle works fine
> > against other guys with hunting rifles :) Not much use against the
> > army I will grant you, but great against the cripps.
>
> If things get that bad, big bad guvmint is going to be the least of your
> worries.
Yes. I agree. Now, got your ammo stashed?
> > Effective organization is only effective when the ultimate threat
> > of force exists. without that you got nothing. As evidence, look at
> > any oppressed populace. the only difference between a genocide and a
> > democracy is the armament level of the populace. Government should
> > always be more afraid of the people than the people are of the
> > government.
>
> <yawn> To repeat myself, if you have organization, you can easily get
guns.
> If you don't have organization, you're screwed. Period.
Well, if you were right then you'd have a point. didn't work
very well for the jews in germany, or the ukrainians under stalin, or
the chinese under mao. but hey, maybe this time will be different.
|
