Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?
ADULT: OFF HOME DIRECTORY SEARCH RANDOM POLL MAKE A POLL

User: Tralhob

Messages

Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in Churchill,Roosevelt,Stalin on 2008-09-08 20:23:41

I choose Churchill for his prescience. The man saw how dangerous the Nazis were long before it was obvious to everyone else. If Churchill had been PM in '38, maybe WW2 would have never happened.

For the same reason, I count Roosevelt's reluctance to jump into the fray as a strike against him. He shouldn't have waited until Pearl Harbor in '41. America should have attacked Germany in '39. Or even better, a joint Allied offensive in '38. No Munich Betrayal, just WAR. Nip the Nazis in the bud. Imagine how many lives could have been saved. Easy to say all this in hindsight, of course, which is exactly my point about Churchill - he had foresight.

Of course in that scenario, Russia would probably fight with Germany. Remember, Stalin was in bed with Hitler until 1941! I assume Stalin was only included because he was an Allied leader.

Posted in Obama's Presidential Chances on 2008-09-08 17:52:51

Spanky:

"Drilling for more oil will bring more fuel to us, so that we don't have to depend on foreign reserves."

This is an absolute pipe dream, no pun intended.

Alaska's reserves are nothing special. They are certainly nothing compared to what the Middle East has got, especially Saudi Arabia. Drilling in Alaska would, at best, only slightly delay the inevitable.

Depending on oil pretty much means depending on foreign oil. The only way to not depend on foreign oil, is to not depend on oil.

I am not completely, ideologically opposed to drilling in Alaska (though I am reluctant), but it would be at best a stopgap measure. Anyone who thinks drilling in Alaska is the answer to our energy problems has their heads in the clouds.

Check it out:

http://www.treehugger.com/2007-12-21_153859-map.jpg

This map changes the size of all the countries in the world to represent their oil reserves. Note the relatively dinky size of the US. Then consider that US consumption accounts for ~25% of the world's total. You're telling me that Alaska is going to keep that kind of lifestyle afloat? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Posted in Are Alaska and Hawaii real states? on 2008-09-08 17:40:02

Sorry I called your poll idiotic, then.

I think you are correct, at least as far as Hawai'i goes. I used to get the most ignorant questions imaginable from "mainlanders" (as they are called there). Do you use American money? Can you vote? Do people speak English? Is Hawai'i closer to the east coast or the west coast? Do gorillas live there?

My wife is Australian so I've also gotten some amusing questions about Australia. Is it a democracy or a dictatorship? Do lions live there? Etc..

Some people do a really good job of insulating themselves from the rest of the world.

That's not an answer.