Stinger said:
I'm sorry but that is simply not the case. The known reserves in ANWAR are enough to offset the Saudi's for estimates between 10 to 15 years. Just the known reserves and as noted known reservers throughout the world go UP every year. That's enough to pressure the middle east supplies.
1. I don't know where you got that fact from, but the estimated reserves in Saudi Arabia are about 260 billion barrels, compared to 25 billion barrels for the United States.
2. Known reserves HAVE increased every year...but they will not continue to do so for much longer. Sometime between 2005-2010, we will reach peak oil production, then will begin the slow decline of oil reserves.
Stinger said:
I think we see that and we know who they are, but what purpose does it serve. Why does the left want us to whallow in it?
Because war is hell, and if Americans are willing to support an unprovoked war and extensive occupation, they sure as hell better wallow in it and see the consequences. If they still support it, fine. But at least they'll realize the tradeoff.
Stinger said:
What they are amazed at is the misreporting of the good we are doing over there. And this is the most reported war in our history. Go back and look at how WW2 was "sanatized".
It's true that the good things are not commonly reported in the news media...but that's primarily because the bad outweighs the good by far. You can spin this any way you like, but it's the truth.
And nice way to conveniently change the subject and ignore everything I said, so I'll repeat it: Returning soldiers are commonly amazed at the complete indifference and unawareness of most Americans that their nation is at war.
Stinger said:
Do YOU believe war is not horrific?
What *I* believe about war is of little relevance to the debate on whether or not this war is sanitized. The average American has absolutely no idea what war is like, and if he supports a war it is typically a tacit "Yeah, whatever" kind of support, rather than a "Yes! I've been saying we should invade Iraq for years!" kind of support.
Stinger said:
News reporters have to tell you it is?
No. But news reporters DO have to tell the average American it is.
Stinger said:
But the fact is if it does lower our morale and aid the insurgents do you believe the media should do everything in it's power to do so?
If being exposed to the truth lowers our nation's morale, so be it. At least people will have the truth and can make up their minds.
Stinger said:
So you don't believe you are capable of making an informed decission?
You haven't made up your mind?
I love how you turn all of my references to "Americans" into personal attacks with little or no relevance to the point I just made. It's quite an effective debate tactic. And by effective, I mean idiotic.
Stinger said:
And they are as much a part of this country as the rest are they not?
Yes. But they are not the only Americans.
Stinger said:
Well I have a son over there and one to go later this year so I guess my views trump yours.
So I guess my views trump yours since I am having to sacrifice.
English must not be your first language. Either that or you are intentionally ignoring any points you don't want to hear.
Stinger said:
Better than marching lockstep behind the brilliant military strategist Cindy Sheehan.
Oh right, because the only two options that exist are marching lockstep behind George Bush or marching lockstep behind Cindy Sheehan. You are such an idiot, I don't know why I'm even bothering trying to explain this to you.
Stinger said:
What doesn't make sense and we do not control the oil fields the Iraqi's do.
Under American guard, and on the condition that they give us oil at reduced prices.
Stinger said:
There most certainly were terrorist there and terrorist training camps and a Secret Police and Intelligence force that developing very close ties with all sorts of terrorist groups. There is no doubt that Saddam was developing alliances with terrorist and supporting terroist causes, mainly attacking the US and assests.
The only terrorism that Saddam Hussein ever sponsored was Hamas, which was hardly interested in attacking the United States.
Stinger said:
That is a specious point which is belied by the evidence developed by the Senate Hearings and the 9/11 Commission and what we have uncovered in Iraq. He was involved with terrorist because he supported their Muslim causes, he was in it for his own gain and he saw the advantage of working with them.
First of all, Saddam Hussein was an agnostic and he was despised by every major Islamist group in the world without a single exception. Second of all, you can't just pull "facts" out of your ass like that and expect everyone to believe them. The 9/11 commission found NO link between Baathist Iraq and Islamic terrorists.
Stinger said:
Well Fox News is a very good source with some of the most in depth reporting on the subject but the 9/11 commission and the Senate Hearings and the Kay and Duelfer reports all substantiate exactly what I have been saying. Perhaps you listen to a little too much Air America.
I don't even know what Air America is, but from the context I assume it's the dumbed-down liberal equivalent of FOX News.
No, I get my information from INTELLIGENT sources on all sides of the political spectrum and from many different countries.
Stinger said:
Oh well that's real convincing. What stupidity.
Well, you're the one who claimed that protesting was a substitution for trying to convince voters that you're right. I was simply pointing out that, effective or not, that is obviously what they're trying to do.