Re:
My statement (& ANWAR) >>They had NO Migs - that was SADDAM's air force!<<
Yours: My mistake, I'll have to do a search on that sometime, I remember otherwise.
>>> Perhaps you were thinking of the few Iraqi Migs that were flown to Iran for 'safe keeping' before the start of Desert Storm? (That was MUCH later than the Iraq/Iran war era.)
>>> Iran was always a US client for military sales (we put the Shah in office TWICE!) Their air force was all USA-made. They required spare parts from us to keep their planes flying. That was our 'hold' over them.
My >>The proper goal is to advance our REAL core interests... not merely to enrich the Texas oil millionaire population. <<
Yours: "Then why don't the liberals let us drill in ANWAR?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>>> Never said I was a 'liberal', or against ANWAR drilling. Actually I'm FOR drilling in the ANWAR - but only on ONE IMPORTANT CONDITION - that we build the needed oil pipeline to go to where the oil is most needed: the upper Mid-West.
>>> US Energy and Commerce Departments say there is only one US region that is subject to oil price spikes 'cause of supply shortages: the upper mid west.
>>> If the oil goes to the mid west, it can tie in to all the pipeline nexuses that are there and be distributed all over the needed area.
>>> Canada offered to give the US *free right-of-way* to build a trans-Canada pipeline to the mid west. (Just as they also offered free-right-of-way in the 1970s to get Alaskan oil to the US markets where it was needed.
>>> But in the '70s the oil companies LIED to the Congress and the American public - and they may be doing so again! They claimed that building a pipeline to the Sea port in Valdez Alaska would allow the oil to reach US markets one year sooner than a cross-Canada pipeline. (Canada disputed this.) But what the oil companies REALLY WANTED TO DO WAS PUT THE OIL ON OCEAN-GOING TANKERS: BECAUSE THEN THEY COULD SELL IT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!
>>> The oil that the companies promised would be delivered to US markets was instead mostly sold for more money to Japan.
>>> Note: I'm *for* promoting US Energy Security, US Energy Independence from middle eastern sources. This is a national security issue.
>>> But drilling oil in ANWAR only supports US Energy Independence IF THE OIL GOES TO THE US ECONOMY!
>>> Otherwise, the oil makes money for the oil companies (and that's a GOOD thing) but it DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR ENERGY SECURITY.
>>> Since the oil in ANWAR is OWNED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (it's on public land), it should be used to benefit the American people and go to the only region both Energy and Commerce say needs it: the mid west.
>>> If you want to say: "drill in ANWAR and put it on tankers to help the Big Oil companies" that's one thing... but don't claim that it does one single thing to support US energy independence, because when they sell it overseas, it doesn't.
>>> I'm afraid the oil companies are trying to lie to the public yet again (you don't see them, or the White House talking about the Canada pipeline in public, do you?), just like they lied in the early seventies debate.
>>> Once you build a pipeline, the oil goes where the pipeline goes. Once you put it on tankers, you can send it anywhere in the World.
>>> My ANWAR opinion is: if they won't commit to sending the oil to where it's needed in the US, then screw 'em.
>>> Oil in the ground is like money in the bank: It's American oil - owned by the American public - and it's safe in the 'Bank'. It's been there for millions of years, and it's not a wasting asset. We can drill it anytime we need it.
Re: "Why is a crime to be successful?"
>>> Never said it was. Like to be myself (hopefully without screwing too many 'little people' along the way).
>>instead
of promoting Democracy, human rights, and free markets and the Rule of Law which is what America is REALLY about, is DOOMED to come back nearly every time and bite us in the ass.<<
We Agree!
>>> Yes we do, on this!
>>> How about on ANWAR? |
