the place............. the series of events........... and we don't gaurd the installations where the munitions could have been kept. The day of the invasion we gaurd the oil facility in the port of Basra and gaurd major oil processing facilities and we don't gaurd the possible WMD sites. What a collossal failure. One truly inept administration.

<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?ex=1111294800&en=2908f890e8beb814&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/internat...5&partner=MYWAY</a>

:laugh: This really is turning sad. Damn Dogger. :laugh:

So we go in for WMD's, but we don't secure the possible facilities and they then get looted. Not a laughing matter. Follow the money Reb, follow the money. The oil facilities were secured on day 1.

And just how do you expect America to operate without oil?
According to what your upset about, it would be ok to shut America completely down?
You won't let us drill our own oil because we might disturb an elk or a goose.... :rolleyes:

jw

We could help ourselves in a number of ways. Consumption is one. This NWR refuge holds thirty days of oil. Thirty days!!!!!! We would make a lot more headway on the conservation side. I kind of hope gas goes to three dollars a gallon this summer. Just to squeeze the SUV crowd.

Dogger Wrote:I kind of hope gas goes to three dollars a gallon this summer. Just to squeeze the SUV crowd.

I think there would be some widespread negative results if gas prices went that high.

I don't "hope" they go much higher, but I do see your point here. The loudest complainers around town seem to be those who own massive SUVs and pickups. If you buy a Ford Excursion, you knew the risk you were getting into at the pump.

Agreed, I'm not happy about prices going up, but I drive a car that gets good mileage. I hope those among us who feel the need to drive a vehicle that dinks gas like water will realize they don't need a vehicle that does that.

Wow,

Motown and B.R. and Dogger in agreement. Are the planets aligned? If everyone drove efficient vehicles prices wouldn't be over two dollars a gallon either. If you want to get even more progressive tax gasoline and have the funding go into alternative fuel cell research. If we put the 50 cent tax in that Perot wanted we wouldn't have these tanks on the road. The Hummer crowd is the worst!

Dogger Wrote:the place............. the series of events........... and we don't gaurd the installations where the munitions could have been kept. The day of the invasion we gaurd the oil facility in the port of Basra and gaurd major oil processing facilities and we don't gaurd the possible WMD sites. What a collossal failure. One truly inept administration.

<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?ex=1111294800&en=2908f890e8beb814&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/internat...5&partner=MYWAY</a>

So were these the sites where the WMD's that didn't exist were put together by Saddam by equipment that he didn't have?:rolleyes:

First, we secured the oil fields for a few very good reasons.

1) Oil is Iraq's only natural resource and the only source of income they have to use in order to rebuild their country.

2) As he did in the 1st gulf war, and in this one, Saddam blew up oil wells which causes an environmental disaster that takes years to clean up. You've been whining about the environment on here for months on how Bush doesn't care about it yet find fault when steps are taken to protect it.

3) Many of these weapons sites

Second, the NYT has been beating this horse since it dropped the October surprise one week before the election last year that turned out not to be true.

You can't have it both ways Dogger. You can't whine about us going to war when there were no WMD's and then turn around and complain that we didn't supposedly guard facilities that had them. You don't find it the least bit hypocritical that you're bashing the Bush admin. for not guarding WMD sites when you've already been bashing them over the fact that there were supposedly none to begin with?

Or could this be what many of us have said since this whole thing began? That Saddam was withholding information, he had no intention of disarming or scrapping his WMD programs, and that this coordinated and systematic effort to loot these sites was planned from the beginning to hide the evidence of this fact.

Make up your mind Dogger. You can't bash Bush on the one hand b/c there were no WMD's yet bash him on the other for not guarding that which you are bashing him for not being there in the first place.

Niner,

I can see your sensitive about this issue. I know I would be if someone I supported screwed up THIS bad. If we went in for WMD's why wouldn't we gaurd THE facility that could possibly harbor these weapons. This wasn't some little depot. This was one of THE MAIN weapons sites. It was left ungaurded for over 90 days. What kind of planning went into this. AND yes one can have it both ways. When one CHOOSES this war of pre-emption I would expect both facilities to be gaurded. If you don't have the manpower you don't invade!!!!! We had the guy in a box!!! How in the hell can we leave a site like tis to be looted!!! At least Saddam had it gaurded. Now we have armed the Zarqawi's of the world with high tech explosives!!! Great job W!!!

Dogger Wrote:We could help ourselves in a number of ways. Consumption is one. This NWR refuge holds thirty days of oil. Thirty days!!!!!! We would make a lot more headway on the conservation side. I kind of hope gas goes to three dollars a gallon this summer. Just to squeeze the SUV crowd.

What left wing site do you get this 30 days of oil crap? The fact is no one knows for sure how much is there because we can't get permission to do exploritory drilling.

Some say there's less than a year's worth of economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain and that based on if we used only that oil and no where else, basically cutting off all imports of oil. The same people say there could be over 10 billion barrels of oil there. That works out to a million barrels a day for over 30 years while utilizing other sources.

You're wrong about the conservation side, you can't just do conservation. You have to have new avenues of production as well. It's basic supply and demand economics.

on a side note....

I am pleased with the Lebanon demonstrations yesterday. They were anti-Hezbollah and were twice the number of the pro-Syrian denmonstrations last week.

Go to the USGS survey of oil in ANWR. The thirty days is the conservative estimate. We went over it this summer. On the optimistic side it's six months worth.

Quote:I can see your sensitive about this issue.&nbsp; I know I would be if someone I supported screwed up THIS bad.

Not hardly.

Quote: If we went in for WMD's why wouldn't we gaurd THE facility that could possibly harbor these weapons.&nbsp; This wasn't some little depot.&nbsp; This was one of THE MAIN weapons sites.&nbsp; It was left ungaurded for over 90 days.

We didn't have the troop levels to do it. It has been acknowledged on more than one occassion by me and others that the planning that went into the occupation was very bad. The execution of the war was flawless, the occupation was another matter.

There were hundreds of sites. None can be called the "main" one.

Quote:AND yes one can have it both ways.

Only if you have no problem being a hypocrit. Most liberals I know don't have that problem.

Quote:When one CHOOSES this war of pre-emption I would expect both facilities to be gaurded.&nbsp; If you don't have the manpower you don't invade!!!!!

Invasion and occupation are seperate things.

Dogger Wrote:Go to the USGS survey of oil in ANWR.  The thirty days is the conservative estimate.  We went over it this summer.  On the optimistic side it's six months worth.

You mean the one that says,

Quote:Assessment Results

The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).

FYI Dogger, even the lowest estimate of 5.7 billion barrels is light years more than 30 days worth.


<a href='http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm' target='_blank'>ANWR Report from USGS</a>

Also

1. No where in that report does it mention 6 months or 30 days.
2. The "optimistic" side is 16 billion barrels which is well over a year and a half worth of oil IF WE DIDN'T IMPORT ANY AND IT WAS OUR SOLE SOURCE.

Do you have any clue the money that would be brought in from the sale of those leases to drill there? We're talking BILLIONS of dollars. You're all about the government having more money so you should be on board with this.

You can also read an interview with Gale Norton at <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149850,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149850,00.html</a>. It mentions a lot of what I posted earlier.

Quote:Are the planets aligned?

Could be, but I'm not one of those follow the party line guys. I really don't think anyone should be. I believe in the free market. I also believe the environment is worth saving. So if Gas prices go up, the market will begin to move toward more fuel efficient vehicles and possibly alternative fuels, which have been proven to work, but right now are not economically viable. Higher gas prices will make alternative fuels competitive.

As for the Oil Bases, It's really hard to judge what happened in the first few days of war. War moves so quickly right now, and it becomes a trade-off of which is more important, securing your flanks and rear positions vs. keeping your enemy off guard. Saddam had shown in the past that burning oil wells would be a goal, similar (but not identical) to the Russian strategy of destroying land while retreating in WW2. The main economic export of Iraq is oil and protecting it for the future Iraqi people was an important goal. If the US was really out to steal the oil, I think we wouldn't have turned it over to the Iraqis.

As for WMD, we may never know the full truth. We're they there? We're they hidden, moved, whatever. I'm actually kinda shocked they haven't much of anything. WTF was Saddam thinking? Logic says he must have been hiding something, but what as it?

Based on mean United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates of oil potential in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (10.4 billion barrels*) and petroleum consumption for each state using statistics provided by the Energy Information Agency (EIA), the U.S. Department of the Interior calculated the number of years that ANWR oil would power each state.

<a href='http://www.anwr.org/archives/ANWRHowLong.pdf' target='_blank'>View How Your State Would Do</a>

In a very succinct article on the ANWR Coastal Plain Alaskan Geologist and former Director of the Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, Ken Boyd explains the history of why the 1002 Area of the ANWR Coastal Plain is the ONLY place where exploration would take place. Learn why the environmentalists are wrong when they claim oil exploration would ruin ANWR.

<a href='http://www.anwr.org/archives/1002_is_where_the_oils_at.php#more' target='_blank'>"1002" Is Where The Oil Is At!</a>

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.

<a href='http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html' target='_blank'>http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html</a>

Ninerfan1 Wrote:So were these the sites where the WMD's that didn't exist were put together by Saddam by equipment that he didn't have?:rolleyes:

First, we secured the oil fields for a few very good reasons.

1) Oil is Iraq's only natural resource and the only source of income they have to use in order to rebuild their country.

2) As he did in the 1st gulf war, and in this one, Saddam blew up oil wells which causes an environmental disaster that takes years to clean up. You've been whining about the environment on here for months on how Bush doesn't care about it yet find fault when steps are taken to protect it.

3) Many of these weapons sites

Second, the NYT has been beating this horse since it dropped the October surprise one week before the election last year that turned out not to be true.

You can't have it both ways Dogger. You can't whine about us going to war when there were no WMD's and then turn around and complain that we didn't supposedly guard facilities that had them. You don't find it the least bit hypocritical that you're bashing the Bush admin. for not guarding WMD sites when you've already been bashing them over the fact that there were supposedly none to begin with?

Or could this be what many of us have said since this whole thing began? That Saddam was withholding information, he had no intention of disarming or scrapping his WMD programs, and that this coordinated and systematic effort to loot these sites was planned from the beginning to hide the evidence of this fact.

Make up your mind Dogger. You can't bash Bush on the one hand b/c there were no WMD's yet bash him on the other for not guarding that which you are bashing him for not being there in the first place.

I can't believe that I agree with everything Niner just said. Maybe the planets are lining up.