posted
I see this as a debate between ethics and logistics. To answer MR: Yes, I think it is worth thousands of lives to fight for oil. However, you must realize that "oil" is much more than just gasoline for your car. This war isn't over just a few cents a gallon, it's over our entire style of life. Keep in mind that everything you see made of plastic, and I think rubber, is a petroleum product. That's a lot of stuff that I wouldn't want to do without.
To address Lyr's second point, I think that those "few cents a gallon" spread over the entire nation will far more than make up for (possibly in a matter of weeks) the money we've spent on this war thus far. To the first point, all I have to say is: Yet. The war isn't over. In fact, I'm off the opinion that the worst thing that could happen with this war is that the American people force us to pull out prematurely before we CAN secure the oil, or at least set up a government with which we can get the best possible deal on it (More likely in my opinion. The moral majority might not like it if we just commandeered it).
I think Resh addressed the 'Soldiers' branch of discussion better than I could have. Whether he represents the majority or not, I can't say. I won't pretend to read minds. Same principle goes for the 'Number of Terrorists' branch. This is all philosophy unless someone can come up with real statistics.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:what makes it pleasurable is that you know she's not just talking out of her culo.
No, see, that's the problem. The citations are used to make it seem like that's the case -- but take a closer look at those citations again, and you'll see that they don't actually imply any real intellectual rigor. She really is just spouting off; many of her citations are completely unrelated to the claim she's making, and/or clearly misinterpreted/distorted references to a work taken out of context. There are, as I've said, fairly comprehensive discussions of her citations online; look 'em up.
As to keeping my opinions to myself: hey, if you don't want my opinions on your anecdotes, keep your personal anecdotes to yourself. When you say that Coulter (et al) showed you another way to look at your service in a positive light at a time when you were questioning that service, what I hear is that you underwent the political version of a religious conversion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't help but shake my head and laugh again at Cards most recent article where he again commends President Bush for finally having the "right" commanders in Iraq. Yes, good job Mr. President, for finally doing something right after almost five years of doing just about everything wrong. That's like saying a student is a genius for getting a C on a test after failing the first ten. I think Mr. Card is setting the bar way to low for our current president.
Funny thing is there is extensive documentation available to help determine a students grade where all you have to go on are the talking heads on TV and the speculation of magazines you may or may not be reading.
You and everyone else knows relatively little about ALL the decisions Bush has or has not made. Usually a presidency can't be fairly accessed until several years later when former cabinet members, aides, etc can start talking, and documents become declassified.
Unless you are under the illusion that the news pays close attention to EVERY decision Bush has ever made.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: In fact, I'm off the opinion that the worst thing that could happen with this war is that the American people force us to pull out prematurely before we CAN secure the oil...
Stepping outside of the politics for a second. The worst thing that could happen? Seriously, you think thats the worst case scenario?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But here's the real kicker 2. This thing will have cost, in purely monetary measures, well over a trillion dollars, probably closer to two trillion when you really factor in ALL that costs. All for oil? Ridiculous. For that kind of money we could have built an all new energy T&D system, could have created a renewable energy infrastructure, and hell probably could have bought a PHEV for every household in the country. You think spending two trillion is a good thing to do just to keep the status quo, HOPEFULLY?
It is pretty smart if your personal fortune is connected to the oil business and the money you are spending isn't coming out of your corporate pockets.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the funniest moments on my mission is when I was holding the two-year-old girl in one arm, and her doll in the other and she kept pointing to her doll's bottom saying, "culo, culo". It was quite cute. I started to tell her that "culo" was a "parolaccia", but her father corrected me that "culo" was only a "parolaccia" when used in the context of "va fare culo". So in the context of TomD's comments, "culo" is a perfectly acceptable substitution for "butt".
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, let me make this clear, I have nothing but respect and admiration for you and any man or woman who serves in our military. I am not trivializing anyone's service or sacrifice for our country. I am however criticizing President Bush for using our soldiers for an unworthy cause. I am not hoping for failure in Iraq as some people suggest about me or others who criticize the war.
One of the issues here is that a lot of people who criticize the war are considered unpatriotic or not supporting our troops. Even President Bush and his supporters have said this about opponents of the war and I think that is an unfair accusation.
Also, sylvrdragon, I still can't understand your belief that it is right to sacrifice blood for oil. I'm sorry, I don't recall us being in an oil crisis leading up to the Iraq War. Would we have run out of oil and our government crumbled into chaos if we didn't invade Iraq?
Posts: 12 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's Spanish too. I'd never heard that it was Italian. I hear that word day in and day out at work.
quote:Originally Posted by sylvrdragon: I see this as a debate between ethics and logistics. To answer MR: Yes, I think it is worth thousands of lives to fight for oil. However, you must realize that "oil" is much more than just gasoline for your car. This war isn't over just a few cents a gallon, it's over our entire style of life. Keep in mind that everything you see made of plastic, and I think rubber, is a petroleum product. That's a lot of stuff that I wouldn't want to do without.
To address Lyr's second point, I think that those "few cents a gallon" spread over the entire nation will far more than make up for (possibly in a matter of weeks) the money we've spent on this war thus far. To the first point, all I have to say is: Yet. The war isn't over. In fact, I'm off the opinion that the worst thing that could happen with this war is that the American people force us to pull out prematurely before we CAN secure the oil, or at least set up a government with which we can get the best possible deal on it (More likely in my opinion. The moral majority might not like it if we just commandeered it).
Seriously? I mean, you seriously believe that? First off, petroleum isn't necessary for the type of products you're listing. Well, right now it's the most used source, but plant based foam and plastics are doable, they just weren't economically viable in the past. Now that oil is over $100 a barrel they're looking downright cheap. Ford is licensing their plant based foam technology to several companies, notably John Deere. They have the added bonus of being biodegradeable, which oil based foam and plastics are NOT. That's another thing that two trillion dollars could have been spent on, research and tax breaks for this research.
And come on, you think a few cents a gallon (I don't know what you were quoting there, but okay) would have been paid for in a few WEEKS? That's the US budget for a YEAR. You're talking about making gas a little cheaper for a little while, I'm talking about getting rid our need for gas ENTIRELY. You want to waste $2 trillion dollars and 3,000 lives for a COUPLE CENTS A GALLON? That's not just stupid, it's callous and a bunch of others things too, none of them smart.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...it is an election year with a Republican incumbent.
If Bush can't run again, how can he be an incumbent? Or did they add a bit to the constitution to allow third terms while i slept? Posts: 2332 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it is still appropriate to use incumbent even though of course Bush can't run for President again. Incumbent refers to someone who currently holds office, not just someone who is also running for reelection.
Posts: 12 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's still relevent. Especially with an unpopular Republican incumbent, it's very important when talking about Democratic turnout at the polls.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to this site http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm (which I found after about 20 seconds of googling) the US consumes roughly 400 million gallons of gasoline a day. (if you want more sources than that, then click on THEIR sources)
I'll admit that a few weeks is a gross miscalculation of how long it would take to make up 2 trillion dollars (where did you get that number anyway?). I hadn't done the math when I was typing that. It would actually take several years depending on just how far the prices fell. To my credit though, "couple cents a gallon" is an exaggeration as well. I remember gas being about $1.50 less than it is now about 3 years ago. According to Wikipedia (google "past oil prices"),in September of 2003, a barrel of oil was 1/4 the price that it is now.
Oh, and the "few cents a gallon" quote came from MR's response to my initial posts.
As for alternatives to plastic, I won't pretend to be on the cutting edge of technology, but I would guess that if they're not already widespread throughout the country, then they probably aren't as good (for whatever reason) as petroleum products.
But none of that stuff matters. People are missing the POINT of my post. It isn't about Oil or the value of human lives. I'm trying to say that the government most likely has a very good reason to be in Iraq, and the American people probably don't know even a fraction of that reason. I'm sure they have teams of analysts and advisers and a ton of number crunchers telling them what actions will be worth it and what won't. And Bush probably doesn't have anything to do with it.
Speaking of worth, don't ask me if X number of lives are worth something... you don't want to know my value of a human life, not while their are ~7 billion people in this world. Knock a few zeros off of that and we might have a discussion.
@Mucus: I think it's the worst probable scenario directly connected with this war. The things that I think you are thinking about could happen whether we went to Iraq or not (I'm looking at Iran).
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I would like to know your value of a human life sylvrdragon. Of course what is 3,000 lives compared to the billions of people we have in the world? I guess they are worth less. "Knock a few zeros off of that and we might have a discussion." That is a very cold statement to make. I believe that every single life is precious and should not be wasted for an unworthy cause such as oil.
You sure have a lot of faith and trust in our government's reasons for invading Iraq, especially since their stories keep changing month after month and year after year. If their reasons are so legitimate and honorable, why can't they simply be open with us and maybe then that might have more support for the war. Instead we have perhaps the most secretive Presidency in our nation's history. Why be so secretive unless they are hiding some truly terrible truths.
Posts: 12 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That oil is in a region that is in danger of being brought under complete control by fascists who would use that oil to hold the rest of the world hostage. So it is somewhat simplistic to say that a single life should not be wasted on a cause as unworthy as oil, because it is more than that. The fate of human civilization is possibly at stake here.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd much rather see oil rendered unnecessary. Think what would happen to the those fascists if the world suddenly didn't need oil? Much more effective than bombing.
Why we're not throwing as much money as possible at alternate energies is beyond me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can count the number of people who's deaths I would REALLY care about on my 2 hands, and have several fingers to spare. Outside of these few, nobody else really effects me. Even with the aforementioned people, I would get on with my life after a relatively short period of mourning.
I would wager that humanity could suffer billions of deaths without affecting me (assuming my own isn't one of them). THAT is the point at which I start paying attention. Father even than THAT is the point at which loss of lives starts affecting me NEGATIVELY (overall). That's when I actually start CARING.
Nothing is going to change if I start crying for every lost life that I hear or read about or even see with my own eyes.
I wouldn't use the words Faith or Trust to describe my feelings toward our government. This is all just speculation. I think Curious Apathy hits closer to the mark. I just find it very hard to believe that things are as they appear on the surface. It's all logic. I think it's more than reasonable to believe that the governments decisions are generally made based on a huge amount of information that the general public doesn't necessarily have access to. This is where the Apathy comes in. If this reasoning is correct, then it doesn't MATTER what I think or do (unless I become one of the decision makers, fat chance), and so I don't let it bother me.
I could be wrong though. Maybe dubya IS really in charge. Maybe he's making all of this up as he goes along just like it looks like on TV. But what are the chances that a country that works like that could be as successful as the US?
To MR: Yes, I'm cold, and that chill starts on the fringes and runs most of the way to the center, only warming up as it approaches the small community of my intermediate friends/family and the people that I come into contact with daily. You might be happy to know that on THAT level, I'm pretty normal. Actually, I often surprise myself with how well I relate sometimes to my friends' problems. It's like my empathy is a very narrow beam, but very strong when aimed somewhere.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll admit that a few weeks is a gross miscalculation of how long it would take to make up 2 trillion dollars (where did you get that number anyway?).
General knowledge. Last I checked the US operating budget was I think $2.1 trillion.
quote:To my credit though, "couple cents a gallon" is an exaggeration as well. I remember gas being about $1.50 less than it is now about 3 years ago. According to Wikipedia (google "past oil prices"),in September of 2003, a barrel of oil was 1/4 the price that it is now.
Doesn't that make it all the more ridiculous then? Gas costs twice what it did just a few years ago, and you suggest wasting a couple trillion on a modest decrease in the price over the next couple years? Oil will cost nearly $4 a gallon in the next couple years, barring unforseen circumstances. We'd have to find a couple of Saudi Arabia's in the middle of Okalahoma to bring that price back down to something we're familiar with in the past. The point is, oil is a fuel of the past, we should be investing to move beyond it, or the 20th century is going to bury us.
quote:As for alternatives to plastic, I won't pretend to be on the cutting edge of technology, but I would guess that if they're not already widespread throughout the country, then they probably aren't as good (for whatever reason) as petroleum products.
You're right, you aren't on the cutting edge (no offense). It isn't an alternative to plastic, it IS plastic. It's just as good. The only reason it wasn't chosen in the 20's as the way to make plastic was becuase oil was much more abundant and extremely cheap back then. That's no longer the case. Is it prevelent right now? Of course not, that's why you invest! You want us to keep digging ourselves into a deeper hole. It's incredibly short sighted.
quote:But none of that stuff matters. People are missing the POINT of my post. It isn't about Oil or the value of human lives. I'm trying to say that the government most likely has a very good reason to be in Iraq, and the American people probably don't know even a fraction of that reason. I'm sure they have teams of analysts and advisers and a ton of number crunchers telling them what actions will be worth it and what won't. And Bush probably doesn't have anything to do with it.
Wow, that's...well that's an amazing amount of SOMETHING. The government most likely has a very good reason? What in the name of all that is holy leads you to believe that? If anything, I think the government has proven they don't have a clue about much of ANYTHING in the Middle East. You have way, WAY too much faith in a government that continues to fail us on a daily basis. Quit drinking the kool-aid.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: I can count the number of people who's deaths I would REALLY care about on my 2 hands, and have several fingers to spare. Outside of these few, nobody else really effects me. Even with the aforementioned people, I would get on with my life after a relatively short period of mourning.
I would wager that humanity could suffer billions of deaths without affecting me
Nothing is going to change if I start crying for every lost life that I hear or read about or even see with my own eyes.
You're right, probably nothing is going to change if you start crying for every lost life, but it wouldn't hurt to show a little compassion for people outside of your tiny circle of family and friends, if you have friends that is. That is after all, part of what makes you human, empathy, compassion and most importantly a heart.
I feel very sorry for you. It must be very lonely in your small little world that you wouldn't feel anything if a billion people died tomorrow as long as they weren't any of the people you count on your fingers. I don't know what is more chilling, feeling happy that people are dying or feeling nothing at all, at least the former is showing some kind of human emotion while the latter is just a cold and hollow shell.
Posts: 12 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would effect you though, losing billions of lives, it always does. It sounds sort of what this dude with Asperger's syndrome said in a book, but it would be devastating if everyone thought like that... And very scary.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human lives are precious. However, not having oil could cost human lives in other ways. Have you ever thought to yourself what might happen if it does get really scarce? We all know it will some day, but that will be a gradual growth not a "here today gone tomorrow" sort of thing. It is selfish, but I would prefer that the violence stay on the other side of the ocean.
I'm not even sure I am in favor of the war right now. I wanted Sadam dead, but that's over now. I don't really understand what is going on in the middle east at the moment. I despair of being able to even get an accurate picture. Every single piece of evidence seems so biassed one way or the other, and I don't have the energy to sort it out - not for the tiny bit of difference my one voice could play against the millions of other voices in the country. I'm not in control of the war, I have no real way to influence anyone who IS in control of it, so I simply accept it as a fact of life for now - I pray for the souls of those who die, and for it to end as peacefully as possible, and then turn my attention to things I can understand.
Is oil really the biggest thing we have to argue about anyway? There are so many other things going on in the world - isn't there anything we can positively focus energy on?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are already at peak oil. I say we find a new resource of energy and stop supporting places like Saudi Arabia who have horrible human rights violations.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's okay to politely disagree with Card on his own forum (at least in my opinion -- I'm aware that some people think even this is rude) but it is NOT okay to personally insult him.
Of course it's not okay to personally insult ANYONE, but understandably everyone just feels the need to every now and then. But when somebody comes to a forum that Card HIMSELF took the time for make for US, a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past) and then dole out disgusting, incredibly insulting comments based on your own personal issues, it makes me sick to my stomach.
I can understand being angry at Bush and his supporters if you've lost friends and family in Iraq. I almost feel the same way and I haven't lost anyone. But how about writing all those thoughts down on a piece of paper and then tearing it up and throwing it in the fire? Then you can email Card privately and politely tell him why you disagree, sans personal insults. Yes you may be angry, but there's no reason to create more hate and humiliation in the world just because of that anger. You can do better than that.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether we're at peak oil or not is questionable. And frankly, I think peak oil is the wrong way to frame things, I think we should be asking ourselves when we reach unsustainable oil.
There's going to be oil for a long time to come, and as long as we keep finding more oil, peak oil will keep getting pushed back, but one thing you really can't put the cork back in is the price of oil. Theoretically OPEC could flood the market with oil and kill the renwewable energy market, but I'm not wholly convinced that they could if they wanted to (and the way things are going, I don't think they need to). But the oil we keep finding that keeps pushing back the peak oil problem is going to be ultra expensive oil. We might hit $200 per barrel of oil by the end of this year, or next. It's not about no more oil, it's about spending so much on oil that the Middle East is bloated with cash and our trade imbalance implodes.
Becoming energy independent is becoming more and more important with each passing day. We've got some painful days ahead since we waited so long to start seriously switching over. Private industry is there, investing tens of billions in renewables, but the government needs to push harder and give incentives across the board, and it needs to spend a lot too. It's the most important issue to the US right now. Getting more oil is immaterial, getting off oil is essential.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hyperbolic much?
Who is this directed at and what does it mean? I tried looking it up but only found the mathematical definitions (granted, it was a quick search).
Edit: I think I found the meaning. Something about exaggeration. Still not sure who it's directed at though.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not want to insult OSC, I respect his writing skillz and he makes interesting points, but he has been working my last nerves for quite a while. Especially since that one article. That was inaccurate, inpolite and uncalled for. Plus it concerned me, the audience he's writing stuff like this for. They may mostly only know about the most stereotypical details of the issue he is talking about. They read the articles and it only enforces stereotypes and stirs up hatred because hatred comes from not knowing the whole perspective even when you are insisting you are not being hateful and in fact have many friends like that. If someone wrote something like that about a group he belonged to he'd be very angry and justifiably so... The clear picture will never come out if it continues... But it's hard to fight against that sort of thing .
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: Oh, and the "few cents a gallon" quote came from MR's response to my initial posts. ...
@Mucus: I think it's the worst probable scenario directly connected with this war. The things that I think you are thinking about could happen whether we went to Iraq or not (I'm looking at Iran).
Keep in mind that "few cents a gallon" would be spread out a lot among all the nations. Due to the way the market works (at least during peacetime), AKAIK crude oil prices are essentially determined on the international market. Even if the US could get a "sweet deal" on Iraqi oil (which is not a forgone conclusion, why sell to us for cheaper than anyone else) that would just mean some company could quickly sell oil from the States internationally, eliminating the difference.
Second, worst probable? Seriously? How about Iraq falling into a full-blown civil war? I would consider that worse than a simple withdrawal of US troops without securing oil on both a "normal" human scale of whats worse or even if your only metric is the morally dubious measurement of oil prices.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The fate of human civilization is possibly at stake here.
I think I heard that last line in a trailer for a Michael Bay film Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Tara said: "a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past)"
Don't be so sure KAC
Feel free to drag your husband over to these forums on occasion Mrs. Card! Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Tara said: "a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past)"
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Tara said: "a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past)"
Don't be so sure KAC
Feel free to drag your husband over to these forums on occasion Mrs. Card!
But maybe not this particular thread. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, he may find it funny. It's obvious that people will not always agree with him. I mean, no one every agrees with ANYONE all the time - and sometimes it's funny to see just how complete the disagreement is.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but he might appreciate how reasonable and measured most people are being in their disagreement with him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Out of curiousity, does your philosophy of "it's okay to kill people if we want their stuff" apply only to nations, or does it work on a smaller scale as well?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
When you say that Coulter (et al) showed you another way to look at your service in a positive light at a time when you were questioning that service, what I hear is that you underwent the political version of a religious conversion.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
