By: John Keitel
“We’re not asking Saudi to drill more, just pump more.” Sen. Joe Biden (D) Delaware on Meet The Press 6/22/08.
This was the first show without Tim Russert hosting due to his passing. His substitute, Brian Williams, NBC News Anchor, has brains in his ass and media bias in his blood for letting this pass without a follow up.
So I will follow up. Hey Joe, pumping more is more supply to the supply and demand world we live in. More supply lowers prices of every product. Why is it that providing our own oil supply isn’t going to help?
The Democrats hail Brazil for their energy independence, they are because they drill 85% of their oil themselves. OFFSHORE YOU IDIOT! Only 15% is sugar ethanol!
Filed under: 2008 presidential race, Inernational News, media bias | Tagged: arabia, biden, brian, delaware, demand, democrat, democrats, energy, independence, joe, meet, nbc, news, offshore, oil, political, politics, press, russert, saudi, supply, the, tim, willams
The Saudis are not supplying at full capacity. Graham made comments about asking them to drill more, but Biden correctly pointed out that this would enable the Saudis to unilaterally maintain output below optimum levels when they already have the ability to increase supply without more wells.
The Republican move to drill more wells is striking at people’s emotions in an election year by attempting to bypass the fact that it’s not a short-term solution. Whether more wells is a good idea in the long-run, I’ll leave that up to the experts, but it will not alleviate gas prices in the short-run. Note Graham’s choice not to tackle that point.
Ten years.
I don’t care if the Saudis are at full capacity. America is not.
The point stands, Biden is asking for more supply.
Emotions drive a part of the supply demand system. If the speculators know more oil will be on the market in the future the cost of oil in the future goes down. Thats why they call them “Futures.”
It worked with the Alaska pipeline when the cost of fuel doubled in the 70’s, even with a President like Jimmy Carter. But the Democrats tried to block that for three years also, just like today. They said it could never be done and it would not help, just like now.
The pipeline was done in three years, half the time they had budgeted for! And I am sure glad we have it now. It is one of the REASONS for buying the state.
The world oil supply is only 1-2% above demand, dropping the bans on drilling for oil and natural gas would cause the price to drop immediately helping in the short-run. In the long-run we could make sure that oil stays here.
See more at: http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/democrats-demand-saudi-arabia-pump-more-oil-but-will-not-lift-drilling-ban-in-america/
How do you respond to Senator Biden’s point that 79% of the US’ off shore reserves are already leased. But those holding the leases have elected to not drill for that oil? Obviously there is a cost-benefit analysis which shows these companies that it is not yet worth it for them to drill for this oil. How then would opening the rest of these below sea oil reserves up to drilling change that?
92% of federal lands are not available for lease. His numbers are wrong.
From time of opening to the pump 3 years is increased supply, lower prices, and how it would help. If we can get the lifting of the ban to included that the oil stay in America all the better. Brazil did and all you liberals went crazy.
Brazil energy independent, 84% oil and 15% sugar cane ethanol.
To bad there is a Federal ban on doing an analysis on the resource potential in offshore areas. Which is why no drilling is happening. This info is from the Congressional hearings/lynchings.
You seem to know a lot more about the oil economy than I do, and I have chosen to leave the debate about the advantages and disadvantages of these drilling proposals to the experts.
Regardless, the Republican pitch for them is dishonest. Even if more oil is available in three years as you say – and this is unlikely, as suggested by the fact that Graham was silent about Biden’s warning that the extra wells will not produce for ten years – this is not the kind of comprehensive energy plan that we need.
Of course emotions play a role in supply and demand, but the Republicans are attempting to use this emotion for political gain by pushing a policy whose short-term effects are dubious at best and whose long-term effects will do nothing to cure us of our most dangerous national addiction, the same addiction that got us here in the first place and that will bring us to this point again, even if those wells ARE drilled.
The Republicans, furthermore, are complicit in the unethical management of the markets by oil companies. They’re loving this.
This position you have staked out has been used before. In the 1970’s under the Carter Administration.
It goes as something like this;
We cannot do it safely, wrong the last spill from a platform was in 1964. The caribou herds around the Alaskan pipeline have tripled in size.
It will take too long. Said about the Alaskan pipeline, it was finished in 3 years. Half the budgeted time and amount. The Americans can still do what they put their mind to.
It will do nothing for our energy needs. Said about Alaska, glad we have it. This nation or even the world will not stop needing oil for decades.
It is only an emotional fix. The only emotions being played are from the enviromarxist Democrat party telling this country we can’t do something to help ourselves, government must nationalize the oil industry. See; http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=269
The enviromarxist Democrat party loves to talk about Brazil being energy independent. Brazil got their by drilling for oil offshore and keeping it for their country. They get 85% of their energy needs from oil, only 15% from sugar cane ethanol.
More than 40% of the American people are making money from oil stocks.
I do agree that the oil companies are loving the bans and regulations, it limits supply and drives up the cost.
This is start to energy independence. Clean coal, nuclear, and wind offer other pieces. But the Democrat marxist party must get out of the way.
We are making different points. I don’t wish to opine on the benefits or problems involved in drilling, which is what you’re focusing on. However, I do opine that the Republican party is dishonestly promoting a problematic and incomplete policy for political gain. I’m trying to a point about how policy is portrayed and why this portrayal is dishonest and coercive. It’s not a discussion of the policy itself, for the most part.
I’ll respond point by point:
//We cannot do it safely, wrong the last spill from a platform was in 1964. The caribou herds around the Alaskan pipeline have tripled in size.//
Reply: I have no idea if we can do it safely or not. This is outside of the scope of my argument. You’ll notice I didn’t comment on safety or the environment.
//It will take too long. Said about the Alaskan pipeline, it was finished in 3 years. Half the budgeted time and amount. The Americans can still do what they put their mind to.//
Reply: I can only observe that drilling in Alaska is a lot simpler than drilling in 48 states. You’re right to point out that it’s possible to do work in less time and with less money than initially expected, but nobody, including Senator Graham, disagrees than we can expect to wait ten years. We can certainly hope for less, but we can’t expect it.
//It will do nothing for our energy needs. Said about Alaska, glad we have it. This nation or even the world will not stop needing oil for decades.//
Reply: This, too, is outside the scope of my argument.
//It is only an emotional fix. The only emotions being played are from the enviromarxist Democrat party telling this country we can’t do something to help ourselves, government must nationalize the oil industry. See; http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=269//
Reply: “The only emotions are from the enviromarxst…” No, the entire country is upset about this. High gas prices are especially hurting the lower middle class, the working poor, and those in abject poverty. Their emotions are being manipulated by this policy; the oil companies are very upset, too — high prices threaten to make alternative energies far more viable. I have no doubt that they support removing the bans and that they have not enjoyed them. Lowering prices, far from reducing their profits, will guarantee their control of the market through appeasement of US citizens and remove the threat of alternative energy competitors. This is the manipulation of consumer anxiety to prevent the development of new industries.
//The enviromarxist Democrat party loves to talk about Brazil being energy independent. Brazil got their by drilling for oil offshore and keeping it for their country. They get 85% of their energy needs from oil, only 15% from sugar cane ethanol.//
Reply: Outside the scope of my argument.
//More than 40% of the American people are making money from oil stocks.//
Reply: The people hardest hit by this are most certainly not making any money off those stocks. The people who will benefit most also are not those who are hardest hit.
You’ve agreed, here, with an important observation: many of the people supporting drilling will benefit from it in the form of an increase in wealth.
The rest of the country, however, may see an decrease in hardship, but will not enjoy marked economic improvement.
//I do agree that the oil companies are loving the bans and regulations, it limits supply and drives up the cost.//
Highly unlikely. Instead, it’s likely that the bans are making them nervous. These high costs are a blessing and a curse for the oil companies. Profits are higher than ever, but there’s the serious threat that alternative energy will become much more viable. Taking steps to lower the prices, far from being designed to help citizens, is designed to protect corporate profits and oil company longevity and to prevent the emergency of competitors from the growth of new industry. Have people completely forgotten that Bush and Cheney are oil tycoons?
//This is start to energy independence. Clean coal, nuclear, and wind offer other pieces. But the Democrat marxist party must get out of the way.//
Energy independence will be impossible until we have a comprehensive energy plan that makes serious investments in renewable energy. The drilling proposal, in the absence of a comprehensive plan, is a crutch for the country but a steroid for the oil companies.
Edit: Obviously, coastal drilling cannot occur in all 48 contiguous states. However, drilling in Alaska still is much simpler than drilling in all our coastal states.
Watch “Ice Trucks” and see about how difficult, not too mention down right deadly, it is.
I don’t defend from a Republican point of view, only a conservative American.
Saying that lets look at the emotional liberal anti-capitalist Democrat position. It is clear, no more oil. The portrayal of “green, renewable” energy as an alternative is just not economically possible for the normal, let alone poor, to afford.
You made the point that the oil companies are not liking the higher cast of oil because then the alternative fuels could compete. This means that the alternative fuels are too expensive to work, yet. R&D will eventually bring the cost down so society can afford it without destroying its society.
You decide to leave out many parts of this issue because they do not support your position.
Sen. Graham is as liberal as a Democrat on many issues and is wrong on this point.
Increased wealth will not come through oil stocks, they will fall in value. The value is for the citizens and companies. 70% of the American economy is from SMALL businesses that need low cost energy.
Everyone is going crazy over the possibility of an electric car. Two problems, the countries electricity grid has trouble handle the daily loads required, burning coal. The second problem is that the price of electricity will triple just as the corn price has. This is not looking out for the economically challenged.
“crutch!” If alternative sources could compete in the free market, without the tax payer subsidizing the cost, they would be used.
The plan must be a sound plan. Not taking a food source corn or sugar cane and making it a fuel source. Driving the cost of our daily food up more than some can afford.
A good plan will not try to kill the economy at the same time in the name of a global warming hoax.
Again you make a point while disregarding a fact. Brazil is independent because they are using their own oil. Without our own oil supply we will never be energy independent.
“Saying that lets look at the emotional liberal anti-capitalist The portrayal of “green, renewable” energy as an alternative is just not economically possible for the normal, let alone poor, to afford.”
It’s probably not fair to continue calling these things “emotional”. For poor Americans, it’s about real hardship, not detached anxiety.
Alternative energies are expensive because they’re new. I paid a lot more for my Pentium II years ago then I did for my Pentium IV more recently. In the oil drilling proposal, it’s as if the typewriter and calculator companies had offered absurdly cheap prices in order to stunt the growth of computer companies. People are being conned into easing back to the use of cheap oil when we should be spending these resources on getting renewable energy to be cheaper. This begs the question: If both forms of energy are expensive, it’s a poor choice to put disproportionately more efforts into reducing the price of the inferior product.
“This means that the alternative fuels are too expensive to work, yet. R&D will eventually bring the cost down so society can afford it without destroying its society.”
This is probably true, but the efforts to reduce oil prices in the absence of a comprehensive energy plan are diminishing R&D and prolonging our dependence on oil.
What’s really got to scare the oil companies is that the longer their product is at high prices, the longer renewable energy will enjoy equal attention. The longer that happens, the cheaper it will get! Therefore, if the oil companies don’t get prices down immediately, then renewable energy could ostensibly become cheaper, and they’d be completely screwed.
“You decide to leave out many parts of this issue because they do not support your position.”
I don’t know anything about safety, the Brazilian oil economy, or the other things I left out. I am not commenting on them because I lack the knowledge base. I’ve said this multiple times, and cannot be accused of being so zealous as to ignore compelling evidence. I merely do not have enough information on hand to opine on those specific issues.
“Sen. Graham is as liberal as a Democrat on many issues and is wrong on this point.”
No. He’s liberal on a small number of issues at best – the American Conservative Union has given him about a 90% grade over his career with 88% in the last year. On this issue, he’s a hard-line conservative – he was representing the McCain candidacy, after all.
“Increased wealth will not come through oil stocks, they will fall in value. The value is for the citizens and companies. 70% of the American economy is from SMALL businesses that need low cost energy.”
Also highly unlikely. Things that are good for the oil companies keep them rolling in riches. The claims about how great oilcentric policies are for the lower middle class are perfunctory at best. The benefits are skewed dramatically in favor of the companies.
“Everyone is going crazy over the possibility of an electric car. Two problems, the countries electricity grid has trouble handle the daily loads required, burning coal. The second problem is that the price of electricity will triple just as the corn price has. This is not looking out for the economically challenged.”
I agree. Electric cars may be somewhat better for the environment, (though I’m not sure to what extent), but they’re replacing one form of pollution with another. We need more creative solutions.
““crutch!” If alternative sources could compete in the free market, without the tax payer subsidizing the cost, they would be used.”
They will with proper R&D, as you said yourself. However, oilcentric policy is a coercive manipulation of the market that prevents renewable energies from growing as they otherwise would.
“The plan must be a sound plan. Not taking a food source corn or sugar cane and making it a fuel source. Driving the cost of our daily food up more than some can afford.”
There are a lot of problems with food prices. There’s misinformation spreading around that ethanol is decreasing food supplies, but the total world supply of food exceeded expectations recently. I don’t doubt that ethanol is an important thing to take into consideration, and I do agree that we need a comprehensive energy plan that doesn’t lean too heavily on ethanol alone – or oil alone, as the current policy does.
“A good plan will not try to kill the economy at the same time in the name of a global warming hoax.”
I agree that a good plan will not kill the economy. I can’t imagine why anyone would want the economy to suffer, that’s crazy. A good plan, that puts as much or more emphasis on renewable energy rather than the crutch of cheaper oil, will invigorate the growth of new industry that will be immensely beneficial to the economy. It’s critical that we do this now, or else other companies will lead the technology while you and I sit here discussing this, and we in the US will be left out of the next great innovation.
“Again you make a point while disregarding a fact. Brazil is independent because they are using their own oil. Without our own oil supply we will never be energy independent.”
Like I said, I just don’t know anything about the Brazilian oil economy. However, the idea that this will improve our independence is an afterthought at best, and may be disingenuous. This issue is highly politicized, and frankly, nobody cared all that much about where our oil came from when it was cheap.
Yes, all things new cost more at first. renewable tech. has been around for a very long time. The first solar system was built well over 100years ago and it will still take a home owner more than 30 years to recoup the investment. In order for something to make it in this market it need to survive market forces.
/”If both forms of energy are expensive, it’s a poor choice to put disproportionately more efforts into reducing the price of the inferior product.”/
and /”efforts to reduce oil prices in the absence of a comprehensive energy plan are diminishing R&D and prolonging our dependence on oil.”
The inferior product is the one that does not survive.
/”On this issue, he’s a hard-line conservative – he was representing the McCain candidacy, after all.”
88% is not a hard-line conservative. Joe Liberman’s rating is higher and his party through him out. McCain is not a hard-line conservative.
“/The claims about how great oilcentric policies are for the lower middle class are perfunctory at best.”
Low oil prices help build this countries to the envy of other nations.
“/There are a lot of problems with food prices. There’s misinformation spreading around that ethanol is decreasing food supplies, but the total world supply of food exceeded expectations recently.”/
The worlds food supply exceeded expectations??? That is news to everybody. It take 700 lbs of corn to make a tank of ethanol, that is more than a family uses for a year. Corn price tripled this year, how does that help those that do not make much money to live on?
What is disingenuous is this needs to be done in the name of saving the planets air. and in 10-30 years the earth will be ruined, depending on who predicts this. It is also disingenuous to say we cannot be energy independent while still using oil.
We don’t need clean energy for the fuzzy goal of air quality (although this is important), we need it because the oil economy has so thorouhly greased the market as to gain far, far more profits from low US oil prices than consumers. The health of big oil is best for big oil; the rest of us remain at the mercy of a corporate oligarchy. That can’t change until serious investments are made in renewable energy, which this newest plan is designed to avoid.
Other countries don’t envy us. Recent polls show that we have a highly negative perception in the rest of the world. As far as the effect our energy use has on this, there’s no doubt that we make other countries angry with our wanton and careless use of resources. A single American child uses more resources in a lifetime than six children born in India. At the same time, the US, which already benefited from absurd levels of pollution during its industrial age, wants to tell India, China, and other developing countries to stop using fossil fuels, while still enjoying cheap fossil fuels for its own corporations and citizens.
Regarding the food supply…
“If there is a main culprit, it is the market. There is a lot of talk about growing consumption and falling supplies for both food and energy, but most of the data contradicts these claims. For example, despite a drought in Australia, ice and snow storms throughout China, and a cold, wet winter in the American breadbasket, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization projects global cereal production for 2007-2008 to increase by 92 million tons to 2.102 billion tons. But almost all this increase is from a record U.S. corn harvest, which is feeding the market for biofuels.
In essence, large speculators ranging from Wall Street banks and hedge funds to oil companies and agribusiness giants are making a killing from trading commodities. Analysts say some players may be manipulating the markets, but this is extremely difficult to prove because regulatory oversight of these markets has been deliberately rolled back. Still, many sectors appear to be engaging in blatant profiteering. This includes speculators, but also extends to food retailers, food producers, and fertilizer manufacturers. One of the ironies of the current situation is that even as the revenue of farmers is increasing furiously, especially in the United States, they are losing out on profits because of the wild gyrations in the commodities markets.
Grain shortages abound because speculators’ profits are literally coming at the expense of the world’s poor.”
Read more here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/17820
[...] For a conservative perspective on this same Meet the Press show, see John Keitel’s post and our following exchange here. [...]
By the way, I think we’ve had a good exchange here, so I linked to your post on my blog. Thank you for discussing this issue with me.
Thanks, I liked the exchange as well. I’ll post your site also.
We are not hated in Africa. And Europe has turned to the right. France, Germany, and Britain have gone with conservative leaders and conservative solutions to their socialist problems.
I don’t agree with the comparison to a third world country with hundreds of millions impoverished. Trade agreements are within rights to demand level playing fields.
//But almost all this increase is from a record U.S. corn harvest, which is feeding the market for biofuels.//
Please the corn took off as the energy bill mandated 15% of our fuel source come from corn. Electricity will do the same as soon as the electric cars come on line. And it will probably cost more that gas.
//But almost all this increase is from a record U.S. corn harvest, which is feeding the market for biofuels.//
And it will go higher now that at least 50% of Iowa’s corn crop is wiped out. Who was the idiot to make the most used product in the food source a fuel?
//Grain shortages abound because speculators’ profits are literally coming at the expense of the world’s poor.”//
The speculators are reading the market risk based on supply and demand. Demand is high and supplies are having trouble keeping up. Speculators are really buyers, a majority of them are the pension plans the Americans pay into and draw from. They are not the boggymen they are made out to be. They just read the cards and sometimes they are wrong and get burned badly. It appears Warren Buffet is short on oil right now which is why he went to capital hill to “help.” I hope he gets burned, then let the price can come down.
Biden is definitely not a good choice, especially with respect to foreign policy. Here is a few more foot in the mouth remarks from Biden.
To the Prime Minister of Turkey on his visit just before the IRaq War:
“Mr. Prime Minister, unless you support us in the War in Iraq you can kiss the 5B of foreign aide goodbye”. He said this as is to the Prime Minister’s face. The Prime Minister was trying to convince his US allies that war would be a bad idea and that no amount of aid would witn Turkish support. Biden on the other hand was leading US policy makers believe that it was a matter of money.
This is the same Biden who also came up with the “let’s seperate Iraq into 3″ plan. A plan most middle East experts see as flawed from the get go.
Biden is an idiot.
We need America off shore drilling for more oil now Joe Biden, we don’t want to depend on Saudi and all the other countries. What do you want us to do Biden, keep sending money overseas to the muslims that want to kill us?
How did this idiot got on the ticket? He was for the Iraq war before he was against it.
The kill oil campaign is meant to destroy capitalism. The Democrat party wants to be off oil in 10 years. One problem, no technology!
Making commercials that DEMAND we use renewable fuels even though we do not have the technology to do it is a great example of the “entitlement personality” of the liberals/Democrats.
Wake up be AMERICANS!
I’d like to point out that Joe Biden voted against the original Trans Alaska Pipeline. On the final vote, Biden was one of 5 that voted against it, 80 Senators voted for the pipeline. One amendment, Gravel-Stevens, allowed for a fast track through the judicial review process – Biden voted against it. This amendment needed VP Agnew to break the 49-49 tie vote.
Imagine our situation and economy without the oil from Prudhoe Bay over the last 20+ years.
Agreed, Biden is an idiot.
On the other hand though, it looks like McCain is not too smart either.
Making his entire campaign on the claim that Obama is too inexperienced, he goes and picks an even more junior VP candidate who only would help him win the Christian-right vote. Well he already had that vote..
No, he’s brilliant!
This Gov. is a Commander-in-Chief already. She is far more qualified than Obama.
She could be the first female Pres. and that is killing the Liberal Democrat Media!
ohh I don’t know about that. But she is hot and sexy, I’ll give you that much. I don’t know whether McCain can handle such a hot VP.
That’s an awesome sexist view you have.
I am sorry, you are right. As a lifetime liberal I’ll say this to make your day;
Palin is an excellent orator and will reach out to little town America like no other politician. However I doubt she will be able to sway any of the Hillary voters.
On the issue of sexism though, what is more sexist? My honest catcall or the assumption that every Hillary voter will vote for Palin only because she is a woman? I think it is more of an insult for female voters to assume they will just vote for Palin because she is a woman.
Peace and out.
Nobody is saying that every woman will vote for Hillary that is stupid and misleading.
What will happen is she will appeal to a large percentage of women voters that will carry the election for the MCCAIN/PALIN ticket. If this was not true then the MSM would not be in a panic today!
Palin completely bombed out on stage with the ABC interview. Especially when she was asked about the “Bush Doctrine”. I burst out laughing when she was talking about her energy experience for every foreign policy related question. The ” you can see Russia from Alaska” was funny too..
She could be a good Scientologist Pastor though. I hope you are happy with your purchase but I think you guys just got taken.
Peace and out.
She did fine with the biased quiz given by a snob. Your idea of foreign policy is always retreat.
At least she doesn’t ask wheelchair bound State Senators to, “Stand Up Chuck!”
http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/joe-biden-idiot-tells-state-senator-to-stand-up/
Hi,
Looks like Palin bombed out even worse on the CBS interview. Not looking good. She was not able to say one coherent sentence about the economy, or the $700 billion proposal, or the nature of the problem. Still happy with your purchase? Biden is going to tear her to little pieces in the debate
….
She thinks she is better than Obama opn foreing relations because she is the executive of a state that has borders with Canada and Russia! Is this the VP we need now. Come on every time she speaks it is a disaster for the Republicans, you should ask for a refund!
“She thinks she” is not proper sentence structure. But you knew that because your a liberal.
Gov. Palin has more experience than the Democrat Presidential Candidate.
Why is the Obama campaign run the Presidential Nominee against the Republican’s VP candidate? Obama keeps making amateur decisions.
If Katie Couric could actually write a question, then she might start growing some brain cells back.
CBS producers:
Chloe Arensberg
Lori Beecher
Betty Chin
Kevin Finnegan
David Frifield
Mary Hood
Linda Karas
Catherine Kim
Dorie Klissas
Matt Lombardi
Yvonne Miller-Halee
Karen Raffensperger
Taigi Smith
Andrew Wolff
Katie Boyle
Kim Godwin
James McGlinchy
Christopher Dinan
Rick Kaplan
“she thinks she….” is perfectly fine sentence structure.
“your a liberal” on the other hand is a spelling error.
It is funny how you see the tiny flaws in those you dislike but are unable to see the massive error that you and your allies have made (i.e., Palin).
Looks like we are not meeting the new Prime Minister of SPAIN without preconditions
..
I bet McCain thought Spain was a latin American country, close to Venezuela..:).
Here is a serious thought though, of all the people in the Republican Party, was Palin the most qualified for a VP choice? Was she more qualified then say, Condeleza Rice, or Cary Fiorina, or Colin Powell, or Bloomberg or Gulliani?
One more thought, we are heading for a market crash of Biblical proportions with or without Bailout. If McCain’s ratings took a 5 point hit with just the “possibility” of a crash, what do you think they will do with an actual stock market crash. Do you think the man who only said last week that “The fundementals of the American economy are strong” has any understanding of the crisis we are in?
I respect McCain, but the choices he has made of late do not bode well for his campaign or for America. I probably would have considered voting for a McCain-Rice ticket but can not for the life of me picture Palin in anywhere near the White House.
On Foreign Policy:
You somehow picture the democrats as being “weaker” or not “tough enough” on foreign policy.
The problem is that talking tough and being tough are two different things. In a lot of cultures military action is actually never preceded by talking tough. For instance the Japanese were not talking tough prior to Pearl Harbor. They gave subtle messages, then launched a surprise attack. It is when you talk tough an not follow through with action that the other party will call your bluff and become even more aggressive. Case and point North Korea.
Also if you look in a bar fight the guy most likely to go down is the one doing most of the smack talking. The other guy allready has a plan and is more concentrated on caryying it through. This is why Obama’s subtle diplomacy style is far more superior then the cowboy style of Bush or McCain.
Look at what happened in Georgia-Russia conflict. We talked tough and the Russians just brushed it aside. We threatened them with isolation they shot back with ” our calender has never been busier”. The adverseries of America are far more savy, far more cosmopolit and are far more realist. We need foreign allies more then ever, and a McCain who can’t tell where Spain is on the Geopolitical map can not navigate us in such waters.
If you love America, or the World, vote Obama. If you love Blackwater security, KBR, our allies like Georgia-Azerbeijan-Turkey-Israel getting wiped out vote McCain. McCain will launch “Operation-Iranian-Freedom” and this will only result with a catasthrophy similar to what Athens faces when they invaded Cyracuse.
Japan had taken a lot of territory by brutal means that you may be to young to understand. They gave signals that were ignored.
You wrote: “The adverseries of America are far more savy, far more cosmopolit and are far more realist. ”
You obviously think America is a weak opponent that should bow a the feet of dictators with the president of the world Obama. I don’t hthnk America has lost the stature she has earned. This is a Liberal myth.
How much more could 6 countries TALK to North Korea. That is what you want, right? Just talk, just words, nice words, don’t piss anybody off, right?
The example with Japan was to prove that different cultures have different ways of expressing intention to attack. Acting like a Rapper does not necessarly mean they will take us seriosly.
“Just talk, just words, nice words, don’t piss anybody off, right?”
Talking tough and picking arbitrary fights has so far not worked well, so yeah maybe it is time for diplomacy.
“You obviously think America is a weak opponent that should bow a the feet of dictators with the president of the world Obama”
No not really. I get the feeling you might have been abused as a kid, maybe that is why you see the world in absolute terms of either dominating or being dominated. I think there are many other possibilities if we engage in positive debate with the rest of the world. The rest of us who were not abused and do not suffer from some sort of aggressive compulsive disorder would like to bring the economy back, reestablish our ties with Europe. That requires diplomats who understand the world and can tell the difference between SPAIN and Venezuela.
Foaming at the mouth on the other hand does not seem to have the desired effect of “scaring away” our competitors. They just arm themselves more and set up more alliances against us. Case and point Russia and Venezuela. North Korea has more nukes now then before the sanctions began.
Too much stick too little carot in your diet..that’s why you are so testy. Chill out bro..
Europe just stood up with us against Russia and Iran, your passing on the myth that America is not liked. If that was true immigrants would not be dying in the desert to get here.
Protecting our country is the Presidents first duty. Sitting down with Osama bin Laden or the Religious murderers of IRAN with not solve anything it will encourage it.
Sorry you were so badly treated as a child. It’s time to grow up.
I take it you have not traveled to Europe or met any Europeans recently. They are not exactly doing away with their primary Natural Gas supplier any time soon. Furthermore no strong EU stance has been presented on the Georgian conflict. The Europeans are just scared, they just don’t know who to be more scared from, us or the Russians.
Talk about religion, I just watched an Exorcism video of Sarah Palin, which I am sure is making the rounds in Europe too. This campaign has just taken a turn for the Occult so if you have any Vodoo dolls this may be the time to use it. Smoke’m if you got’em.
Wrong, Nuclear power is making them more independent, that is not an accident.
Your wrong, they know from experience who to be afraid of. Russia and people like you.
Really? Last I checked EU had a %40 dependence on Natural Gas and %20 of oil from Russia. They are scared that the Russians will cut the natural gas off as they did for Ukraine.
Obama was greeted as Kennedy was when he spoke in Germany, so you can have it on good record that they like Liberals like us pretty well. It is the religious wacko-exorcist-right-wing Blackwater crowd ( i.e. your political base) that scare them.
You missed France that has 75% Nuclear electricity.
“It is the religious wacko-exorcist-right-wing Blackwater crowd ( i.e. your political base) that scare them.”
Then go live with them!