English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Consider this: Environmentalists prevent the USA from drilling in many locations where there is abundant oil (Yukon, Gulf of Mexico, etc)....therefore we are forced to buy oil from the middle east. Much of that American oil money goes to supporting terrorist organizations that operate against the USA. Thus...the US gas usage allows terrorists to operate!
If environmentalists don't lighten up on demanded restrictions for oil drilling...there will be no USA....the whole world will eventually be nuked.
What will the environmentalists save then?

2006-08-05 01:34:47 · 9 answers · asked by corvette 6 in Politics & Government Government

9 answers

Pretty fuzzy logic here. Let's look at your premises - environmentalists prevent USA from drilling in many locations. That may be true, but you jump to the conclusion that this forces the US to buy from the middle east. Maybe we could diminish reliance on middle east oil this way, but not significantly. Here is all the proof you should need. Your president said recently that we need to seek alternative sources of energy such as nuclear. He does not think the US has enough oil that can be extracted for our needs.

Also could there be other reasons why the US has not exploited more of its own resources for oil? You bet. This oil was too expensive to extract until recently. Oil cos. were not interested in it because they couldn't make money on it.

Then, it almost goes without saying that you make a big jump to the end of the world, nuclear war, if those drilling restrictions are not lifted. I think there might be some steps in-between which have nothing to do with environmentalists such as ill conceived foreign policy, especially in the middle east. I also think if you listen to entertainers such as Rush and Hannity, you'd be well served to stop. This could be causing you to leap to conclusions that are upsetting and unrealistic, to miss what really might be going on and to make poor, unlogical arguments.

I don't mean that as a personal criticism, but it's my theory for why you say what you say, and more importantly, how you say it. One of your premises, that the environmentalists are an obstacle to solving our energy problem is well worth examining and debating.

2006-08-05 01:41:18 · answer #1 · answered by TxSup 5 · 0 1

Yes and No! First I know for a fact that we drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. My husband works on an offshore oil rig. There is not enough oil being produced to support our need for oil. Therefore we have to look elsewhere for oil. We have a gas reserve in the USA. For some reason we don't use it. We are forced to buy gas from other countries and the money from that might go to support terrorists we don't know that for sure. that is only pure speculation. I don't think that the environmentalists are the only reason that the world would be nuked. Most of the terrorists are attacking for reasons like religion, not fro saving or not saving the planet. Yes everyone can be more conscious about the planet and use Eco friendly products or gas alternatives. We are almost there. That will slow down the process of overseas gas purchasing. So I don't think that the environmentalists, American or otherwise ( Americans are not the only environmentalists) are terrorists at all. Terrorists destroy what they don't understand. Environmentalist are trying to save what they know and love.

2006-08-05 02:52:48 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

That's like saying the cops and courts should be arrested for selling drugs since their the ones who make it illegal and if they didn't do that, then there would be no problem! Or better still, we should sue Daimler-Chrysler and Ford Motor Company for inventing the car in the first place, and hold them responsible for 9-11! While some environmentalists are true whack jobs, it doesn't mean every environmental issue is a bunch of junk! The land up in Alaska they want to drill on belongs to the federal government and is a wildlife preserve. Ultimately, the land belongs to each citizen, and the US government wants to let companies drill on it and sell the oil to us. The way Bush proposes doing it is a major hose job where the oil on land we own, will then be sold to us, by the oil companies that are already gouging us. I say drill away, but with the oil from that area being used for one of two things: developed by the federal government for its strategic reserve, or the companies that drill there must agree to price controls to regulate the cost of ALL the oil they sell in the US. What do you think of that suggection?

2006-08-05 01:50:34 · answer #3 · answered by But why is the rum always gone? 6 · 0 0

Absolutely, Yes!!!! 100% Yes....
They are the Enviro-Nazis aka terrorists of the legal system, hence an economical disaster. As bad as any oil spill....At least the Earth will clean itself up..These Enviromental Wacko's i.e. the Sierra club, this group called (all the scientists) ,Please give me a break.

These groups have about driven the price up on oil all on there own. We want ANWAR...Alaskans want ANWAR it is their state, let them have it. Since when do these Environuts from California, know what is in the best interest of Alaskans.

I'm not sure what is worse, an environut, or an economic terrorist.

2006-08-05 02:02:34 · answer #4 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 0 0

This is somewhat of an indirect way to describe ecoterrorism.that term is normally applied to earthfirst and their acts of sabotage on industrial and simple vandalism as commited against most of the heavy industries...no doubt,many in the inviro movement are more disruptive than productive ,but ,the oil industry could hardly blame them for the mideast terrrorisism....that is largely an economic and religoun based problem

2006-08-05 02:12:12 · answer #5 · answered by snuffy 1 · 0 0

No.Not just Americans. Every country who wants to plunder another, to reap harvest of Oil, wood, and other economy, is the culprit. But only the biggest mice will survive in this field of war.

2006-08-05 01:46:02 · answer #6 · answered by stoneman 3 · 0 0

can you start a sentence with thus or should that come after a comma? anyway we are allowing new drilling now they are talking about it on the news in the gulf of mexico!

2006-08-05 01:41:13 · answer #7 · answered by mojomuppet 4 · 0 0

besides all that....in we drilled in those areas and in Anwar, our dependency on foreign oil would decrease dramatically and so would gas prices.....as long as the demoncrats didn't put any new taxes on gas.....like they like to do..

2006-08-05 01:45:51 · answer #8 · answered by biz owner 3 · 0 0

bush supports terrorist he has strong connections with the bin laden family and business interest

2006-08-05 01:46:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers