I'm sorry.

[Nick]

I think that you profoundly misunderstand the people of the midwest.

Precisely why I said "never mind".

Yes Jon you have misunderstood them.

If you wanted a stoning you should go further South ( not as far as Afghanistan) and paint a few harmless silly slogans on your car.

Extra: "Top Gear" in Alabama - YouTube


Orwellian Logic 101 -- A Few Simple Lessons

By Norman Solomon

During the week after U.S. missiles hit sites in Sudan and Afghanistan, some Americans seemed uncomfortable. A vocal minority even voiced opposition. But approval was routine among those who had learned a few easy Orwellian lessons.

When terrorists attack, they're terrorizing. When we attack, we're retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further attacks, they're terrorizing again. When we respond with further attacks, we're retaliating again.

When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government, they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies.

When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're upholding civilized values.

When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against terror.

At all times, Americans must be kept fully informed about who to hate and fear. When the United States found Osama bin Laden useful during the 1980s because of his tenacious violence against the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan, he was good, or at least not bad -- but now he's really bad.

No matter how many times they've lied in the past, U.S. officials are credible in the present. When they vaguely cite evidence that the bombed pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was making ingredients for nerve gas, that should be good enough for us.

Might doesn't make right -- except in the real world, when it's American might. Only someone of dubious political orientation would split hairs about international law.

When the mass media in some foreign countries serve as megaphones for the rhetoric of their government, the result is ludicrous propaganda. When the mass media in our country serve as megaphones for the rhetoric of the U.S. government, the result is responsible journalism.

The longer we stay there, the more Western soldiers etc are going to die. I can't stand it. If that happened to one of my kids I don't think I could deal with it. I don't want to find out.

Afghan civilian deaths

Year Anti-goven't Pro-govn't Other Total


2006 699 230 929
2007 700 629 194 1523
2008 1160 828 130 2118
2009 1630 596 186 2412
2010 2080 440 257 2777
2007-2010 6269 2723 767 9759

Here are the different kinds of Afghanis that live in Arsefuckistan, I mean Afghanistan, excuse me:
-those that hate us and want to kill us

I think on top of her apologies , we also owe vitrification .

 

[Mark Worthington]

Really, Nick? Really? You are actually going to compare the rural USA to Afghanistan? Based on a few seconds from a youtube video? If I had the production assets available to Top Gear, how long do you think it would take me to provoke and film an equally malicious response from some football hooligans in the UK? Still, I'm not foolish enough to compare the UK to Afghanistan.

 

[Nick]

Really, Nick? Really? You are actually going to compare the rural USA to Afghanistan? Based on a few seconds from a youtube video? If I had the production assets available to Top Gear, how long do you think it would take me to provoke and film an equally malicious response from some football hooligans in the UK? Still, I'm not foolish enough to compare the UK to Afghanistan.

Mark,

Absolutely, agree 100%.

Yet the irony of what you say is not lost on me, when there are those on here who talk of turning Afghanistan into glass, (that I assume would include woman and children) for the sins of a minority of hard core terrorists.

 

[Ian K]

" The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves -- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.
What's the problem then? Why aren't oil companies jumping to pump the black gold? Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe, there is no cabal of oil companies and foreign governments blocking the way, bottling up U.S. oil production. The reality is much more mundane. Those untapped reserves are located in places that either Uncle Sam has put off-limits for environmental reasons or are too costly to get -- or a combination of both."

The U.S.' Untapped Oil Bounty

Will the enviros ever stop our utilization of our oil? And we all know that technology will catch up with the difficult stuff.


Read more: The U.S.' Untapped Oil Bounty
Become a Fan of Kiplinger's on Facebook

Let's toss a little reality in here:

snopes.com: Bakken Formation

So, about 20 years to produce about 1 million barrels a day out of the shale oil in the Green River Formation, which is only about 10% of what the US imports daily. Also, the more realistic estimate of 800 billion barrels may provide 246 years of oil at our current consumption rate, it would take and estimated 2460 years to pull that oil out of the ground. And the Bakken region is only yielding less than half a million barrels per day.

Ian

 

[Bob Fechter]

Ian, please realize that Snopes is not some a huge think tank with a staff that does an unbiased report on all these issues. It is run, owned, and staffed by a husband and wife. They are known to be les than conservative in their opinions.

Let's toss a little reality in here:

snopes.com: Bakken Formation

So, about 20 years to produce about 1 million barrels a day out of the shale oil in the Green River Formation, which is only about 10% of what the US imports daily. Also, the more realistic estimate of 800 billion barrels may provide 246 years of oil at our current consumption rate, it would take and estimated 2460 years to pull that oil out of the ground. And the Bakken region is only yielding less than half a million barrels per day.

Ian

 

[Ian K]

Ian, please realize that Snopes is not some a huge think tank with a staff that does an unbiased report on all these issues. It is run, owned, and staffed by a husband and wife. They are known to be les than conservative in their opinions.

That may be, but they do seem to find more accurate and updated information ... and provide links to their resources.

But, if you want more sources to examine:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/us-offshore-oil-reserves/


Ian

 

[Jeff Young]

You continue to have a very difficult time with the facts. As that article itself states, getting to this stuff is not possible with current technology and even if it was, it would cost so much to extract that commercial sales would not be possible.

So let's deal with reality. Right now, we have 2.4% of the world's known, actually reachable world's oil reserves.

Reality: it's important!

" The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves -- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.
What's the problem then? Why aren't oil companies jumping to pump the black gold? Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe, there is no cabal of oil companies and foreign governments blocking the way, bottling up U.S. oil production. The reality is much more mundane. Those untapped reserves are located in places that either Uncle Sam has put off-limits for environmental reasons or are too costly to get -- or a combination of both."

The U.S.' Untapped Oil Bounty

Will the enviros ever stop our utilization of our oil? And we all know that technology will catch up with the difficult stuff.


Read more: The U.S.' Untapped Oil Bounty
Become a Fan of Kiplinger's on Facebook

 

[Jeff Young]

I see Ian beat me to it, and did a better job. Thanks Ian.

Ian, a lot of Americans are scared to death of the fact that we don't have control over our energy needs like we did in the 50s/60s. It's more of the "return to the simpler time" stuff that we see a lot from the right wing.

Reality: it ain't happening. And dreaming up false realities like the above is just denial.

 

[Bob Fechter]

That may be, but they do seem to find more accurate and updated information ... and provide links to their resources.

But, if you want more sources to examine:

FactCheck.org : U.S. Oil Reserves


Ian

Factcheck.org's main benefactor is the Annenburg Foundation, Ian. They are highly biased towards Obama, Ayers, and the American Left Wing in general. Do a little research on them.

 

[Bob Fechter]

"It ain't happening" because the Enviro Movement has been very successful in blocking the utilization of our oil resources, think ANWR and the like.

The oil is there and the price is right to lure private investment. You know, the kind of investment that is done voluntarily because there is a possibility of reward for risk. Not the governmental waste of billions of dollars on the "green" movement that is failing on a regular basis.

The only thing that will stop it is the obstruction of the current governmental entities, you know like the loss of jobs over offshore oil drilling bans and the job killer rejection of the Keystone project.

I see Ian beat me to it, and did a better job. Thanks Ian.

Ian, a lot of Americans are scared to death of the fact that we don't have control over our energy needs like we did in the 50s/60s. It's more of the "return to the simpler time" stuff that we see a lot from the right wing.

Reality: it ain't happening. And dreaming up false realities like the above is just denial.

 

[Ian K]

Factcheck.org's main benefactor is the Annenburg Foundation, Ian. They are highly biased towards Obama, Ayers, and the American Left Wing in general. Do a little research on them.

I have, and I think the credentials of the staff involved, as well as their fairly even and straightforward handling of political propaganda fact checking during elections (plenty of dismissing of Obama claims during that election) seems to indicate they are fairly reliable.

Ian

 

[Bob Fechter]

Go through some of this instead of a site that has no expertise on the subject;

http://www.undeerc.org/price/TextVersion.pdf

 

[Jeff Young]

Price's paper (never published, but without doubt he was respected) was not directed at the recoverability of the oil in the Bakken field but the amount. There was initial debate about the amount in the 80s; it appears the geological community believes Price was right about the volume.

However, his 50 percent recoverability figure was an off the cuff estimate. Other scientific estimates range from 2 percent to 18 percent, and it will be some time before we can get to it.

But a more fundamental question: what US government policy or regulation is preventing us from drilling in the Bakken? It's going on right now as we speak.

 

[Bob Fechter]

The policies that shut off areas like the ANWR and offshore are also impediments to drilling in general in this country. The other problem is that we can't build a refinery here. Those problems are mainly caused by "environmental concerns," which don't take into account modern drilling technology.

As to the Bakken, imagine if the government were throwing the kind of money into it as they are into the "green" segment.

There was a time when it was hard to get the oil out of the "easy" sites. What once was impossible gets overcome and becomes commonplace, given the funds and effort to perfect new methods.

 

[Jeff Young]

Burden of proof is on you Bob, you hold the outlying viewpoint. All accepted sources say we hold 2-3% of the world's oil reserves, meaning our production levels are basically irrelevant when it comes to world oil pricing.

ANWR and offshore are small reserves that are going to gradually opened to drilling as necessary. But the bottom line is that there is not enough there to affect world oil prices either (the only thing in the US that does affect world oil prices is....DEMAND).

The Bakken is intriguing. But you still have got just an off the cuff remark made at the end of a paper that 50% of it is recoverable, compared to USGS and other scholarly studies that conclude only 3-10%.

And you still haven't shown any specific US government policy that is preventing drilling and recovery in the Bakken (which I suspect is because there isn't any, as drilling is taking place there now). It's the cost of extraction that is prohibitive at this point.

Sorry, but your theory that we could just produce all this oil and "sell it to the Arabs" and "destroy their cartel" but for US Government policy holds zero water.

The policies that shut off areas like the ANWR and offshore are also impediments to drilling in general in this country. The other problem is that we can't build a refinery here. Those problems are mainly caused by "environmental concerns," which don't take into account modern drilling technology.

As to the Bakken, imagine if the government were throwing the kind of money into it as they are into the "green" segment.

There was a time when it was hard to get the oil out of the "easy" sites. What once was impossible gets overcome and becomes commonplace, given the funds and effort to perfect new methods.

 

[Bob Fechter]

" U.S. Department of Interior - 1987. After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).

U.S. Geological Survey � 1998. The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources. (See Oil in the ANWR? It�s Time to Find Out!)

Only drilling will tell. The geologic indicators are very favorable for the presence of significant oil and gas resources in ANWR, but the limited data means that there is a high level of uncertainty about how much oil and gas may be present. Consequently, current estimates represent the best scientific guesses. However, most geologists agree that the potential is on the order of billions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas and that these resources may rival or exceed the initial reserves at Prudhoe Bay. The validity of these estimates can be proved only by drilling exploratory wells. Authorization for exploration must be given by Congress and the President."

Arctic Power - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - How much oil is in ANWR?

this thread started out with an article on how much oil is believed to be in the BAKKEN.

 

[Jim Craik]

This thread started in the usual way, critisizing the President for doing what he feels is best for the country, in this case apolgizing for burning of Muslum Holy book. This apology seems to the conservatives here on the fourm a slap in the face to our country, our consevatives and our military.

The fact that it obviously outgaged the Afgan people, did not change you view.

The fact that the President was trying to be "Diplamatic" (who would think) and calm an obviously dangerous situation, made no differance to the consevatives here. They were outraged!

The fact that it led to several deaths both US and Afgan, made no differance, consevative are against any apology!

Now it appears that we have a US Sargent, who after drinking goes out and 16 kills inocent Afgan citizens (including women and childeren).

Now he did not turn them to glass, there was no "vitrification",<!-- google_ad_section_end --> so the consevatives here are probably disapointed, but he killed indescrimintly just like you hoped for.

Once again, the President apoligized, trying to be Diplomantic and calm another very, very dangerous situation.

Now I wonder in this case, why there is no conservative outrage at the appology?

Why are the conservatives not celebrating the event, isn't it just the sort of thing that you wished for?

Please explain what makes this apology any different?

Why do we have no cute posts from outraged consevatives this time?

 

[Jeff Young]

I don't think there is a conservative or liberal slant on that tragedy and I'm pretty sure all of our conservative folks here are saddened by it as we are. I'd just leave it at that.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff,

There definatly should not be a conservative or liberal slant on this tragety.

I think you are probably right, I certinally hope they are saddened.

But there definatly is a slant on the typical reaction to this sort of thing. I wonder if there would have been outrage at an apology made by President Reagan, Bush or McCain?

There was a lot of sarcasim, in my post. But then I was, and still am angery at the mindless attacks on President Obama, trying to do his job, trying to calm an unfortunate situations.

I am hoping that next time the Obama haters to give some thought before they make those big statements.

If you do not think we should turn them to glass, don't imply that you do!

He is Pesident of all of us, in this sort of thing I would hope we would all come together as Americans.

But in the end, their "consevative values" often outweighs their patriatism.

 

[Ian Anderson]

Hey it's not right for either side to kill civilians.

But it's also not right for US and UK troops to be in another country carrying & using arms unless a war is declared.

The president of Afkak has said he wants us out but the polies don't listen

time to get out seal the borders and notlet anything in or out.

Ian