You Who?

Gesh just a bit biased there. You don't even link http://www.americasucks.com just http://www.francesucks.com!

mon dieu,
people like you would support america no matter what crimes it commits in the name of peace, so blinded are you by your patriotism....fools.imperialist biggots, you make my blood run cold.think for yoursevles for gods sake

Sacre bleu! You visited one page here, spent 7 minutes, and start with "people like you..." I see you found my post by searching for "www.americasucks.com" which is certainly an excellent example of your objective and unbiased worldview.

Piere, read it again! I don't agree with the site -- in fact I say it's too extreme -- but all the same I do think some of the quotes are funny. I certainly have not said anything about American crimes or whether or not I support them, but I will admit to being glad *someone* is doing *something* in the name of peace.

I'm doing fine thinking for myself... better apparently than I would be in head-scarf-banning France. Cultural biggots.

I AGREE WITH PIERE,WHAT SORT OF PIG WOULD CALL HIS PRO AMERICAN WEB SITE AMERICASUCKS.COM, NOT TOO BRIGHT ARE YOU, I TELL YOU THIS MY AMERICAN HOMIE AMERICA SUCKS ALRIGHT! ITS SUCKS THE OIL OUT OF IRAQ.

I'm sure you do agree Thierry. You and Piere are posting from the same computer, so maybe you're roommates, or more likely, you're the same guy.

You caught us, it's all about the oil. They are practically giving away gas here now. Please go do a little research before you start spouting senseless rhetoric. The UN controls the oil. The only difference after the US intervention is the discovery and elimination of corruption within the UN "oil-for-food-for-bribes" program.

I would love to hear what our French friends have to say about the ongoing investigations of TotalFinaElf and Credit Lyonnais scandals. Add to that the discrimination of Muslims, housing them in horrendous public housing ghettos; the economic disaster that is the policy of the 35 hour workweek, and and last but not least the quagmire that they are stuck in over in the Ivory Coast. Vive la France no doubt...hahaha

no comment on the first one as i have not heard too much about it to be honest{so i must be stupid and or ignorant i can almost hear you think, well whatever},, as for discrimination against minoritys you are a fine nation to comment arent you eh? you speak of ghettos well my friend you have some of the worst in the world, black americans, hispanics, haitians and cubans to name but a few minoritys will vouch for that i am sure.i will be the first too say that my country is not perfect and has many policy's that the average french citizen disagree's with, would you be honest enough too say the same or do you really belive that the sun shines out of country's ass?,,also what on earth could you possible have a problem with the hours we work for,,do i get a whiff of jealosy per chance?

Hahaha. Jealousy? Heavens no. I'm worried actually. Worried that if I'm ever stuck in France (heaven forbid) that I don't come down with some malady and be forced to deal with your subpar national health system. Will a doctor be on duty to treat me or are they off on vacation somewhere? 15,000 of your citizens died because hospitals were understaffed and all your vacationers were too blissed out to even be bothered to call and check in on grandma back home shuttered away in her stifling apartment. I suppose the mentality is that its the government's job to check on the elderly. I'm sorry my friend, but the fact that you are proud of these failings rather than outraged by them speaks volumes.

i never said i was proud you nonce, read what i said again and what are you driviling on about the elderly in stifling apartments for, get a grip and an argument worth voicing you are boring me..

Nonce? What the heck is a "nonce"? I know the definition ("noun, the present or particular occasion") but to call someone a nonce? Maybe it's French... but that translates to "nuncio: A papal ambassador or representative" and I am fairly certain Granite does not speak for the Pope.

35 hour work week: I think the point is, it is a simple example of the difference in American and French work ethics. Am I jealous? Sure, I'd like to work 35 hour week with 5 weeks off in the summer. Do I think it is an economically feasible policy for a nation? No. And our relative GDPs reflect that, as do our general ideologies about getting things done in the world: We think we can; You don't want to bother.

Discrimination: Yeah, our past is not a great example... of course neither is just about any country's. However, we haven't recently had someone as reactionary and racist as Le Pen ride a wave of popular xenophobia like France. Nor did we pass a law which establishes state-sponsored oppression of minorities. Yes, I know, just because your government did it doesn't mean you agree... I thought at first that this was just some crazy idea of Chirac's -- but then your Parliament, the representatives of the people -- overwhelmingly passed it! What were you thinking? You set the example of tolerance in Western civilization back at least a hundred years.

Yes, there are a lot of things I disagree with that my country does (so no, I guess I don't think the sun shines out of my country's ass). For starters, I disagree with the huge national debt we incurred over the last 60 years to make sure the Red Army didn't roll through Alsace. (Actually, no I don't, because it was probably worth it since we all make a lot of money off each other. You sell us over-priced, over-hyped, superior culture, and we sell you cheap, inferior, hugely popular culture.) I definitely don't agree with how the 2000 election went down. But Iraq? Right policy, wrong leader. As much as I am dismayed with how *our* leaders handled the diplomacy of Iraq, look at him -- he'd hardly been out of the country, what could you expect? But your leaders -- experienced, professional diplomats -- and they handled it as bad if not worse! While my leaders were doing what they truly believed needed to be done to protect this country, your leaders were playing politics and using the opportunity to enhance their standing on the global stage and solidify Franco-Prussian leadership of the EU.

You seem to have some very strong feelings about America, but not a lot of examples or specifics. It's simply not feasible to suggest that Iraq is about oil -- there is no way the economics add up. We have poured billions of dollars into that country for reconstruction as a GRANT, while it was all Europe could muster to forgive a tiny bit of debt. And to think it's about creating empire is similarly far-fetched; we want nothing to do with colonies, we can't afford them. What we want is a friendly -- or at least benign -- government that isn't going to slip some nasty weapon to a fanatic. What we want is an example of a truly free Arab nation so maybe we don't have to keep stomaching pretty-stable-but-not-so-free authoritarian regimes. What we want is an Arab nation with economic opportunity and a chance for people to better their lives so jihad against the West and Israel is not the only career path. And sure, it's about money too: What we want is more people to have more money which they will be free to spend to buy our stuff -- but that sounds like a win-win scenario to me

What sort of vision is France bringing to the table? The only "vision" I hear is that anything America does is wrong, Israel is bad, and that you and Germany are best friends now and just need to decide on the best way to rule the EU.

Stop soaking up the Yankee-bashing rhetoric and do a little research. Or, as a Frenchman said nonce: "think for yoursevles for gods sake."

I think the correct definition of "nonce" is "southbound Masshole." Though it does lose something in the translation.

DAVID.....WOW MAN YOUR POOR FINGERS MUST BE WORN TO A STUB AFTER THAT LOL!!!,"we want nothing to do with colonies, we can't afford them. What we want is a friendly -- or at least benign -- government that isn't going to slip some nasty weapon to a fanatic. What we want is an example of a truly free Arab nation so maybe we don't have to keep stomaching pretty-stable-but-not-so-free authoritarian regimes. What we want is an Arab nation with economic opportunity" ALOT THERE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT DAVID, WELL YOU DONT ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT, YOU NEVER FOUND ANY WEOPANS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DID YOU?? NO OF COURSE NOT, THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON YOU WENT INTO IRAQ IF I RECALL OR HAS THAT CHANGED CONVENIENTLY BECAUS YOU DIDNT FIND ANYTHING? WHAT GIVES YOUR COUNTRY THE RIGHT TO INTERFIER WITH ANOTHER HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY ALL THOSE INNOCENT LIVES DAVID? IM SORRY BUT YOU JUST CANT AND NOTHING YOU SAY CAN CHANGE THAT, IF YOU HAD FOUND SOMETHIN SAY A NUKE OR MAJOR CONSPIRACY AGAINST YOUR COUNTRY THEN IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED BUT YOU DIDNT, AND AS FOR A BETTER IRAQ A MORE "STABLE" ARAB WORLD YOU HAVE ONLY MADE THINGS INFINITLY WORSE. MORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED SINCE THE WAR SUPPOSEDLY ENDED {ALTHOUGH THATS HARD TO BELIEVE WHEN SO MANY OF YOUR TROOPS ARE STILL THERE AND YOUR GOVERNMENT IS BUILDING SOMEWHER IN THE REGION OF 40 PERMANENT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS} THAN WHEN IT WAS ONGOING.YOU TELL ME TOO "Stop soaking up the Yankee-bashing rhetoric" I HAVE NOT HEARD ONE POSITIVE THING SAID ABOUT FRANCE SINCE VISITING THIS SITE!!! SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE BOTH AS BAD AS EACH OTHER MY FRIEND!. IT MAKES ME SAD TO SAY THIS BUT YOU AS NATION HAVE ONLY MADE A BIGGER TARGET OF YOURSELVES BY INTERFIERING WITH THE MIDDLE EAST AND I CAN SEE A DAY COMING THAT WILL MAKE 911 LOOK LIKE A STROLL THROUGH THE PARK, I SINCERLY HOPE I AM WRONG AS I DETEST THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIFE, AMERICAN IRAQI OR OTHERWISE. PEACEx

You go Pierre! :)

" It's simply not feasible to suggest that Iraq is about oil -- there is no way the economics add up."

From the US Energy Information Administration website:

Iraq is estimated to hold 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and possibly much more undiscovered oil in unexplored areas of the country. Iraq also is estimated to contain at least 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The country is a focal point for regional and international security issues.

So let's just say 200 billion barrels, at $30 a barrel ... hmmm ... 6000 billion dollars. Nope ... not feasible.

Oh ... and one barrel of oil = 44 US gallons x $1.50 = $66 x 200 billion = ? Perhaps SOME people with ties in the oil industry had a vested interest in protecting those oil fields first...

I didn't bother to do any math on 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but I'm sure that's quite a few francs as well.

Great for Iraq. Sounds like they have a gold mine there. And this would benefit the US how?

Mmmm ... I don't think it necessarily has to benefit the US populace as a whole. I can't think anyone can make a logical argument that the war was undertaken for the benefit of the US as a whole. THE ECONOMICS DON'T HAVE TO ADD UP FOR EVERYONE.

RIGHT ON GEO, AND MY COMPLIMENTS ON THE MATHS EVEN THOUGH YOU LOST ME AT "So let's just say 200 billion barrels" LOL,,,.(><} NICE TRY DAVID BUT YOUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN POSITIVLY CRUSHED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF MY MAN GEO'S ARITHMATIC THE NUMBERS DONT LIE UNLIKE A CERTAIN MR BUSH!!! LOL

ON A COMPLETLY DIFFERENT NOTE THAT HAS ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING BUT MIGHT LIGHTEN THE TONE OF THIS SITE FOR A WHILE,,,,I WOULD LIKE TOO SHARE WITH YOU ALL AN ADDRESS-------- WWW.JOSHUARADIN.COM---- GO THERE DOWNLOAD THE SONG "WINTER" IT KICKS ASS IT ONLY TAKES A SEC TOO SO ENJOY AND THANKS FOR THE INTERESTING POINTS OF VIEW I MAY NOT AGREE WITH ALOT OF THEM BUT IT WOULD BE PRETTY CRAP WORLD IF WE ALL AGREED ALL THE TIME DONT YOU THINK,,,,PROBABLY NOT LOL..PEACE

Geo, I still don't get it, please explain in more detail. I understand there is a lot of oil in Iraq and it is worth a lot of money, but how will that benefit *anyone* in the US? The oil belongs to the Iraqis and only they can sell it. We're not getting their oil for free, in fact right now the oil is still being administered through the UN's program.

David,

My point is that your statement about the economics of oil don't have to apply to the States as the whole. You don't think that ANYONE in the Bush/Cheney/Rummy clan could figure out how to make a profit out of 200 billion barrels of oil? At the moment, the Iraq "Government" can't impose martial law, can't buy any weapons for the next two years without buying from Americans ($259 million dollar contract), can't even get its frickin' hands on Saddam Hussein, for God's sake.

Now - I think the war was basically launched by a cabal of greedy, underhanded bastards who saw a LARGE profit under the guise of a humanitarian and self-protective maneuover (sp?), and as a chance to avenge a personal slight to Bush Sr. You saw the war launched as launched because

"What we want is a friendly -- or at least benign -- government that isn't going to slip some nasty weapon to a fanatic. What we want is an example of a truly free Arab nation so maybe we don't have to keep stomaching pretty-stable-but-not-so-free authoritarian regimes. What we want is an Arab nation with economic opportunity and a chance for people to better their lives so jihad against the West and Israel is not the only career path." (oh yeah - and the money).

So - to free an Arab nation, we - A) killed 10,000+ civilians that we'd previously helped keep in enforced barbarism for the past 12 years; B) Let the cultural heritage of the country be looted; C) Fomented a JIHAD far worse than there has ever been; D) Spent $120 billion dollars of tax payer money and counting.

Can you realistically tell me that if the government was so altruistic in its goals, they would have fucked up the war and "peace" this badly. The answer is pretty self-evident, I think.

You seem like you've read enough liberal claptrap to at least believe SOME of those wacky conspiracy theorists :)

And even if you're correct that the administration of the oil belongs to the Iraquis, who gets huge contracts for refining and extracting it? Which superpower is essentially governing the country and influencing its leaders?
Just WHO has made any profit from this war (hint: that wouldn't be you, me, or the thousands of dead or injured).

How about you fill in the blank with some logical and convincing arguments for your viewpoint that haven't already been refuted up the WAZOO by everything that's been revealed during the Bushco administration.

The US government launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq because ....?

Various links to war profiteering

http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pdf/contracts/another_contract_in_place_constr_iraq.pdf

http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/041904.shtml

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=592

And from the Financial Times (somehow link won't work):

BAGHDAD/WASHINGTON - United Nations-mandated auditors have sharply criticized the US occupation authority for the way it has spent more than $11 billion in Iraqi oil revenues and say they have faced "resistance" from coalition officials.

In an interim report, obtained by the Financial Times, KPMG says the Development Fund for Iraq, which is managed by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority and channels oil revenue into reconstruction projects, is "open to fraudulent acts".

The auditors criticize the CPA's bookkeeping and warn: "The CPA does not have effective controls over the ministries' spending of their individually allocated budgets, whether the funds are direct from the CPA or via the ministry of finance."

The findings come after US complaints about the UN's administration of the oil-for-food program under Saddam Hussein.

According to the CPA, the Development Fund for Iraq has taken in $20. 2 billion since last May and has disbursed $11.3 billion, with $4.6 billion left in outstanding commitments.

One adviser to a member of the recently disbanded Iraqi Governing Council said the report raised the fear that no audit of the CPA's work would ever be completed. "If the auditors don't finish by June 30, they never will, because the CPA staff are going home," he said. "I lament the lack of transparency and lack of involvement by Iraqis."

The KPMG auditors are answerable to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, set up by the UN Security Council in May last year to oversee coalition spending from the development fund. The account contains oil revenues, frozen assets and money left over from the UN's oil-for-food program.

The watchdog comprises representatives of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development. It spent much of last year battling with occupation administrators over the watchdog's remit. Officials said they were able to begin working in earnest only in April.

In their first interim report, KPMG said it had "encountered resistance from CPA staff". CPA staff told KPMG they were overworked and had given them a "low priority".

The UN decided this month that responsibility for the Development Fund for Iraq will pass to the Iraqi interim government and be monitored by the the IAMB. The panel also intends to widen its scrutiny of past CPA spending by examining reports and audits by the Pentagon's inspector general and the General Accounting Office, an official said.

IAMB officials were meeting in Paris on Monday and were not available for comment.

Some of KPMG's most damning criticisms were of the State Organization for Marketing Oil, responsible for the sale of Iraq's most crucial asset. Oil sales, which go into the US-controlled fund, have topped $10 billion since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Somo's only record of barter transactions was "an independent database, derived from verbal confirmations gained by Somo staff", the report found.

The CPA declined to address the KPMG report, saying only that it "has been and will continue to discharge its responsibilities under the Iraqi Development Fund".

One Iraqi minister due to take office on June 30 told the FT he and many colleagues felt "let down by how the CPA has controlled resources".

Oh ... and from UN Security Council Resolution 1483, stating who ACTUALLY controls the oil :

"Winds down the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program over a six-month period. The resolution allows the Secretary General, in coordination with coalition authorities and the Iraqi Interim Administration, to continue to prioritize contracts previously approved and funded by the UN for delivery to meet the immediate needs of the Iraqi people. Action on contracts judged to be of questionable usefulness in light of the changed circumstances will be postponed until an internationally recognized, representative government is established and in a position to make its own determination. One billion dollars of unallocated funds in the UN escrow account will be transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq to provide for immediate reconstruction needs."

The US government launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq because .... we needed to remove the POSSIBILITY that WMDs MIGHT be put into the hands of terrorists who could easily get them into this country and we couldn't risk waiting until tens of thousands of Americans were dead to act. That's the primary reason, there are a ton of supporting reasons.

- But Iraq didn't have WMDs! -- Doesn't matter. We didn't know for certain and couldn't risk it. We know they DID have them once because they used them. We asked Iraq to PROVE they no longer had them, and they would not. Almost every other time a nuke program comes to light we are "surprised" by how far a long it was (Pakistan, India, Libya).

- But Iraq wasn't working with al-Qaida! -- Doesn't matter. They'd estalished contact with al-Qaida. After Al-Qaida's enormous success with 9/11, Iraq COULD have decided al-Qaida was worth hooking up with.

Go read "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward and tell me if you still believe your cabal theory. Woodward is no neo-con patsy and no dummy. He tells it like it is even when it's not flattering to the administration. Do I think there are people in the administration whose motives are less-than-altruistic? Yes. Do I think they are the basis for the decision and Bush is some sort of evil capitalist warmonger? No. Do I think the cabal duped Bush into the war? No. I believe Bush did what he honestly believed needed to be done to safeguard this country, unfortunately he did it very very poorly. Boy what I wouldn't have given for Clinton to do it.

David, I was just explaining in more detail how oil money might benefit people in US.

But ... instead of hunting down al-Qaida with the $120 billion we've spent in Iraq, we used it to launch that war instead? Despite the fact that our internal intelligence agencies questioned all the half-baked stories on weapons programs, and UN weapons inspectors never found evidence of ongoing WMD programs?

And - if by reference you're referring to bio-chem as a WMD used by Hussein, they might have had a problem with a delivery platform, don't ya think? Last I knew, Hussein hadn't launched any nukes.

Wasn't the basic thrust of Woodward's book that Bushco intended to attack Iraq pre-emptively, and that it essentially viewed 9/11 as a convenient excuse?

Don't you think "DOESN'T MATTER" poorly-planned approach made things a HELL OF A LOT WORSE than a reasoned approach to war? Gee - it turns out it DOES MATTER. We are so deep in shit now it's not funny.

Aren't you sick of being duped?

Thank you Geo for providing today's rehashing of the usual conspiracy. Of course it's all about the personal motivations of the Bush cabal. Its all about their wallets. Its all about corporate profits. Its all about avenging Bush Sr. Blah Blah. Oil is an important factor in this issue, but you blind yourself with your Bush Hate that you are prevented from seeing the bigger picture.

The global economy runs on oil. Yes OOOOIIIIILLLL. That black, slick, liquid stuff that you guys have elevated into evil incarnate. Sorry guys, but get used to it. The world runs on oil, and popular to conventional wisdom, there are large parts of the world who are more dependant on MidEast oil than we are. Japan and Europe are more dependant on MidEast oil exports as are growing countries like China and India. While MidEast instability has resulted in some of the recent gas price increases, a more important but less recognized factor in the price rise has been due to the increased demand coming from China and India.

The global economy runs on oil, and due to entangling of the global economy in terms of trade, exports, global banking and currency investments, global debt purchases, etc as part of the growing globalization trend, economies are more dependant on each other. A blip in one sector can cause major ripple effects down the line. All one has to do is look at the Asian financial crisis of the mid 1990's to see how this rippled outward - bringing economic peril to places like Russia and Brazil. Looking at it all in a macro-geopolitical sense, you'll get a much larger handle on how important it is that the powerful nations of the world work together to ensure that blips don't happen. You'd be surprised how much of the world's functionality is due to the idea that the US will intervene to maintain global system stability. International shipping is the network of lifelines that link the economies of the countries of the world together. You would be surprised how much of this international shipping is safeguarded by the various Navy Fleets that the US has patrolling the major bottlenecks of the world - Straits of Malacca, Gibraltar, Hormuz, et. al. This is just an example.

Oil is the fuel for global industry and global economics. The Saudis have inordinate control over the economics of oil given their share of the market. The Saudi Royal Family, ever since the incapacitation of King Fahd, has been fighting a silent civil war with itself and factions aligned to the different wings. There is a pro-West side to the family as well as anti-West (and pro Bin-Ladin) wing to the family. The Saudi Civil War has been going on for years, much of it actually being fought outside the country by Bin Ladin and his network. Only recently has the war been coming to a focus inside the Kingdom (as we have seen with growing regularity reports of attacks and counterattacks by terrorist and government forces). This situation has been understood by many in and out of government - in the US and outside. Whether you allowed yourself some time from your conspiracy mongering and Bush paranoia to educate yourself on these issues I do not know. In any case, there is a problem that has the potential to be tremendous in scope for the global economy - namely a Saudi Arabian collapse into chaos that raises prices and disrupts supply. Disruption of supply will have ripple effects beyond the sandy shores of the kingdom. It means the potential negative effects on growing developing countries - causing currency and financial pressures that will spin beyond even their borders. Japan has been in an economic funk for over a decade. Same with Germany. These countries represent the 2nd and 3rd richest on the planet, yet their economies at this moment are tentative at best. They are both also highly dependant on MidEast oil. Geopoilitically, these countries represent pillars of stability in their specific regions. The fact that in some respects their economies are precarious (what with the lack of growth and other internal economic considerations - ie demographics, welfare state fiscal burdens, etc)means that these regions are also not as stable as they could be and/or need to be. This means that the US has to exercise even more responsibility over the global economic system because our two richest partners and allies are not as strong/nor up to the task as they could be.

Ask yourself a question, if Saudi Arabia goes, what happens to the world? Are you going to be crying about Bush when economic dominoes potentially fall around the globe?

The issue here is to make sure that the world not be held hostage to the Saudi situation. And that requires that powerful oil influence be diversified. Diversification comes through market share. Russia has been increasing its oil industry infrastructure and supply, Western Africa has potential to increase its supply and influence. Kazakhstan and the Caspian Basin could become important and offsetting regions. And also of course Iraq. Stabilize Iraq (getting rid of Saddam was the first step) means stabilizing a source of oil that can diversify the worlds oil market, thereby reducing the influence of Saudi Arabia. This is an insurance policy that must be applied because there is no telling how far the Saudi Civil War will progress and what side will emerge victorious. Would any President sit on the sidelines and allow other forces to dictate the world's economic and political future? And don't say the UN is the answer. They are not in a position to do anything, and given their ugly behavior administering the oil for food program (the largest program ever undertaken by them) they cannot be trusted at all with serious geopolitical and geoeconomic tasks.

There are many reasons why action was taken against Saddam. Oil was part of it, but not in the narrow and facile way you believe it to be. Saddam was taken town for reasons of safeguarding security, humanitarian reasons, War on Terror reasons, WMD reasons, regional reasons, geopolitical reasons, global economic reasons. ALL ARE BIG REASONS. To believe it was all done for Halliburton and Bush Sr. is just plain and simply moronic.

Granite - And Bushco has succeeded how?

War on Terror - Chances of attack now exponentially higher. Al Qauida more active than ever.

Humanitarian Reasons - Go ask the Iraqis how much better off they are.

WMD - where?

UN = untrustworthy - bwa-ha-ha... Bushco = moral, upright, outstanding leaders without any self-interest?

You and me profiting at $2 a gallon = No.

Attack on Iraq good idea? Why don't you tell me.

I'll keep my blind eye; you keep yours.

Oh ... and if we're so damned dependent on the oil, don't you think $120 billion could have gone a little way into researching alternate technologies/fuel sources? It's not as if burning fossil fuels is particularly good for the environment. Don't you think oil is a finite resource? Don't you think money could be better spent investigating oil-independence now than 50-100 years down the road.

I guess maybe if Saudi Arabia fell, I'd ride my bike to work a bit more, and the public transportation system might be a little better, and I'd be chopping down a few trees in my back yard - maybe investigate a geo-thermal pump a little more seriously. Maybe I'll buy a SMART car or a hybrid and trade-in that Hummer I'm driving around in now.

Public transportation, investing in renewable energy... that sounds like a great plan for this country Geo. But what would you do for the millions in emerging economies like India and China? What would you do when their economic collapse plunges the word into a new Great Depression? You won't need to ride your bike to work if you don't have a job.

lol lol lol......LOL LOL LOL RELAX OR I'LL DECLARE WAR ON ALL YOUR ASSES!

David - the oil is going to run out. The Great Depression is on its way in the forseeable future - it's not a matter of IF but when (yes, I'm a wacky environmental conspiracist too). Don't you think we should start putting on the brakes now? Don't you think that if WE figure something out, developing nations might follow suit.

Yes - Chinese consumption of oil is outpacing the US's. Don't you think that means that we're going to burn through the oil faster? And don't you think that the Chinese aren't doing themselves any favors by damming their rivers - polluting their own cities with little environmental concern.

Buscho have done little for the environment (in case that one had slipped by you too); yes - another area where they are short-term interest profit takers.

Really, I don't know why you and Granite bother wasting valuable time defending them.

I''m not defending "them." I did not vote for Bush, I am sorry he won (the Supreme Court case, not the election), and I will not vote for him again. However, I think some of his policies are correct, and I am not the only left-of-center person to think so (Friedman, Lieberman). Unfortunately some people can't get beyond their blinding hate of Bush to see that some of what he does -- however badly -- is correct.

And with that, since this is my soapbox, I am closing this thread down. Feel free to post additional rebuttals on your own blogs.