[Helmling]

Go big, go long or go home: Few easy options for Iraq  - CNN.com

I for one say:

Go big.

The number of troops allotted to this mission was never adequate to the job of controlling post-war Iraq--particularly once the army was disbanded. Put enough boots on the ground, though, and we may have a chance of stabilizing this country and doing right by Iraq.

If we do it right, Bush's reputation may even be saved from the harsh historical judgement he's set himself up for (as it stands now, I can see a high school online textbook in 2043 with a section titled "Worst President Ever?"). The problem, of course, is that the American people pretty much voted against the war in Iraq. Can they now be convinced that sending more troops in is the right thing to do? And where will these troops come from? The Democrats are sending around another symbolic draft measure--a pointless political statement now that they've won control of the Congress--but could it be that a draft is our only hope of salvaging Iraq?

This is the kind of rock and a hard place that made invading Iraq a bad idea to begin with. If we had a president with any kind of sense and vision then he would have foreseen this, maybe even shown some real leadership and gotten the country onboard for the sacrifices that advancing his agenda would require. We need some leadership now, if we're going to save Iraq...but who?

[Macrobat]

Funny, every single one of the actual military commanders involved just finished testifying before Congress that this is BS. Lemme see, who do I believe, them or CNN, McCain and Rangel?

[Nicko]

The only people who can save Iraq are the Iraqis. I would think putting more boots on the ground would just give more targets for IEDs and snipers.

[Troll]

A year ago, I would have agreed with you without hesitation. The US should have had 400,000 troops in Iraq from the start - which meant introducing a draft. If America was committed to a war in Iraq back in 2003, I don't see what the problem would have been with a draft. 400,000 troops is not a thumb-suck, it's the number of troops that results from applying the ratio used by NATO and the UN in every successful peace-leeping mission to date. Everyone, notably the US Army General knew that was the number required.

Now unfortunately, I think there are two things that have changed. First off, government has broken down in Iraq to such an extent that even more soldiers would now be required to create the required stability and they'd need to stay for even longer than originally would have been required. Secondly, because of the way this mission has been bungled, the US public does not trust the government enough to hand over their children. Justifiably they think that this Administration will waste their children's lives.

So, you have a situation where probably 250,000 or 300,000 more soldiers are required and the American people won't give them to you. Iraq was royally screwed a year ago. Too little too late and too many mistakes from the Americans.

[Helmling]

McCain's always said we need more troops, so I'm not sure what you mean.

And while there would be more "targets," what's important is there'd also be more enforcers. Our troops are the best the world has ever seen. They can control any territory we need them to. The problem is that there's too much territory to secure, and the number we have there just isn't enough. We could make all of Baghdad a green zone with enough troops.

But again, the question is: will we?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Troll 

A year ago, I would have agreed with you without hesitation. The US should have had 400,000 troops in Iraq from the start - which meant introducing a draft. If America was committed to a war in Iraq back in 2003, I don't see what the problem would have been with a draft. 400,000 troops is not a thumb-suck, it's the number of troops that results from applying the ratio used by NATO and the UN in every successful peace-leeping mission to date. Everyone, notably the US Army General knew that was the number required.

Now unfortunately, I think there are two things that have changed. First off, government has broken down in Iraq to such an extent that even more soldiers would now be required to create the required stability and they'd need to stay for even longer than originally would have been required. Secondly, because of the way this mission has been bungled, the US public does not trust the government enough to hand over their children. Justifiably they think that this Administration will waste their children's lives.

So, you have a situation where probably 250,000 or 300,000 more soldiers are required and the American people won't give them to you. Iraq was royally screwed a year ago. Too little too late and too many mistakes from the Americans.

Sadly, you're probably right.

[Macrobat]

Funny how you, CNN, John McCain and Charlie Rangel think you know more than the actual commanders on the ground, huh?

[Helmling]

Plenty of military commanders have said (repeatedly) that more troops were needed in Iraq. I don't know which ground commanders you're talking about, but considering they were probably put there by Rumsfeld after the smart guys were pushed into early retirement, then there's probably nothing funny about the difference of opinion.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Go big, go long or go home: Few easy options for Iraq� - CNN.com

I for one say:

Go big.

The number of troops allotted to this mission was never adequate to the job of controlling post-war Iraq--particularly once the army was disbanded. Put enough boots on the ground, though, and we may have a chance of stabilizing this country and doing right by Iraq.

If we do it right, Bush's reputation may even be saved from the harsh historical judgement he's set himself up for (as it stands now, I can see a high school online textbook in 2043 with a section titled "Worst President Ever?"). The problem, of course, is that the American people pretty much voted against the war in Iraq. Can they now be convinced that sending more troops in is the right thing to do? And where will these troops come from? The Democrats are sending around another symbolic draft measure--a pointless political statement now that they've won control of the Congress--but could it be that a draft is our only hope of salvaging Iraq?

This is the kind of rock and a hard place that made invading Iraq a bad idea to begin with. If we had a president with any kind of sense and vision then he would have foreseen this, maybe even shown some real leadership and gotten the country onboard for the sacrifices that advancing his agenda would require. We need some leadership now, if we're going to save Iraq...but who?

I'm going to say something that may rock your world with it's simplicity and originality and you will read it and say to yourself, "Why didn't I think of that?"

Ok. Here goes...

What if what we are seeing in Iraq represents the LESSER EVIL? What if things would have been WORSE if we HADN'T invaded Iraq? Even with all the challenges we have now and have had up until now, things COULD have turned out much worse.

[ironknee]

how could it have gotten worse? saddam kept iran in check and he didn't have any wmds

[marden]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

how could it have gotten worse? saddam kept iran in check and he didn't have any wmds

And people wonder why I keep repeating myself...

What would you be doing for oil right now if it had been denied us in some manner?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Plenty of military commanders have said (repeatedly) that more troops were needed in Iraq. I don't know which ground commanders you're talking about, but considering they were probably put there by Rumsfeld after the smart guys were pushed into early retirement, then there's probably nothing funny about the difference of opinion.

And THIS is why you guys elected Democrats? This is no different than what the Administration was looking at before the election. I told you there was nothing new that the Dems would come up with.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by marden 

And people wonder why I keep repeating myself...

What would you be doing for oil right now if it had been denied us in some manner?

bush's bff the saudis can give it to us...was there a threat of iraq shutting off the oil? and now? is the tap opened wide?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'm going to say something that may rock your world with it's simplicity and originality and you will read it and say to yourself, "Why didn't I think of that?"

Ok. Here goes...

What if what we are seeing in Iraq represents the LESSER EVIL? What if things would have been WORSE if we HADN'T invaded Iraq? Even with all the challenges we have now and have had up until now, things COULD have turned out much worse.

That's a pretty big what if. A lot of variables there, but the most likely scenario seems that if we hadn't invaded, things for Iraqis would be marginally better--stable, but still under the thumb of a brutal dictator--whereas things would be considerably better for the tens of thousands of Americans who were maimed in this stupid war, and of course, much better for the Americans who died there. Then there's also the fact that according to intelligence sources, we would be facing less terrorist activity worldwide.

Now here's a what-if: What if we'd committed our resources and manpower into rebuilding Afghanistan? What if we had thrust our hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan? Would Bin Laden have slipped away? Maybe, but would the Taliban be able to have regrouped the way they have? Almost certainly not. Would we have won the hearts and minds of the Muslim world? Probably not, but we might have won the hearts and minds of the Afghans.

So, as to your last assertion: could things have gone worse? Yes, I suppose they could. Heaven help us when that's not true. But could they have been better? Obviously, and frankly, it's obvious how it could be better now.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

And people wonder why I keep repeating myself...

What would you be doing for oil right now if it had been denied us in some manner?

Your scenarios become more and more fanciful as you try desperately to justify your position. With Kuwait in our pocket, is there really any danger of them instigating another gas crisis like the one we already survived in the 1970's? But fine, let's say they did. You ask what we'd be doing for oil now...well, maybe we'd get back on the track that Reagan took us off when he took office after that gas crisis: the course to get off foreign oil.

We don't need oil. We can be off it in one generation. It only takes vision and will.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

And THIS is why you guys elected Democrats? This is no different than what the Administration was looking at before the election. I told you there was nothing new that the Dems would come up with.

Oh, the administration was "looking at" this, were they? Oh, well, then nevermind! Let's hand the reigns right back to them, because apparently after four years they were finally going to start "looking at" a new course of action.

Give me a break.

Oh, and for the record, I didn't vote for the Democrats.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

That's a pretty big what if. A lot of variables there, but the most likely scenario seems that if we hadn't invaded, things for Iraqis would be marginally better--stable, but still under the thumb of a brutal dictator--whereas things would be considerably better for the tens of thousands of Americans who were maimed in this stupid war, and of course, much better for the Americans who died there. Then there's also the fact that according to intelligence sources, we would be facing less terrorist activity worldwide.

Now here's a what-if: What if we'd committed our resources and manpower into rebuilding Afghanistan? What if we had thrust our hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan? Would Bin Laden have slipped away? Maybe, but would the Taliban be able to have regrouped the way they have? Almost certainly not. Would we have won the hearts and minds of the Muslim world? Probably not, but we might have won the hearts and minds of the Afghans.

So, as to your last assertion: could things have gone worse? Yes, I suppose they could. Heaven help us when that's not true. But could they have been better? Obviously, and frankly, it's obvious how it could be better now.

If you can say the above then there is hope for you.

Here's the story.

Afghanistan was the magician's hands in a misdirection bit. All the action was to happen in the M.E. and we put a monkey wrench in the whole works at the heart of the Jihadist Central.

What we WERE doing was running around like a bunch of G.I. Jokes through the mountains of Afghanistan on a wild Osama chase. And we might STILL be there in force chasing after him with nothing to show for our trouble.

Meanwhile the misdirection would have allowed oil to be spilled, plots to be hatched and launched, operations to be mounted, deals to be done and all the while you'd still be thinking Muslims were those well scrubbed guys with the kick ass choir in Salt Lake City.

For every time the Pizza guy leaves your front door and you still have beer and lap dance money you should thank GWB for safeguarding the oil supplies.

Oh, and all those martyrs who REALLY DO love the idea of becoming martyrs and were doing it to the USA BEFORE 9/11 those fellas are getting launched over there and not over here thanks to u no hoo.

And as if anyone cares, a couple dozen million folks dipped their digits in purple paint.

This could EASILY be the better of the options.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Afghanistan was the magician's hands in a misdirection bit. All the action was to happen in the M.E. and we put a monkey wrench in the whole works at the heart of the Jihadist Central.

What we WERE doing was running around like a bunch of G.I. Jokes through the mountains of Afghanistan on a wild Osama chase. And we might STILL be there in force chasing after him with nothing to show for our trouble.

Your absence in this thread on current Afghanistan was more than conspicuous. I'm glad you see the chaos, human suffering, and rampant drug production of modern Afghanistan as a mere "misdirection bit."

You make callous statements like this, and wonder why jihadists keep appearing? Give me a ****ing break. If I was Afghani and looking at the remains of my country right now and read that post, I'd probably want to blow up your self-righteous ass too.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Your scenarios become more and more fanciful as you try desperately to justify your position. With Kuwait in our pocket, is there really any danger of them instigating another gas crisis like the one we already survived in the 1970's? But fine, let's say they did. You ask what we'd be doing for oil now...well, maybe we'd get back on the track that Reagan took us off when he took office after that gas crisis: the course to get off foreign oil.

We don't need oil. We can be off it in one generation. It only takes vision and will.

Yeah? Your statement reminds me of someone saying 'we don't need water.'

Here's an experiment. Go in the desert for a week...only 7 days. And for that one short week deny yourself any hydration. After that you can have ALL the free Dasani water you could ever want for the rest of your life.

Just figure out how to stay alive for a week in the desert without consuming water.

That's the equivalent of what you are suggesting. We don't need oil. We can be off it in one generation.

But what do we do UNTIL we get the next new energy source?

You don't know what you are talking about.

GWB saved our asses when we didn't even recognize we were in trouble.

GWB is so cool that many of us STILL don't recognize there was a danger even though it has come and gone and he already took care of it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Your absence in this thread on current Afghanistan was more than conspicuous. I'm glad you see the chaos, human suffering, and rampant drug production of modern Afghanistan as a mere "misdirection bit."

You make callous statements like this, and wonder why jihadists keep appearing? Give me a ****ing break. If I was Afghani and looking at the remains of my country right now and read that post, I'd probably want to blow up your self-righteous ass too.

greg

i didn't even notice that misdirection of a thread! I was paying attention to the real business!

Jihad Central.

[Helmling]

I'd suck the marrow out of the catci. I'd rest in the shade.

There are ways within ways, my friend.

OTEC. Off-shore wind farms. Solar power. Fuel Cells front-loaded by de-centralized power plants. There are hordes of visionary thinkers developing the energy technologies for tomorrow. So I say again, we don't need oil.

Vision. That's what you lack. You see only your way or the highway.

There's a whole horizon, and we need serious people who are willing to discuss the serious issues of improving our future--it's a future someone with your limited vantage can scarcely conceive of.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I'd suck the marrow out of the catci. I'd rest in the shade.

There are ways within ways, my friend.

OTEC. Off-shore wind farms. Solar power. Fuel Cells front-loaded by de-centralized power plants. There are hordes of visionary thinkers developing the energy technologies for tomorrow. So I say again, we don't need oil.

Vision. That's what you lack. You see only your way or the highway.

There's a whole horizon, and we need serious people who are willing to discuss the serious issues of improving our future--it's a future someone with your limited vantage can scarcely conceive of.

Hahahaha! Details, give us details! Make sure to include the substance that will replace oil as a material that provides us Apple iMacs and iPods and golf sweaters and ski boats and soda straws and nylon gears and plastic soda bottles and bic pens and camera film and pill bottles and you get the idea. But what about food? What about the only thing that makes US farmers out produce Bangladeshi farmers, fertilizers and pesticides...which come from...GUESS WHERE!

But you go ahead and give us the details.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

What would you be doing for oil right now if it had been denied us in some manner?

Of course, your entire argument is blown out of the water by the simple fact that Iraq is producing less oil today than they were before the war.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

Hahahaha! Details, give us details!

How 'bout getting energy consumption per capita down to the levels of developed countries in Europe for example?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

How 'bout getting energy consumption per capita down to the levels of developed countries in Europe for example?

Details!

What exactly is that rate?

How to get down to that rate?

How much less would we have to import from the Middle East or Venezuela?

Who would Saudi Arabia court to be it's new protector and get the oil that's currently being shipped to us?

What would the dynamics of that be like?

What time frame would this be done?

How much of our current consumption goes to our industries and how would they be affected?

What would happen to world OPEC prices and how would that affect the US economy?

If there were a war and our oil needs increased would we have to spill more American blood to re-gain the position we currently enjoy?

Details, details!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Funny how you, CNN, John McCain and Charlie Rangel think you know more than the actual commanders on the ground, huh?

Apparently yes WRT John McCain:

"Would more American troops have made a difference" in the months after Baghdad fell, McCain asked.

"I think that you can look back and say that more American troops would have been advisable in the earlier stages of May, June, July (2003)," Abizaid said.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Of course, your entire argument is blown out of the water by the simple fact that Iraq is producing less oil today than they were before the war.

Lets give it another 10 years and see shall we?

You know very well how things work. If you were to be honest, you'd know comparing NOW to then isn't very fair.

Again, give it 10 years.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

Details!

What exactly is that rate?

Energy Consumption Per Capita
(Kilograms Oil Equivalent)
USA - 7.79
UK - 3.91
France - 4.52
Germany - 4.20
Denmark - 3.83
Greece - 2.69
Switzerland - 3.7

So the average American consumes nearly double the energy consumed by the average Brit. And you can't tell me that has a negative effect on the Brit's lifestyle!

Originally Posted by marden 

How to get down to that rate?

First step would be to commit to reducing your rate. Sign up to Kyoto would be a first step. Build public transport systems - more trains for example. Charge higher prices for energy like gas so that Americans are motivated to buy more economical appliances and vehicles. There are loads of things that can be done.

Originally Posted by marden 

What time frame would this be done?

Energy hogs are not well-placed to survive long-term so the faster the better.

Originally Posted by marden 

How much of our current consumption goes to our industries and how would they be affected?

The implication of this is an admission that your industries cannot be as economical as European industries. If that is indeed the case, then all you're doing but not committing to reducing energy use now, is prolong the inevitable through protectionism.

Originally Posted by marden 

If there were a war and our oil needs increased would we have to spill more American blood to re-gain the position we currently enjoy?

I wasn't talking about oil dependence. I was talking about energy consumption. Reducing energy consumption generally would reduce oil consumption too but if you're talking about finding alternatives to oil, I don't know what the answer is. Thinking though that "the position you enjoy now" is sustainable is mental. Even if you control the oil output of the Middle East, at some point in the not too distant future, those oil reserves are going to run out.

[Macrobat]

Now, Troll, post the cost of gasoline in US dollars in all those European role models, and you will instantaneously have your answer - another non-answer.

Not to mention the size of the United States compared with all those paragons you listed, with the commesurate higher trucking, rail and consumer travel. See, your comparisson is worse than apples to oranges and more like grapes to oranges.

Now, if you want to at least attempt to make a valid argument (for a change) compare say, Texas' percapita consumption with France or Germany's - apples to apples.

Subego, unless your time machine is back out of the shop, your post means nothing in this debate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Subego, unless your time machine is back out of the shop, your post means nothing in this debate.

It means little in the debate except for the part where you belittle the notion that someone other than the Generals may be correct.

I am providing an example where the Generals who went on record (except for Shinseki) were wrong and McCain was correct.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Now, Troll, post the cost of gasoline in US dollars in all those European role models, and you will instantaneously have your answer - another non-answer.

D-uh, it's orders of magnitude more expensive in Europe. Why do you think that is? Because it's more difficult to ship oil to France than to New York? No, it's because the French government slaps a massive tax on gas. Why? Because the taxes are designed partly to offset the environmental impact of energy use, i.e. to recognise that the cost of producing fuel is not the total cost of using it. And partly to discourage energy waste. And that doesn't just apply to fuel. Energy is more expensive across the board in Europe.

Did you read my post? The part where I said that one of the things the US needs to do is charge more for energy? That's because the effect of having to pay more for electricity means that you think about electricity consumption more when buying appliances. Go into any European appliance store and you'll see a big sticker on the door of every fridge showing an EU standardised measurement of its energy consumption because consumers are interested in this information ... because it hurts their pockets! Same goes for cars. Europeans have to think twice before getting in the car.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Not to mention the size of the United States compared with all those paragons you listed, with the commesurate higher trucking, rail and consumer travel. See, your comparisson is worse than apples to oranges and more like grapes to oranges.

Let's take these one at a time shall we. Size. None of the countries in the EU consumes more energy per capita than the American average. So, a larger population, a larger land mass and lower energy consumption.

Goods have to move similar distances through Europe so I don't understand your point about trucking. At the French/Swiss border, recognising the pollution that trucks were causing, the governments built a train system that could take trucks and forced all of the trucks onto electric trains. France and Germany have high speed electric trains in places where Americans use aircraft. Transport in Europe is different to transport in the US but that's a function of decisions the Europeans have taken. Sustainability and environmentalism have a far longer tradition in Europe and that's the reason why they are more efficient.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Now, if you want to at least attempt to make a valid argument (for a change) compare say, Texas' percapita consumption with France or Germany's - apples to apples.

I am comparing Apples with Apples. Comparing Apples with Oranges would be to say, for example that the US uses 4 times more oil than the next biggest user which is China which is a country with 4 times more people than the US and way lower on the development index.

I don't see why Texas would compare with France anyway. France is way colder than Texas. But if you guys would give up that archaic imperial system you inherited from your colonial overlords , comparing France and Texas might be a simple task. Unfortunately Texas measures energy consumption in British Thermal units while the rest of the world measures it in kgoe. The figure for Texas is 5.262 BTu's per 10 people. If you or anyone else can find out how to convert BTu's into kgoe, please let us know the answer.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Lets give it another 10 years and see shall we?

You know very well how things work. If you were to be honest, you'd know comparing NOW to then isn't very fair.

Again, give it 10 years.

10 years?

in 10 years (assuming jesus hasn't come back) if we are still dependent on oil as we are today, we would be in big trouble.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

Hahahaha! Details, give us details! Make sure to include the substance that will replace oil as a material that provides us Apple iMacs and iPods and golf sweaters and ski boats and soda straws and nylon gears and plastic soda bottles and bic pens and camera film and pill bottles and you get the idea. But what about food? What about the only thing that makes US farmers out produce Bangladeshi farmers, fertilizers and pesticides...which come from...GUESS WHERE!

But you go ahead and give us the details.

It's not plastics that drive the global demand for fossil fuels--it's energy. More gas is burned to create each of those things than petroleum is incorporated into their actual materials. And here's a crazy idea, how about we reduce our wasteful consumption of things like Bic pens and soda straws. A national initiative to push for less packaging waste and more recycling would help.

But like I said, it's energy that's the real problem, so here's some details:

First, government should sponsor fuel cell mass transit in major American cities. Fuel cell buses are already running in Canada and shifting government subsidies from oil companies to pay for green technology could probably offset the cost. If not, we apparently have a limitless amount of money to spend on the war so we can tap into that to pay to prevent future oil wars (kudos to you for admitting that's what this is, by the way). The government dollars begin to create an economy of scale for fuel cell units in the U.S. and more importantly create a basic infrastructure for hydrogen which can then be opened up for consumers.

Simultaneously we'll need to tighten up energy efficiency nationwide. All new internal combustion engines should be required to include maximum energy saving devices--such as the extra touches found on hybrid vehicles now, such as dynamic engine shut-off. Within five years, any remaining internal combustion vehicles must include hybrid brake-recovery systems. New appliances should be mandated to operate more efficiently, and tax incentives for replacing existing appliances should be doubled or tripled.

The federal government should give tax incentives/penalties to encourage local governments to mandate green development guidelines to create suburban communities designed to require less driving--a growing movement nationwide which should have the full support of our national leadership.

As the hydrogen infrastructure grows, the fuel can be created via renewable sources. offshore wind farms, solar plants in the southwest, tidal power generation, etc. Decentralized power grids could allow home generation of hydrogen fuel from solar or biomass--depending on whether the grid is urban or rural. Enacted strenuously enough, this agenda could phase out all new internal combustion engines within 10 to 15 years. Attrition and eventual delegalization could eliminate the remaining cars within another 10 to 15. Eliminating power plant dependence on oil could actually be accomplished within that time frame, given the will and monetary allocation. Historically, the cost of such endeavors is offset in the profits from new technology. Given that the world market for oil will collapse within two hundred years, it is likely that if the US took a leadership role in developing a fossil fuel independent economy, US firms could reap immense spin-off profits by selling and implementing the technology abroad.

The entire "Apollo Program" for global warming would cost less than the war in Iraq--and it has the benefit of not requiring that we kill anyone.

Now, that's only scratching the surface of the details I could provide. I could run to the office and grab the Scientific American from a few weeks back that described many, many more ways to reform our energy economy. But I suspect you are really interested in details, just like your ilk wasn't interested in facts or alternative viewpoints when you were clamoring for war with Iraq. What lengths will you go to in order to continue justifying your flawed point of view? Let me predict your reaction to the details you yourself requests: Pipedreams! Too expensive!

And that will be from the guys who's deathly afraid of the global jihad and supports the 300 billion dollar war in Iraq.

Go ahead, tell us how soda bottles are worth the lives of thousands of American soldiers and thousands more Iraqis. Face it, you've hit the bottom of the barrel. The reason nobody in power will admit--as you now have--that this is a war for oil is because no one's conscience should be at rest with the idea of sacrificing real human lives for some paltry conveniences.

Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting anything of the kind.

[Macrobat]

It's orders of magnitude more expensivce because the demand (and population is lower) - Duh right back at you.

It is ALSO the very reason why its consumption is so much lower - double duh. If it costs more to fill your tank, you drive less.

The hell you're comparing apples to apples. You can ship all the way across Germany, using less fuel than you can across even Texas, much less the United States, but you continue living in that Lalaland, where you're always correct, just because you self-validate your (absurd) comparisons.

You know full well I'm not talking about the population, but the physical size of the country, requiring FAR more shipping by truck, rail, plane, etc., etc., etc. But you attempt to play stupid in order to make your "point" sound valid.

If you have to move more goods further, you consume more fuel - simple physics.

Clear enough for you?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

If you have to move more goods further, you consume more fuel - simple physics.

Why do you have to ship things further in the US than in the EU?

2400 miles from Gibraltar to Finland.
2400 miles from LA to New York.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It is ALSO the very reason why its consumption is so much lower - double duh. If it costs more to fill your tank, you drive less.

Precisely, so charge more for energy and people use it less. Now tell me where energy costs more - in the US or in the UK?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Why do you have to ship things further in the US than in the EU?

What's with this EU crap, hippie?! We're talking apples to apples here! Texas to France! Don't cloud the issue!

greg

[Macrobat]

Troll, you didn't SAY "Europe" you named countries IN Europe. I see you are attempting your moving target method of "debate," won't work here, counselor.

For instance, Hurricane Katrina affected an area within the United States the SIZE of Great Britain. How about you come up with comparison figures for that area versus the UK? See - once again - apples to apples.

I see my fanboy just showed up.

[ink]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

10 years?

in 10 years (assuming jesus hasn't come back)

That would be funny...

if it weren't so indicative of the thought processes of those in charge. They just have to be on the top of their game when the Massa-iah returns in all His glory to rule for 1000 years.

Ditto for the Caliph-supporting Islamic fundamentalists.

Can we sell a "My Buddy Allah" dashboard bobble-head in Iraq yet?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Troll, you didn't SAY "Europe" you named countries IN Europe. I see you are attempting your moving target method of "debate," won't work here, counselor.

Uhhhh...but if all of those countries have much lower per capita energy consumption than the US, then logically Europe as a whole has a lower per-capita energy consumption than the US.

Your argument for shipped goods makes less sense when you realize that there's more international trade in Europe. Why? Because it's sorta like the US, except each State is a country. So, the smaller countries in Europe have a more limited resource base and economic potential, and trade is encouraged (much like what is seen with USA States).

So, yeah, goods and services are still moved all over Europe...it's just handled by different countries along the way. This simply raises each country's per-capita consumption by the amount of their transport.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Just because America is so vast, doesn't mean than European countries – or other smaller areas of the world – get the exact same services and resources as America from a population and geographical area that's 1/15 (or whatever) the size. That would be roughly like saying –to use your comparison – that "Texas saves energy on wheat transport because it's a smaller area than America." Well, no, Texas must import wheat from some other State – just as many European countries must import it from other countries.

I have no idea where I was going with this, but you get the idea. Whether you take energy consumption from America or one of its smaller States, you're still going to end up with a high per-capita consumption compared to the rest of the world. Trade is usually geographical, not country-based. I don't see how you aren't following this logic.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Energy Consumption Per Capita
(Kilograms Oil Equivalent)
USA - 7.79
UK - 3.91
France - 4.52
Germany - 4.20
Denmark - 3.83
Greece - 2.69
Switzerland - 3.7

So the average American consumes nearly double the energy consumed by the average Brit. And you can't tell me that has a negative effect on the Brit's lifestyle!
First step would be to commit to reducing your rate. Sign up to Kyoto would be a first step. Build public transport systems - more trains for example. Charge higher prices for energy like gas so that Americans are motivated to buy more economical appliances and vehicles. There are loads of things that can be done.
Energy hogs are not well-placed to survive long-term so the faster the better.
The implication of this is an admission that your industries cannot be as economical as European industries. If that is indeed the case, then all you're doing but not committing to reducing energy use now, is prolong the inevitable through protectionism.

I wasn't talking about oil dependence. I was talking about energy consumption. Reducing energy consumption generally would reduce oil consumption too but if you're talking about finding alternatives to oil, I don't know what the answer is. Thinking though that "the position you enjoy now" is sustainable is mental. Even if you control the oil output of the Middle East, at some point in the not too distant future, those oil reserves are going to run out.

The point of the post that prompted your little tangent was that whatsisname said we could easily forego the oil that GWB secured by invading and that I asked him to then tell us how we could wean ourselves from oil in one generation.

But the point was that the invasion was necessity, we can't do without oil for more than a week and that transferring to an alternate source will take longer and cost more than whozits thinks.

You said we could start by cutting consumption. Conservation has no point unless it is to prevent our being dependent on foreign sources. There is nothing wrong with our being dependent on foreign oil sources except for the war that we are in to guarantee it's availability to THE WHOLE WESTERN WORLD.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

10 years?

in 10 years (assuming jesus hasn't come back) if we are still dependent on oil as we are today, we would be in big trouble.

and also, that is assuming iraq will still be our BF. cue pic of rummy with saddam

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

[W]e can't do without oil for more than a week and ... transferring to an alternate source will take longer and cost more than whozits thinks.

It'll take even longer, and cost even more than that, if our current energy policy remains in place.

I'll vote for ANYONE; republican, democrat or third party candidate in 2008 that has a sensible energy policy.

I hope the democrats take the next two years as an opportunity to build such a plan...

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Why do you have to ship things further in the US than in the EU?

2400 miles from Gibraltar to Finland.
2400 miles from LA to New York.
Precisely, so charge more for energy and people use it less. Now tell me where energy costs more - in the US or in the UK?

Track all the products produced due to oil and the US is way ahead and that has to figure into the avg.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Lets give it another 10 years and see shall we?

You know very well how things work. If you were to be honest, you'd know comparing NOW to then isn't very fair.

Again, give it 10 years.

Funny how you rallied behind Bush's six weeks or six months estimates before the war, and now.. Why stop at 10 years? Give it twenty years.

Anyway, don't you think the world is going to end in the next five to ten years? So are you arguing now that we should wait until the end of the earth before judging our success in Iraq? That's really hopeful.

[tie]

Originally Posted by marden 

Afghanistan was the magician's hands in a misdirection bit. All the action was to happen in the M.E. and we put a monkey wrench in the whole works at the heart of the Jihadist Central.

What we WERE doing was running around like a bunch of G.I. Jokes through the mountains of Afghanistan on a wild Osama chase. And we might STILL be there in force chasing after him with nothing to show for our trouble.

Sorry, I just had to quote this!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

The point of the post that prompted your little tangent was that whatsisname said we could easily forego the oil that GWB secured by invading and that I asked him to then tell us how we could wean ourselves from oil in one generation.

But the point was that the invasion was necessity, we can't do without oil for more than a week and that transferring to an alternate source will take longer and cost more than whozits thinks.

You said we could start by cutting consumption. Conservation has no point unless it is to prevent our being dependent on foreign sources. There is nothing wrong with our being dependent on foreign oil sources except for the war that we are in to guarantee it's availability to THE WHOLE WESTERN WORLD.

Oh, that's cute...pretend you don't know my name.

You know my name because I'm under your skin right now, driving you crazy by making you look that much more foolish than usual.

Honestly, look at the movement in your justifications for the war. Whereas I've had the luxury of having the same point of view from 9/11 onward--because all my predictions were spot on--you've run the gamut from WMD's to now basically saying, "Yeah, it's about the oil!"

It's pretty laughable, sorry to say.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Oh, that's cute...pretend you don't know my name.

You know my name because I'm under your skin right now, driving you crazy by making you look that much more foolish than usual.

Honestly, look at the movement in your justifications for the war. Whereas I've had the luxury of having the same point of view from 9/11 onward--because all my predictions were spot on--you've run the gamut from WMD's to now basically saying, "Yeah, it's about the oil!"

It's pretty laughable, sorry to say.

At the moment I wrote that I couldn't remember which one of you wrote it and I was too lazy to scroll up or down to look to see that it was you. Sorry.

You DO realize i've only been posting here regularly for a few weeks, right? So how can you know what I've been saying?

And let's get this right, you are PROUDLY taking credit for being uninformed immediately after 911 and despite the discovery of new evidence you REMAIN uninformed...and that's a GOOD thing in Helmling land??

That's quite an accomplishment, alright!

And here are my 15 points which most people fail to take into consideration when they criticize the invasion.

Most people criticize the decision to invade without:

1-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's...at the time. After the fact doesn't count.
2-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
3-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
4-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
5-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
6-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
7-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
8-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
9-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
10-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
11-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
12-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
13-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
14-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
15-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

And I think once you read this you will better appreciate the importance of oil and why we had to have it.

Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Uhhhh...but if all of those countries have much lower per capita energy consumption than the US, then logically Europe as a whole has a lower per-capita energy consumption than the US.

That's the point Macrobat!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

The point of the post that prompted your little tangent was that whatsisname said we could easily forego the oil that GWB secured by invading and that I asked him to then tell us how we could wean ourselves from oil in one generation.

But the point was that the invasion was necessity, we can't do without oil for more than a week and that transferring to an alternate source will take longer and cost more than whozits thinks.

You said we could start by cutting consumption. Conservation has no point unless it is to prevent our being dependent on foreign sources. There is nothing wrong with our being dependent on foreign oil sources except for the war that we are in to guarantee it's availability to THE WHOLE WESTERN WORLD.

When you asked "What would you be doing for oil right now if it had been denied us in some manner?" in the context of lauding the Iraq invasion, I took it to mean that you saw the Iraq war as having improved the US's oil supply "right now." Which it hasn't. 20 years down the line, it may have but then 20 years down the line Saddam would have been dead of natural causes and any number of other things might have changed in Iraq or the region.

You do raise a second problem; that being the US's reliance on oil as an energy source. Many other countries have more diverse energy sources. But my point was that reducing consumption of energy generally is equally important.

[Macrobat]

Hey Greg, that hurt when you smacked your head?

The lower per capita rate is SIMPLY because of the HUGE cost of oil products in those countries - I already stated this, but you simply HAVE to come across all "intellectual" and shite.

International trade means jackshit in this context, since Troll SPECIFICALLY listed by-country rates. My point is that shipping across the US is the EQUIVALENT of your vaunted international shipping within Europe, but your vast intellect is too thick for the point to penetrate.

I think you simply like to see your nick in print, because you quite obviously cannot follow the conversation.