Then why not invade Alaska? Check out ANWAR and please tell me why the libs don't want our own oil
2007-09-23 15:36:50 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bravo, andy!!
I always laugh when I see the left bleat about how the govt just won't listen to "the people". Kiss my frozen arctic butt! If the govt would listen to the VAST majority of Alaskans, ANWR would be open.
It is beyond irritating to live in the largest state in the union, with natural resources - many of them renewable - beyond most people's wildest imaginations.....and we're stuck being a damned welfare state. More than 99% of our land off-limits from development, and we have to fight tooth and nail to get anything done on the small percentage of land we *do* have access to. Funny - the lower 48 ignores us most of the time, unless they're trying to tell us how to live. (For the record, we would prefer you ignored us ALL the time.)
If you live in the lower 48 and you are against drilling in ANWR, don't you *dare* ***** about Alaska being a welfare state. Many of the people here who are against drilling in ANWR at least walk the walk - they ride their bikes all winter long. I know people who ride well over 30 miles a week, even at temperatures of -30. If *they* can do it, people in the states sure as hell can.
Sorry to rant - VERY touchy subject.
Edit - Six months is a total BS estimate. There is a lot closer to ten years of oil - plenty of time for us to find alternative fuel. But it will NEVER HAPPEN until "the people" pull their heads out and realize politics are more important than Britney or Paris.
2007-09-23 15:49:48 · answer #1 · answered by Jadis 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
ANWR (not ANWAR.. everything is about war to republicans) doesn't have nearly the reserves that Iraq has. But I'm sure a "well eduacted republican" could figure out that "in theory" the amount of oil at ANWR is minimal. I sat "in theory" because no actual oil has been discovered there.
Why not invade Alaska? Alaska is part of the United States. Invading it would be a strategic blunder, but considering who's running things, I'm surprised we haven't invaded Alaska even though it's part of our own country...
2007-09-23 15:46:05 · answer #2 · answered by Incognito 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
that is not Obama's conflict, neither is it Bush's conflict. maximum folk would desire to awaken and comprehend that the president of america is completely a public showman who's there to offer the message. submit to in strategies, 'do not Shoot the Messenger.' between the features of the conflict is unquestionably oil. submit to in strategies this conflict is for the international Elite and has no interest for the yankee human beings or all people else that characterize the working classification.
2016-12-17 08:46:58 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's absolutely hilarious that liberals think that Iraq had any oil at all. The fact of the matter is that Iraq doesn't have enough oil to be of any interest to the United States. At MAXIMUM capacity, the Iraq oil reserves would provide $200 million dollars of crude per year. That quite literally is nothing.
2007-09-23 16:26:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
maybe you should use the search option and read the answers to the previous several hundred times this question was asked.
you know, your type will never get an answer, if you ignore them as nonanswers, just so you can continue to stick your fingers in your ears.
but to answer your question, allow me to ask you one that hopefully you have enough capacity for thought, to derive the answer on your own.
In the future, should there be a war, which nation will be the winner
1) a nation that has left all of their oil reserves in the ground, or
2) a country that has to buy it from the nation described in 1?
2007-09-23 16:39:16 · answer #5 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wow.....let's invade ourselves.......good idea.
Do you realize how much America's popularity has dropped on a scale with all the other countries in the world? Bush has made us a worldwide laughing stock. If we invade Alaska, wouldn't that make us schizophrenic?
England made a good choice when they dumped Tony Blair.
2007-09-23 15:47:24 · answer #6 · answered by Senator D*L*P™ 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It wasn't about oil in Iraq. It was about oil in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. According to Greenspan, if Saddam had developed nukes and taken Kuwait's oil fields, then gone into Saudi Arabia and taken their oil fields, he would have controlled the whole middle east. Not good for anyone!
2007-09-23 15:48:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Someone tell me about a war that was never - really - about resources.
The "no war for oil" crowd isn't even living on the same planet.
As for Alaska? Well, they're one of our 50 states, why would I invade?? Dude, thanks for hittin 'em, but jeez, at least you could make some sense!
2007-09-23 15:48:35 · answer #8 · answered by Rubber Cranium 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"Hey libs If the war was about OIL?"
Why didn't we crush OPEC in the early 70's when their embargo crippled our economy? Or why didn't we just keep Kuwait after we drove the Iraqis out?
Obviously, the Arab countries are filthy rich because we don't take their oil - WE PAY THEM DEARLY FOR IT.
2007-09-23 15:49:06 · answer #9 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why don't we just get off of oil, con? There are cars being manufactured that run on compressed air. Why do we have to make fuel from food. The price of milk is $4. I don't think the U.S. is very serious about this situation yet or is being too smart about it either. We've lost our innovative spirit.
I guess its just our destiny to destroy our natural habitats and fight wars rather than deprive our huge corporations of their due or do anything that makes any sense in the long run.
2007-09-23 15:42:41 · answer #10 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋