The only factual point you made was that drilling in ANWR will not by itself completely solve our oil problems. This is true.

Therefore, by your "logic" there's no point in using any of these resources at all. This is nuts.

It also ignores all the other oil resources being shut off by environmentalists and their allies including the continental shelf, oil shale, and if you really want to get into it, coal gasification. I can spend time digging up the total numbers for this if you want, as if it would make a difference to you.

Then on top of this, we are told, by the SAME PEOPLE, that we should be instead counting on energy sources that, even in the most optimistic scenarios, won't be making a major new dent in our needs for many years.

Try logic on that one.

Of course, the unspoken false assumption through all of this is that the issue "either-or." That if we open up oil and shale resources to reduce our import needs and increase supplies, that somehow we can't at the same time be doing important research on alternatives, or building nuclear and solar plants.

I submitted that the REAL problem is an energy policy that won't let us use American energy. (Weirdly, you keep throwing nuclear in there over and over again as though that's a big part of liberal energy solutions instead of one more source they're suppressing.)

We are, right now, in the "ten years later" of Clinton's veto of ANWR. Where do you want to be getting our oil ten years from now? And yes, we will still be needing it.

Ironically all I was trying to do in the first place was use numbers to help Hans show how small Pakistan's oil resources were.

(Incidentally, your numbers on ANWR were wrong.)