Why do democrats.....?

Question

.....prefer dead soldiers to unhappy caribou? Like Greenspan said, even if Bush is too stupid to realize it, we ARE over there for oil. However much we could get from ANWR and offshore would result in a net decrease in soldiers who have to die getting it over there.
-
So the lefties say Americans refuse to conserve and develop alternatives. Is this how they punish us? Force us to sacrifice our soldiers rather than disturb a few fish and caribou?

Answer 1

ANWR has practically no oil compared to Iraq. As such, there is no reason to believe that failure to allow drilling for the small amount of oil in ANWR is the cause of the Iraq War or the reason why we are still there.

You should also know that the Democrats have supported additional funding for alternatives to oil for the past thirty years. We have also supported conservation standards. The primary opposition to these proposals has come from the Republican Party which will not take steps to reduce the dependence of this economy on oil (foreign or domestic) until the last drop of oil has been consumed. Of course, by then, it will be too late to develop alternatives in this country, but we should be able to buy them from Japan and China.

Answer 2

Because oil exploration in the ANWR and a possible oil field would have done nothing to stop the war in Iraq. If the oil exists, it still isn't in production and wouldn't be for years.

Pumping out every drop of American oil just makes oil cheaper for everyone, it doesn't help us that much. It is an international traded commodity. If someone truly was thinking strategically, they'd advocate preserving our in-the-ground reserves rather than selling off the rights at budget prices to foreign owned companies like BP and Shell, just so Alaskans can buy another snow mobile. One thing is certain, there is a limited amount of oil and while we may someday replace it for most forms of energy, we still would need it for military uses as well as hundreds of synthetic products that as of now can only be made from oil. You can't fly a jet fighter with solar power. So wouldn't it make sense to save some for when the other countries do run out (as some are already) or at least stop selling it to us (as some are already)?

Economically (for us rather than the oil companies) it also makes sense to wait the thirty, forty, or fifty years for the polar ice cap to disappear/recede. Climate change will make it easier to move that oil by ships, rather than building yet another tax payer funded oil pipeline to move it south (ANWR isn't that close to Prudhoe Bay, unless your map is tiny). Already the polar ice is greatly reduced and even most Republicans and TV pundits will admit that, if not that man is responsible. So why not wait a little and make it easy? Plus as an added bonus for you types who hate enviromentalism, most of the unique species would have died off by then.

Answer 3

Hey now, don't you think this is a bit of a red herring? I mean, we are over in *IRAQ* as retribution for 9/11, right? We're there to "defend the world from acts of terror"!! If I'm not mistaken, I'm sure Democrats are neither for drilling in Alaska or for our campaign in Iraq (oh, yeah...and... Afghanistan). We get enough oil from our own country (check the links below). I live right next to a Shell refinery (In California, right in the middle of all those lefties!). Really, we are over there for oil, but not politically, and this administration would NEVER admit that we are over there for such an unscrupulous reason (we only disobeyed the UN to protect the world, not to satisfy our need for STUFF)! This question defeats itself.

Answer 4

Oh, so your rationalization, and admission that we are in Iraq for oil!

There are more important things than oil from Iraq. Have you seen your gas bill go down.

I know affluent families who are now having it tough, spending sometimes more than $1,000 a month just for fuel oil! Now if those with money are having it tough, what does that say about the rest of us!

I guess you would be willing to sacrifice or whole eco-system for some oil! Actually it isn't the oil at all, it is the control AND MONEY!!! We get 1/3 of our oil from Canada and 1/3 from Mexico. I am sure we can legally get the other 1/3 from somewhere without destroying the world!

Answer 5

I think you have the Dems & the Repubs mixed up.

We want the soldiers home because we're tired of them coming home in body bags.

You need to regroup about this issue and then come back for a debate.....you are at a disadvantage.

Answer 6

I don't have a problem with the US paying itself back for even a portion of this 'war' and if oil taxes are one way of doing that then, so be it.

However, anyone who thinks that we are over there for ONE reason alone is nothing less than shortsighted. Greenspan included.

Answer 7

wow... that's going way out on a limb... we don't even get that much oil from Iraq?

and "lefties" want us to leave? do you think if we opened up ANWR Bush would magically end the war? hahaha... ANWR has ZERO to do with it for those that started the war... but thanks for playing...

is there a Republican that can make a point with rational logic?

Answer 8

Wait what?

I Prefer living soldiers. That's why I am against the war in iraq

Answer 9

They do not.

Why do you hate a large segment of US citizens?
Why are you so Anti-American?
Why do you promote the downfall of The USA?

EDIT:
All who support this hateful diatribe are also Anti-American.

Answer 10

i see your not getting much support, here is some

it was right here in America that a liberal set fire to an effigy of an American soldier, that sends the loudest message i can ever think of, they hate this country