Originally posted by wheresthetruth
First of all, if I understand you correctly, you are calling out the people who blame the government for holding back oil skimmers, and in the same
breath mention that oil skimmers only cleaned up 3% of the spill.
If that is a correct analysis of your statement, then I have to say you are a walking contridiciton of self.
Would it not make sense that allowing more skimmers and less use of the submergent/dispersant Corexit mean a greater percentage cleaned by said
skimmers? Had the government not red taped the Taiwanese super skimmer and had BP used less Corexit, then it would have been on the surface to skim
and clean and that percentage would have been vastly increased. If BP had let the Gulf fisher boats work for more than an hour a day, they alone
would have done more than 3%.
So, I am either missing your point entirely, or I have posed a logical, albeit opinionated, counterpoint.
I suppose I should add that I am one of those that claimed the government was intentionally holding back both foreign and domestic oil skimmers
(opinion as to why not necessarily relevant).
Yees. You have missed my point entirely, i believe. Thats okay.
My point was that there was much ado about minor delays to skimmers being part of a concerted effort to stymie clean up efforts. This was bandied
about as an example of how Obama hates america, etc. (If you really want, i could google the articles for you, but if youve been here, you must surely
The point is not that skimmers would help if dispersants werent used. That is a separate issue. I am not speaking on corexittt at all. The point is
that these skimmers never were a useful option. the corexitt has been applied from the very beginning. Thus, skimmers were never useful.
The REAL point, though, is that I am bringing this up to point out how those who wish to distract us from whats actually happening always exploit
partisan tactics. So, at the moment you have the Right Wing Noise Machine posing questions carefully framed to blame only the "left". This is a
distraction. Just as during the past administration
people were able to inject partisan discourse through criticism of only the right.
So, at that moment, you had Fox news (and the like) disseminating these highly partisan 'articles' that have very vague implications meant to take
minor beuracratic delays and turn them into an intentional, concerted effort to 'make sure America's gulf is ruined forever', etc. And in this
case, as is now is being reported, the skimmers were useless. So any minor delay, or even major or permanent delay would have made essentially no
difference. The oil wasnt on the surface to be skimmed.
And then people here, who leap on any sort of accusation like that without actually thinking about a few things like, the bias of the source and the
context in which the information would be be read, swallow it whole and immediately call it 'fact'. Now, the event may be fact, but not the
interpretation of intent which is packaged as 'fact' and not the opinion it is.
Now, both of these approaches only serve to narrow people's focus to small symptoms of the problem, but not the larger overlying issues. For this
specific issue, who is staffed on the MMS, and who has set their policies for at least a decade
is a far more real political question. OR why
they allowed BP to continue drilling on a well they admitted to having problems with as early as march of this year.
The constant "obama's a communist' tripe that gets bandied about even in this subsection is a distraction. Nonsensical criticism of someone or
some thing only serves to dilute the legitimate criticism out here.
Did i succeed iin conveying my point, sir?
Or are you one convinced i work for BP and the Devil and the NWO?
[edit on 5-8-2010 by justadood]