I wonder if you gave the choice of $5 a gallon gas to the 4,125 troops who gave their lives for dear leaders lust to control Iraq's oil or the 30,000+ who have been injured in Iraq -- what would they choose
I never said that we should allow OPEC to screw us. By developing alternative energies and eliminating our need to use their products ... we could tell them to go cheney themselves. They could go ahead and kill each other and we wouldn't give a damn ... just like our attitude towards anything that happens in Africa.
But it will never happen with two oil men in the white house and a republican party dedicated to idealogical idiotcy.
As to your first point it is utter partisan nonsense. The US has seized no oil fields. Had we wished to Saudi Arabia would have been much easier pickings.
As to your second point- I don’t think that you can point to anything that I have said that is contrary. You just may not recognize it since I don’t substitute the words “go fuck yourself” with the childish “go Cheney yourself.” (But until we create an alternative the Middle East remains a strategic part of our national security interests.) I have made my position on replacing the oil economy with an alcohol economy. You have only insulted the Shrub administration and the republican congress (such as it is, controlled by democrats and all.) Do you prefer a solution or more whining?
As to your last comment, it is more utter partisan nonsense. The democrats have been in power enough in recent history to get us off oil if they had any inclination to do so. Your statement makes me believe that you are either (a) a bucket-carrier for the democratic party, (b) stupid, or (c) both. Which is it?
it seems to me that all involved, dems, reps, the electorate all share responsibility for this nation's absence of a reality based energy policy. peter has suggested nothing that does not make sense and gunnit's response is essentially bush lied soldiers died?
