I've said elsewhere that this was probably the last election where the Republicans stood a real chance of gaining the American Presidency with a program that mainly appeals to prosperous suburban whites and holds little appeal to most women and almost no appeal at all to racial minorities.
If the GOP is to survive, what do you think it would have to look like? What could it possibly look like?
Immaculate conception, I presume?
Bush the aristocrat holding Blair the cherished poodle on a pretty leash, actually.
I don't mean to come across as cynical, irreverent, and disrespectful of Bush, but I am, so I do.
RE: "I don't mean to come across as cynical, irreverent, and disrespectful of Bush"
Why not? I believe it's a general consensus --
I did not vote for the fellow. After 8 years of painful crap, and revolting details, retiring back to the ranch, surrounded by an unadoring public, seems a just thing.
WMD's were never the issue and they all knew that. There is a crisis of unprecedented proportions coming soon and for there to be any chance of us western powers to come through it we need a toe hold in the middle east. So while i dont like what they did , it is nevertheless completely understandable and i don't think i can blame them for doing what they feel needed to be done. The real issue here is one of survival and when that is the case being ethical or nice is no longer a major consideration.
So, basically, Jason, you're espousing situational ethics?
Not really. I am just being pragmatic. It in no way makes what they did as being ethically right but it does make it understandable. a simple analogy would be if there where two people stuck in a situation where there is only enough water for one of them to survive and make it out of that situation. Now if one murders the other it does not make the murder ethical but it does make hes actions understandable and i would hesitate to blame him for doing so. ( now maybe you would not do that but what if you had to do it to so you and your son or daughter would survive?)Unfortunately in reality our choices are often not between good and bad but between bad and worse.
Oh, please, you're not bringing up that old chestnut "It's all about oil" are you? Between Canadian oil, Mexican oil, and oil from locations outside the Persian Gulf area, we don't need Middle Eastern oil. Oil is a commodity. We buy it from aggregators who sell it in bulk and not "This oil came from Saudi Arabia but that oil came from Venezuela," etc.
The best is mountain-grown Columbian oil, with oil beans hand-picked by Juan Valdez and his faithful burro.
The price of oil has a lot to do with where it comes from. Crude oil found in soft ground, in great quantity, and of a light, sweet texture is cheap. It's easy to bring up and requires less refining. At the opposite end of the dichotomy, crude oil found in tar sand or shale rock is more expensive. It's more difficult to extract, in addition to being thicker and sour, so it requires more refining. Other issues that drive up costs involve directional (slant) drilling to get around rock formations under the ground, or reach under things like international borders, bodies of water, or mountains.
That's the main reason why Big Oil does so much importing. It's cheaper to use "easy oil" from abroad than to use "difficult oil" from domestic sources. Oil from Canada and Venezuela generally is thick and sour. Oil from the middle east tends to be lighter and sweeter.
The image below shows several (but not all) of the "benchmark" oils rated for quality and yield. The size of the dot indicates availability, and the more the dot is placed toward the bottom left, the better the quality and yield.
@Unseen- where is that graph from and what does it show exactly?
Anyway unseen i think you have your heads in the clouds on this issue. But i realize that ignoring facts on an issue of this magnitude is basic human nature. as the german military report on this issue says
"When considering the consequences of peak oil, no everyday experiences and only few historical parallels are at hand. It is therefore difficult to imagine how significant the effects of being gradually deprived of one of our civilization's most important energy sources will be. Psychological barriers cause indisputable facts to be blanked out and lead to almost instinctively refusing to look into this difficult subject in detail."
But maybe i am wrong and you can show me why( i earnestly hope i am dead wrong) but you are going to have to give me more than one graph of indeterminate meaning to make your case. Though i do first advise you to read the 3 reports from the military and government that i link in my post a bit further down before you make your case.
It just seems to be that people who do not accept that there is a very real problem here are basing their arguments mainly on Walt Disney's first law
" wishing will make it so"
The source for the graph is this page on NPR.com.
I'm sorry but I do my own reading assignments. Can you put your counter-argument into a concise sentence or does it just amount to repeating the notion that our interventions in the Persian Gulf area were to secure oil for ourselves.