The embargo isn't working...

[RussSchultz]

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
http://www.doi.gov/news/anwrchart.pdf

ANWR can, according to this document, provide 1.5 million barrels a day.

Going from the bp document linked earlier, it appears that the US consumes 19 million barrels a day, and currently produces about 8 million barrels a day.

1.5/19 is about 8%. A bit off from the 2% I had in my mind, but not too far off in the grand scheme of things.

Adding those 1.5 to the current 8, we get about 9.5, which is just about %50 of our needs, daily. We are dependant on foreign oil.

 

[Trawler]

You were trying to counter Mrs' comments with opinion?

Yes. Her opinion vs mine.

Why? Do you think that by the time we are about to run out we won't have an alternative? Lol think of it this way the more we use the supply the more likely we might be to come up with an alternative as a part of the ever growing industry .

Again the oil has been extracted. Do you think purchasing it makes it go to waste?

The US can buy as much as it likes, as long as it doesn't burn it.

I'm concerned about global warming.

Wait, no, thats not what your comments say at all. The US produces 10% of all available oil each year that doesn't speak of its capacity to produce the 25% quantity.

Feel like figuring out the math? I guess all the stats required to calculate this is in the linked PDF, but I'm too hung over to figure it out myself. Would be interested to know the result.

Edit: Thanks Russ.

 

[Legion]

Yes. Her opinion vs mine.

Way to be equally invalid.

The US can buy as much as it likes, as long as it doesn't burn it.

I'm concerned about global warming.

I am not. I haven't seen substantial evidence.

Feel like figuring out the math? I guess all the stats required to calculate this is in the linked PDF, but I'm too hung over to figure it out myself. Would be interested to know the result.

I have no interest in installing adobe acro.

The Sickening Chirac: The Great Moral Leader of France
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-16595.asp

France working to promote anti-americanism and economic idiocy
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-16587.asp

Humorous Quotes

Iraq, at normal capacity, can pump out $15 billion dollars (US) of oil each year. If the US kept every penny of the gross sales of oil from Iraq, it would take several years to pay for the total war costs. GROSS sales, not profit! At normal profit levels, if the US "stole" all of the profit from the Iraqi oil sales it would take far, far longer. Currently, it is costing the US $2 billion per month to keep troops in Iraq and help stabilize that nation, which will take a number of months no doubt. It defies logic to claim the US will reap a profit from Iraqi oil.

Do the Arabs sell us all the oil we want? The US imports a lower % of its oil from the Mid-East than does Japan or many EU nations. If anyone has any economic reasons for "oil", it is nations such as France, who opposed the US changing the regime in Iraq...

 

[Trawler]

Feel like figuring out the math? I guess all the stats required to calculate this is in the linked PDF, but I'm too hung over to figure it out myself. Would be interested to know the result.

I have no interest in installing adobe acro.

Not to worry, Russ did the hard work for us. See above.

As for the rest of this debate, I'm happy to leave things as they stand. Peace!

 

[Legion]

what was the rest of the debate?

 

[Saem]

... heck pretty much every other guy I talk to have actually been there too.

They were there to check out the babes.

 

[Humus]

I agree with you on that. World geography isn't a big time issue over here in schools, especially public schools. Neither is world history. In the US the tendency is to teach about the US. We have so many different cultures all around us already, and are such a self sufficient country that I don't necessarily think that's it's a bad idea to focus the learning on the US. That said, I think there should be more geography/world studies courses offered at the high school level (when I was in school, now granted that was awhile ago, but we learned the sum of our global geography and foreign studies in elementary school and the last geography course was offered in 7th grade).

Well, we live in the 21th century now, theres no such thing as a self-sufficient country anymore. If suddenly the US border was closed for incoming and outgoing trade, then the US would in a few years be in a similar state as many african countries are today. The rest of the world would suffer greatly too.

And perhaps this factors into this country's self sufficient attitude. "If we aren't going there, why learn about it?"

Well, I'll most likely never go to Romania, but it doesn't mean I don't care for that country or that it's not relevant for me.

If the US was really so stupid, then how would it be possible to be as successful as we are??

As you said, there is a hard working culture in the US. If people work 45 hours a week on average, that does lots for the economy, even though there are drawbacks, for instance for family life and quality of life. The willingness to work is what has driven the US to success, but it doesn't say anything about stupidity, (not that I claim that the US people are stupid in any way, though I would say that the geography knowledge is below acceptable), most kinds of professions does not need high skills.

 

[Humus]

The issue has nothing to do with geography. Nothing. At. All. I have no beeef with americans not knowing where/what Sweden is - it's a tiny tiny country.

The real issue is that those 22% actually supported the bombing of that country (unless the embargo wasn't working... ).

You'd have to be pretty stupid and also rather cold-hearted to give your active support for something like that.

I agree with what you said, but I don't really buy the "tiny tiny country" argument. Sweden may have a small population, but in physical size we are not that small, and in Europeans measures we are indeed quite large. Sweden is larger than Germany, twice the size of the UK, not that much smaller than France and Spain. Also, we're kinda central in norhern Europe with many neighbors, not only the land border with Norway and Finland, but also direct connection with Germany, Denmark, Poland, Russian, Estonia, Latvia and Lithaunia over the baltic sea, and not to forget, direct way to the atlantic ocean too.

Either way, regardless of wheather we're small or not, one should at least know what continent we're talking about, and at least know it's a country, where many americans fail. "Sweden, is that in California?", "Is that a city?", "South america?" (Actual quotes from my 5 days in California )

We have like 190 countries in this world. If presented with a list of the names of these countries, one should at least be able to assign 100 of these to their respective continent. Anything less than that is plain ignorance IMO and unacceptable for anyone above 15 years of age who does not suffer from severe learning disabilities. It's like graduating a student who can't multiply two number from 1 to 9.

If 13% of the americans can't locate Iraq on a map, that's quite terrible. Unfortunately, singing GBA and waving the stars and stripes doesn't help either. If you can't even locate the country on a map, you're not even entitled to have an opionion about it IMO. It's the most basic and fundamental knowledge you can have about a country. It's like trying to understand the Laplace transform without knowing the 1 to 9 multiplication table.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Humus: I agree with all of your post except the "meaning" of the first paragraph.

1. I'm perfectly aware of how big Sweden is geographically. Relatively big for a European country (slightly larger than California ) but that doesn't mean much...
2. Geographical size means very very little in world politics.
3. Sweden is only central among the Nordic countries geographically. Politically all Nordic countries are too small to be able to be the center of anything, which is why we try to work together.

 

[Humus]

Well, Sweden both in terms of population and physical size is roughly the size of two average US states. I don't see anyone thinking for instance north carolina (or whatever) is irrelevant. In the big scheme of things, it may not be playing a huge role, but people should at least be aware of its existance and have a clue of what it is. If I told anyone in Sweden about north carolina and he went like "is that in UK?" "Brazil?" "Australia?" I wouldn't hesitate to put a huge moron stamp on his forehead. Especially if you live in the west, you should at least be aware of the existance of other western countries, and in huge countries like the US and Canada you should be aware of the states and provinces.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Well I can't really say I disagree,

 

[RussSchultz]

I don't see anyone thinking for instance north carolina (or whatever) is irrelevant. In the big scheme of things, it may not be playing a huge role, but people should at least be aware of its existance and have a clue of what it is. If I told anyone in Sweden about north carolina and he went like "is that in UK?" "Brazil?" "Australia?" I wouldn't hesitate to put a huge moron stamp on his forehead.

You're much harsher than I'd ever be. But that's probably because I'd be hard pressed to point out North Carolina, without a few moments of "process of elimination". I'd likely end up dead if my life depended on knowing which state was Vermont and which state was Connecticut.

 

[MrsSkywalker]

I'd likely end up dead if my life depended on knowing which state was Vermont and which state was Connecticut.