Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 11th, 2010, 12:05 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,283
Some Thoughts Concerning Iran

Posted on June 8th, 2010



Goo-Goo Genocidaires: The Blood Is Dripping From Their Hands



Posted In: 2010s, History, Islam, Middle East, U.S. Foreign Policy



As the Security Council prepares to vote the next round of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, I’m thinking of some old debates about how to handle difficult regimes. The thoughts aren’t consoling; too many voices in the debate over Iran hearken back to some of the worst ideas in American and European history.



Of all the mass murderers, genocidaires and enablers of the twentieth century, one group of collaborators does not get its fair share of condemnation and moral loathing. Unfortunately Americans have never really come to terms with the terrible things they did, we have never really named and shamed them, and we have never diagnosed and exposed the bad ideas that led to some of America’s most fateful and costly blunders. Until we do, our society is at risk of repeating these errors.



The people I have in mind are the ‘goo-goo genocidaires,’ the willfully blind reformers, civil society activists, clergy, students and others whose foolishness and ignorance was a necessary condition for tens of millions of deaths in the last hundred years. Unreflective, self-righteous ‘activists’ thought that to espouse peace was the same thing as to create or safeguard it. As a result, tens of millions died. Unless this kind of thinking is exposed and repudiated, it is likely to lead to as many or more deaths in the 21st.



We all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; this turns out to be particularly true when it comes to the road to foreign policy hell. Over the years good people or at least people who wanted to be good or thought they were, motivated by what seemed to them to be the highest of motives, have taken political stands and made policy proposals that helped mass murderers gain power in their own countries and launch themselves on international careers of conquest and mayhem. At other times, fortunately, they’ve failed to change policy; still, they wasted a lot of people’s time and made life significantly more difficult for those whose plans to help the world ultimately worked.



Paving the Road To Hell



The most notorious example is the peace movement of the 1920s and 1930s. This movement enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of college professors, idealistic students, respected journalists, the union movement, and the mainline clergy. If you didn’t join in, you were criticized as a warmonger, a throwback, someone lacking the broad social vision and high sense of ideals that modern times required.



It was an understandable error. A mass civil society movement of earnest reformers, veterans scarred by their experiences in the trench warfare of World War One and determined that their sons should be spared this experience, students wanting a to build a better world, and intellectuals convinced that there had to be a better way did everything in their power to keep the United States and the western democracies out of war. They failed; instead they disarmed the West, left China defenseless against Japan, and prepared the way both for Hitler’s domination of Europe and Stalin’s imposition of the Iron Curtain.



The American peace and disarmament movement almost destroyed human freedom. The peace movement gave intellectual and moral respectability to the cause of isolationism: the belief that the United States could safely ignore the unraveling of the world’s fragile economic and political order as British power waned after World War I. But these idealistic professors, students, preachers and general all-around-good-guys were naive, self-righteous, and smugly sure that arms cause war.



Armed with a set of wrong headed prejudices (they called them ‘convictions’ and ‘ideals) that made it impossible for them to recognize deadly dangers staring them right in the face, they minimized the difference between imperfect friends (like then-imperialist Britain and France) and flamingly wicked mass murdering thugs (like Stalin, Hitler and the militaristic governments of Japan). Worse, they used all their considerable intelligence, power and media access to prevent Franklin Roosevelt from taking effective action to support the western democracies and China until it was far too late to prevent World War Two, and almost too late to win it. Even then, because the pathetically and self-righteously foolish and irresponsible ‘peace activists’ of the 1930s let the Axis get so far, we could only beat Hitler with Stalin’s help; the oppression of central Europe and the Cold War were the fault of the clergy, professors and civil society activists of the 1930s as well.



When ‘Understanding’ Becomes Collaboration



Worse, some of the ‘good guys’ sympathized with and made excuses for the bad. Germany was resentful and bitter, they said, because the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. Let Adolf Hitler have his ‘reasonable’ goals of reuniting ethnic Germans under one roof, and Germany would become a peaceful and satisfied country, a bulwark of European order. This sounds crazy now, but it was the conventional wisdom among the intelligentsia and literati (except for the Communists and their closest sympathizers) during the 1930s; this is why voices warning of war like Churchill were so isolated. War was so destructive, argued the false prophets of fake enlightenment, that only a madman would start one. And while Hitler was alarming, the apparatus of the German state was sane. There were moderate Nazis, with limited goals; given western forbearance, wise concessions and enough time, the moderates would edge the Nazi radicals out of power.



That was the standard refrain about Germany from 1933 through 1939 and at every crisis or turning point academics and journalists stepped forward to plead for patience and to predict an imminent triumph of the ‘moderate’ Nazis over the ‘radicals’. In the meantime, anti-Nazi rhetoric and boycotts in the West only empowered Hitler and united German opinion behind him. Give him the Saar, Austria, yes and the Sudetenland: sooner or later he would calm down and the world would be at peace. When Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich proclaiming that simply by giving Hitler the Sudentenland (the then-German speaking part of Czechoslovakia that happened to include the country’s mountainous border areas and natural defenses) he had won “peace in our time”, nobody was happier than the fatheaded peace clergy — unless it was the enlightened class of journalists and professors who set the tone for upper middle class enlightenment at the time.



It was the same thing with Stalin. Half of the peace movement was in love with Communism; the other half thought that poor Stalin had no choice but to be brutal and tough because he was surrounded by hostile states. Recognize Stalin, trade with him, stop calling him nasty names. Treat him with dignity and respect, they said, and everything will work out for the best. There had been plenty of sympathy for Stalin in the West during the thirties — even as he was carrying out mass murder on a scale that poor Pol Pot could only envy, Stalin never lacked for apologists and defenders among the chattering classes in those countries where they were still permitted to chat.



Understand and sympathize with their legitimate aspirations: that, the professors and preachers constantly told everyone else, was the sophisticated, modern and enlightened way to deal with these problems. Before the war it was the poor Germans, so shabbily treated by the Treaty of Versailles that Hitler represented a necessary phase of Germany’s search for self-respect. Before and after World War Two they said it about Stalin: communism was simply payback for the excesses and crimes of capitalist greed. Yes, they sometimes went too far: but surely that was ‘our’ fault for having permitted these terrible conditions to occur in the first place.



They weren’t completely wrong. The social upheavals and injustice of early industrialization did create sympathy for communism and popular anger; German suffering after World War One was a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for the rise of Hitler. But what the earnestly intellectual and empathetic goo-goo genocidaires missed was the character of the political movements that had come to power on the basis of these feelings. Hitler and Stalin weren’t interested in justice; the parties they led were more like barbarian hordes organized for plunder than like groups of good folks who, once their legitimate grievances were addressed, would peaceably disassemble and go home. Addressing German grievances and working class poverty would have been very wise steps before Hitler and Stalin seized power; once they got in, the situation changed.



Fortunately the destructive doves weren’t able to fool FDR about the Nazis. “You can’t turn a tiger into a kitten by stroking it,” he once said — but the pious nincompoops and delusional intellectuals were persuasive enough here and abroad so that France, Britain and the United States were unable to step while Hitler was still weak and prevent World War Two by enforcing the peace. After the war, the chorus of goo-goo appeasers switched focus to trying to stop Truman and the West from opposing the spread of Stalin-dominated Communism in a war-devastated Europe. Poor, timid Stalin, said liberal Christian writers in magazines like Christian Century and their political leaders like Henry Wallace, has been so intimidated by American aggressiveness that he had no choice but to clamp down in Eastern Europe. The Marshall Plan wasn’t just attacked by isolationist nutballs on the right; it was attacked viciously and venomously by the so-called ‘peace’ movement and the Progressive Party.



If the Nazis and the Communists between them didn’t overrun the whole world in the terrible 1940s, it was not because the international peace movement didn’t do everything in its power to leave the democracies trembling and helpless before the totalitarian threat. Had these people wised up and supported moderate programs of rearmament in the early 1930s and insisted that the western democracies take a stand against Hitler early on, there would have been no Nuremberg Laws, no Holocaust, no mass terror bombings of European cities, no Stalinist occupation of central Europe — and no Cold War.



Morally of course this was nowhere near as bad as what the Nazis and Communists did. The peaceniks didn’t will the slaughter of millions of innocent people: out of ignorance and conceit they merely created the conditions which let it happen. But while the peace movement wasn’t as evil as the dictators, the dictators could never have achieved their goals without their sanctimonious and timorous enablers in the western world.



Continued here:



Goo-Goo Genocidaires: The Blood Is Dripping From Their Hands - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest



© The American Interest LLC & Walter Russell Mead 2009-2010
baloney_detector is online now  
Remove Ads
Old June 12th, 2010, 06:57 AM   #2
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 24,908
Here's a thought for those not wishing to read baloney's long-ass post: Iran sucks!
pensacola_niceman is online now  
Old June 12th, 2010, 07:16 AM   #3
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
Iran sucks because their dead leader still runs the country. The late-Khomeini still has a bad influence on Iran's president.
highway80west is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 08:08 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman
Iran sucks!


This conclusion sums things up, concerning my thoughts on Iran, rather nicely.



Thanks.
baloney_detector is online now  
Old June 12th, 2010, 09:44 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
PaperAlchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector
This conclusion sums things up, concerning my thoughts on Iran, rather nicely.



Thanks.




Then why the over-written pontification ? D:
PaperAlchemist is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 09:48 AM   #6
Senior Citizen and Proud
 
Mrs. CJ Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 2,673
Iran was a democracy before the oil companies in the US wanted a stake. Oil encroachment via military bases is why the AlQaeda attacks us...they hate our presence in their nation..and I can't say as I blame them.
Mrs. CJ Parker is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 09:51 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
PaperAlchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. CJ Parker
Iran was a democracy before the oil companies in the US wanted a stake. Oil encroachment via military bases is why the AlQaeda attacks us...they hate our presence in their nation..and I can't say as I blame them.




All I can say is, there's no need to go digging for oil with machine guns.



Also, Al Qaeda doesn't run the nation, its not "their nation." Its the nation of all the people living there and not everyone living there is Al Qaeda. Saying its "their nation" its like all Caucasian Catholics saying the U.S. is their nation, its pure arrogance, and they need to get a rude wake up call.
PaperAlchemist is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 09:55 AM   #8
Senior Citizen and Proud
 
Mrs. CJ Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperAlchemist
All I can say is, there's no need to go digging for oil with machine guns.



Also, Al Qaeda doesn't run the nation, its not "their nation." Its the nation of all the people living there and not everyone living there is Al Qaeda. Saying its "their nation" its like all Caucasian Catholics saying the U.S. is their nation, its pure arrogance, and they need to get a rude wake up call.




Doesn't matter who runs it...Osama bin laden did not care for the death of his older brother at the hands of the Bush family when he was there helping with the oil company Arbusto or something, and he doesn't care for the US military base.



Sides, the Saudis still fund the AlQaeda with money. As a member of the elite bin laden family, he's as much part of Saudi Arabia as any other.



It's like saying those veterans in this nation who protest the war aren't part of this nation...it's true.



Regardless of who you THinK speaks for the SAudis, many Saudis obviously feel as though the US occupation of Saudi Arabia with their military bases is wrong.
Mrs. CJ Parker is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 10:11 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. CJ Parker
Doesn't matter who runs it...Osama bin laden did not care for the death of his older brother at the hands of the Bush family when he was there helping with the oil company Arbusto or something, and he doesn't care for the US military base.



Sides, the Saudis still fund the AlQaeda with money. As a member of the elite bin laden family, he's as much part of Saudi Arabia as any other.



It's like saying those veterans in this nation who protest the war aren't part of this nation...it's true.



Regardless of who you THinK speaks for the SAudis, many Saudis obviously feel as though the US occupation of Saudi Arabia with their military bases is wrong.


Actually, the US turned over the control of those bases to Saudi Arabia around seven years ago and today there is just a very small US military presence in Saudi Arabia for training and technical support purposes.
baloney_detector is online now  
Old June 12th, 2010, 10:19 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. CJ Parker
Iran was a democracy before the oil companies in the US wanted a stake. Oil encroachment via military bases is why the AlQaeda attacks us...they hate our presence in their nation..and I can't say as I blame them.
The liberals in congress forced the US to not exploit our own natural resources so if you blame the oil companies, blame the Democratic Party for insisting we not disturb our pristine environment here in the US for oil the US demands.
Zack is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 10:26 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
jaaaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector
Actually, the US turned over the control of those bases to Saudi Arabia around seven years ago and today there is just a very small US military presence in Saudi Arabia for training and technical support purposes.


'Facts' are pesky little things that liberals hate to acknowledge.
jaaaman is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 10:42 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaaaman
'Facts' are pesky little things that liberals hate to acknowledge.


While I think I could be considered to be a liberal, at least in a social political sense (abortion rights, gay rights, etc.), I can see the danger that lies ahead if the West appeases the regime in Iran.



So, stereotyping people could be quite innacurate.
baloney_detector is online now  
Old June 12th, 2010, 10:45 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
jaaaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector
While I think I could be considered to be a liberal, at least in a social political sense (abortion rights, gay rights, etc.), I can see the danger that lies ahead if the West appeases the regime in Iran.



So, stereotyping people could be quite innacurate.


You are not the typical moonbat liberal. You have a mind of your own.
jaaaman is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 11:19 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
PaperAlchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaaaman
'Facts' are pesky little things that liberals hate to acknowledge.




Funny considering the many "Facts about homosexuality, gay marriage, and gay adoption" given by accredited psychologists, psychiatrists, and researchers across the US have shown, that liberals love to point out, that conservatives hate to acknowledge. Like the fact that Not "everybody" hates gays, while in fact 50% of the population and rising, find them to be no less abnormal than straights.



Or that gay adoption is no harm to children.



Or that homosexuality is not a disorder or defect.



Or that "gay conversion" is unnecessary, a waste of time and money, and pure bull.



Yeah, all the facts that conservatives ignore, then complain about the liberals ignoring facts.



Double.



Edged.



Sword.





PS: This thread has nothing to do with gays, Im just making a point.
PaperAlchemist is offline  
Old June 12th, 2010, 11:32 AM   #15
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,113
Your point has a flaw.



Homosexuality is a defect. In the same manner of any of the other sexual deviants. There's nothing that separates them. If homosexuality isn't a defect, then neither is zoosexuality. That's why many scientists, who are honest, no longer consider an attraction to animals a disorder under the current criteria.



Bering in Mind: Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality

This is an important point, because the current version of the American Psychological Association’s professional handbook (the DSM-IV) classifies zoophilia as a disorder only if an individual’s sexual attraction to nonhuman animals causes the person to experience distress.



If you'd read the rest of that story, you'll find many similarities in the justification for zoophilia being a "variation" that are used for homosexuality.



They are identically repugnant in many moral, legal, religious, and formerly psychological contexts.



I can see the quote now..."Nothing wrong with them zoosexuals, everyone else is just zoophobic".
fxashun is offline  
Old October 25th, 2010, 04:50 AM   #16
Senior Citizen and Proud
 
Mrs. CJ Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector
Actually, the US turned over the control of those bases to Saudi Arabia around seven years ago and today there is just a very small US military presence in Saudi Arabia for training and technical support purposes.




And who buys US weapons? And who still has a presence in Saudi Arabia? Who built and paid for the base? Let's see? Bush and the prince of Saudi Arabia are business partners in the US...so, Bush had the American taxpayers build it.
Mrs. CJ Parker is offline  
Old October 25th, 2010, 04:57 AM   #17
Senior Citizen and Proud
 
Mrs. CJ Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
The liberals in congress forced the US to not exploit our own natural resources so if you blame the oil companies, blame the Democratic Party for insisting we not disturb our pristine environment here in the US for oil the US demands.




Your source?



Bush calls on Congress to lift oil drilling ban - Business - Oil & energy - msnbc.com



Quote:

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Bush's father -- George H.W. Bush -- to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.

But since oil prices have surged above $140 a barrel in recent months, the White House believes that the political mood may have shifted since Congress last took up the idea of lifting the drilling ban. A poll last month by the Pew Research Center found that 47 percent of respondents said energy exploration and drilling were a top priority – up from 35 percent in February. Other polls have also found increased popular support for expanded drilling since oil prices have surged.

The bid for expanded drilling has also gained momentum last month when the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, said that states should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to permit drilling in their coastal waters. Offshore drilling had been opposed by his predecessor, former Gov. Jeb Bush, the president’s brother.

Given its proximity to existing oilfields in the Gulf of Mexico, and the pipelines and other infrastructure already in place in the region, Florida offers some of the more promising lease prospects for new oil development.

Bush's proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.

"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."


Any offshore drilling is now known to be a safety hazard to communities and the very life and well being of the fish.



What about Bush's opening lands for oil drilling and not oil company taking the bait?



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/08lease.html



Most oil leases on public lands go unused - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com



Quote:
Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.

An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada.

How much exploration has occurred on the nearly 30 million acres of non-producing public land leases is difficult to say. BLM officials could provide no details on the number of exploratory wells drilled on those leases, despite repeated requests for that information over the past two months.

But with so much public land already available for exploration, environmental groups and local landowners are questioning why the Bush administration is pushing to lease still more federal land to the oil and gas industry, particularly in areas that the groups and some lawmakers want protected as federal wilderness areas.

$3 an acre annual rent

“The aggressive leasing of public land pushed by the Bush administration is a land grab, pure and simple, giving industry more and more control over public land while costing taxpayers millions of dollars,” said Peter Morton, a resource economist with the Wilderness Society.

Morton said the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years with annual rents of only $2 to $3 an acre, are an economic boon to some companies because they count as assets that can make debt refinancing easier while also attracting potential investors.

The Energy Task Force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney asked the BLM three years ago to find ways to open new federal lands to oil and gas leasing and to speed up the approval of drilling permits. To meet increased demand for natural gas, the task force said drilling on federal land will have to double by 2020.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton agreed in settling a lawsuit with the state of Utah last year to halt all reviews of public lands in the West for new wilderness protection and to withdraw that protected status from some 3 million acres in Utah.

That decision, which conservation groups have asked a federal appeals court to overturn, cleared the way for oil and gas leasing in millions more acres of potential wilderness in Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.


What's up with that?
Mrs. CJ Parker is offline  
Old October 25th, 2010, 07:34 AM   #18
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,583
Yes, it is clear that the deep water drilling like the Deepwater Horizon was doing is a very bad idea.
waitingtables is offline  
Old October 25th, 2010, 07:36 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. CJ Parker
And who buys US weapons? And who still has a presence in Saudi Arabia? Who built and paid for the base? Let's see? Bush and the prince of Saudi Arabia are business partners in the US...so, Bush had the American taxpayers build it.
Saudi Arabia is a key ally in our ME national interests scheme... they didn't like the idea of Saddam Husein messing with Kuwait nor do they like the idea of Iran developing nukes and having Hezbollah spread all around the ME. Saudi Arabia closely monitors Iran and Intel is our basis for military support there. But again we would not have interests in the ME had we exploited our own natural resources and depended only on them and friendly trading partners like Mexico and Canada.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. CJ Parker
Your source?



Bush calls on Congress to lift oil drilling ban - Business - Oil & energy - msnbc.com







Any offshore drilling is now known to be a safety hazard to communities and the very life and well being of the fish.
I disagree of course considering even a major oil spill hasn't even had a lasting effect on the environment. The mood of the nation about domestic off shore drilling was established in the 1960's along with the mood about nuclear power in the 1970's with three mile island. Remember the Alaska oil pipeline, it was only built after an oil shortage in the US...environmentalists and Democrats fought it tooth and nail kicking and screaming... Trans-Alaska Pipeline System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as they have all domestic oil exploration since the 1960's.



Quote:
What about Bush's opening lands for oil drilling and not oil company taking the bait?



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/08lease.html



Most oil leases on public lands go unused - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com







What's up with that?
It was Bull Pelosi compromise by the Democrats along with their environmentalist/trial lawyer backers to make it appear that they were flexible on domestic drilling while oil prices were high. Through decades of Environmental law instituted by liberal Democrats for the backing of the environmental and trial lawyer lobbies leasing law has become to bureaucratic that many domestic oil explorations are not viable for production. You see the oil companies have to spend billions in litigation with the environmental regulators within the government and in the private sector before the first drop of oil is produced. That means if there is any possibility that oil prices might fall it just isn't good investment of stockholders money to invest in the trial lawyers and environmental lawyers banking accounts that will make them even more powerful to spend more on Democrats. Had congress opened the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve where know large amounts of oil are easily accessible they would have drilled in a heartbeat and built a connecting pipeline even knowing a very large portion of their profit would go to the before mentioned lobbies.
Zack is offline  
Old October 25th, 2010, 07:46 AM   #20
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,583
Deep water drilling is stupid and another disaster in the making. It is just stupid to do something that can't be safely stopped for months in the case of an accident, especially something that has the repurcussions ke the Horizn had.
waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
iran, thoughts


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Israel has been arming Iran since Ollie North & Iran Contra! Martin Timothy Political Talk 0 August 4th, 2010 03:52 PM
Thoughts on this? Tirya Business & Industries 2 September 17th, 2008 02:15 PM
Thoughts on the WBC Antithesis Gay and Lesbian Rights 14 January 4th, 2007 04:31 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.