*DAMN R6 Forum

Before September 11th, President Bush and many others were pushing for Drilling for Oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, once 9/11 came along, I guess it gave them somthing else to think about. Anyway, what do you think about the ANWR Drilling measure in the first place? Do you think it's as lame as I do...?

Typhy aT first i thought it was realy stupid to drill there but then my dad told me what it's like and oil comes out of the ground it self and there are very little towns in that area so no one would go out and see them every day probly. and it will Create A lot of jobs for Alaskan and others to.

Casper, Refer to the name: "Alaska ( Refers to the state or Alaska ), National ( Refers to that it's part of the Nation of America ), Wildlife ( refers to what lives there ) Refuge ( Refers to the fact that it's a place where wildlife can be safe from humans ).  Screw towns - Don't you think of the Animals? It's one of the few places left in the world where it's just for animals, not humans. They try and show how clean etc. it is, BS. Perhaps clean. however, when a bunch of oil stuff comes in and inhabbits the place, animals 'aint commin' back for a a while, It would screw up the whole ecosystem.

yeah i know what it means But HOW FUCKING HUGE IS IT?

Typhy Its so Big it wont Impact the animals there that much.

Yeah it is wrong to push in on that but it wont start an Ecolicgal melt down of the whole ANWR it's Just a small part.

But yeah it is wrong to push them to an evensmaller area.

I'd say drill the area up...the proposed drilling zone is about the size of a square mile and it would decrease our dependence on oil from the middle east and terrorist backing states like Iraq and Libya. You fucking environmentalists are all against it, but really, how much damage would drilling one measly square mile of a giant wildlife refuge do?

it's a fricking refuge
REFUGE

that meanst that the bill should have been laughtd out of congress before it even landed in the in box

Well, if you care that much about animals, I hope that you are satisfied that the money you pay at the pump is going to saddam, osama, and ghadaffi. Every time you hear of a suicide bomber in israel, some of your money is going to fund him. Every time you hear of any act of terror, you can bet that your money is helping to fund it.

I am glad that you value animals that much.

if they could provide me with a 99.9% guarentee that thewer would be no oil spillage, then i'd be fine with it

Typical comments of someone who doesn't life in Alaska, and hasn't seen ANWR, Parts of ANWR are just like Danali ( however you spell that ), Just land and animals, Drilling, all of that sound, all of the equiptment, would cause major damage to the ecosystem. When animals are used to having land just to themselves, and then people come, it really screws things up, Take for example: Here in Juneau, righ near us is an island called Admrialty Island, When it was first used for logging, a study was done to see what results it had on animals, Clearing a section of it less than 15 acres, estimated killed over 850 animals, Personaly, I say if we dig that up just to not give our money to terrorists, then we're backing down to them. The idea is not to just avoid them, the idea is to deal with them. Spoken like a true Republican Sin.

I'm inclined to think that there actually isn't too much wildlife living in the proposed drilling area.. caribou, mosquitos... assorted and sundry animals. However it is nonetheless a refuge. On the other hand drilling in ANWR would provide a tremendous amount of oil (more than you think) and the US would be not so dependent on foreign oil sources as well as prices dropping and more jobs availible. I really don't know what to think...  I believe we are killing this beautiful place we've been given but also that we might need that oil to secure our future.  It's a shame to lay waste to one of the last places left untouched... but what can I say, we're only human.

Oil Spillage 'aint the problem, the problem is all of the disruption that it would cause for the animals there.

YOU ARE SO RIGHT TYPHY

Some of this makes you guys sound like: "Alaska's just a big mass of land up there that we own, who cares about it, just strip it's recources out and leave it. It actually wouldn't get that much oil.

Terribly wrong. There isn't just a little oil down there, there is ALOT... like more than even a year. Look it up, do the math.

ANNNNND as another plus the US can export the oil and sell it too!! But thats not likely. Just a thought.  And whadya know Typhy, all this time i thought Alaska was one big chunk of ice. Just kidding  ;)

Actually, there so far is no way to figure how much oil is down there without bringing in machines, which hasn't happened yet. People just think that there will be, I say that just the Title of it should say it all: Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

Typhy they have had a small one there Before i belive and even if not it normaly does not come  out of the ground by it selfwhen there is olny a little bit and im tlaking with anything.

it really won't hard the environment  much. even if i did kill a bear or two, who will it effect? no one lives anywere near there. Its not the bigest deal to drill there, because it won't harm the environment as drasticaly as its claimed to. Alot of the hype is because people are uninformed on the matter. Gaining some independence from the middle east should be a huge factor right now. Considering that bush is talking about replacing saddam hussein, we need to be independent oil wise.

Jeb if there were not  Many animals up there then no one would care But there are....  and what if there was an oil spill that would kill a lot of animals.

casper, there really isnt. I bet that you have not even visited the refuge and you fucking live in Alaska. I have visited the place and I live in California. There are almost no animals in the place...it is just so damn large that you, being ignorant, assume there is a lot. One square mile of drilling wont affect the environment drastically considering the enormous size of the place.

As for Typhy's arguement of noise...if noise affected them as greatly as you claim, why don't they ban cars or bushplane flights over the refuge since your precious animals are getting harmed?

Like I said earlier, if you would rather pay the terrorists instead, keep fighting for your precious animals. But next time a terrorist attack happens, I hope you have a guilty conscience.

PsYco, it is going to take more then 1 Square mile of land,

And what time of year did you come at?

First off twit, it is either assassin or sin.

Second, I visited twice, during June and December of 2000.

Third, I bet you being as ignorant as you are, havent even looked over the plan or heard about it in enough detail to get an educated opinion of it. It will take up approximately one square mile of area to drill.

The supidity of some of these comments is really sad, it was declared as a Wildlife Refuge, Not an Oil Drilling Refuge. Basically, you can really damage the ecosystem there for a little oil, or you can actually think to the future, and realize that the supply of oil is going to run out, and work on other sources of power. The aditude of "This will get us some oil for a year", thats really bad. Think to the future, Overall, Oil for a year isn't that much, what you've really gotta think about is the fact that you've gotta get another sources, Not just strip the last out of this one by destroying really nice land.

Even though I am not american I feel inclined to get in your buissness. I would like to first point out that 40% of our oil is ours. The largest expoter of oil to the US is Venuzuela Iraq and Saudi Arabia contribute very little, but they do contribute to Europe who are important trading partners Also the taxes you pay go to fund production of military arms used by the Isreali's to shoot palestinians. As for ANWR, hell if I care, I am a dirty russkie. As long as none of your pollutants go across the Bering Sea I am quite comftorble. But If I was a full American I would be against it. If you drill in ANWR where will it stop. Will they drill in Yosemite next?

So basically the choices are:

1.) Give a little money to terrorists, and the middle eastern countries, and not dig into a Wildlife Refuge and kill lots of animals.

2.) Kill hundreds of animals, 'cause a big mess in ANWR and cross the line of what it's okay to dig into, if ANWR's not safe from oil drilling, then what is? And the only diffrence is our money will be going to big corperations, and also to the Isralies to buy weapons to overall make the situation worse by killing 100 inocent palistinians for every Terrorist that they kill.

excuse my blatant ignorance here, but what the fuck ever happened to texas?

It was ruled unsafe for digging because of the stupidity of the people who live there. ;) ;) ;)

400 and welcome to it: Sorry if anyone took offence to my last post.

spam post!!!!
delete it!!!! ;) ;)

Okay let's stear this back to ANWR, it's a good topic, and let's not have it locked, no more spamming here please. Sin, I am still waiting for your response.

I'm chiming in a little late here but as a Geography and Environmental Science major and an Energy Science minor trust me on this.  ANWR was only going to provide a 6 month supply of oil AT BEST.  That means they'd screw up the environment at least a little for what would be a very small supply of oil.  It just isn't worth it so no, they shouldn't pursue it.  The way to cut down on our dependance of middle eastern oil isn't to find our own, it is to cut our need for oil by using ethanol and biodisel heavy fuels that are much cleaner and that we have plentiful access to.  We currently pay farmers not to grow crops or to destroy them when we could use all that production to create fuel for our cars.  And I'll tell you one thing, the farmers would be much better off as well.

Very good points. I agree that even if it just screws up the enviornment a little, it's still not worth it. We should be pursuing other forms of fuel.

while i agree that that is what we should be doing, it will never happen becouse of the big oil lobbys that will prevent any real reform untill it is too late

This is why we have a revolution in the people's name!!!(http://www.stanford.edu/~wbeecher/images/bob_dobbs_hammer_sickle_small.gif)

*sigh*, yes Cossak.

Typhy, think about what you just said. You are in favor of contributing money to terrorists who have attacked and killed INNOCENT AMERICAN CIVILIAN HUMANS because you do not want to hurt LITTLE TINY ANIMALS THAT ARE LOWER ON US ON THE FOOD CHAIN. Are you a vegetarian? Because if you are not, you are a goddamn hypocrite. We eat animals because we enjoy the taste, but you are against killing them for something that's got a more definitive impact than just our simple enjoyment. While we are on the subject of hypocrisy, I sure hope you don't drive a car yet argue against this.

BTW, how the fuck would having AMERICAN corporations in AMERICAN lands drilling for oil that would be used by AMERICANS in any way give money to Israel? That's about as ridiculous as saying Israel kills 100 Palestinian civilians for every 1 terrorist. While Israel has made a couple mistakes, they are only mistakes. They are trying to nail just the terrorists. The Palestinians on the other hand suicide bomb Israel civilians almost daily it seems.

First off, Yes, I am a vegetarian. Also, I think that not giving money to terrorists in no excuse to dig into one of the last places in the U.S where animals controle it, not people.

Well, I'm not a vegitarian and have no moral complaints against eating animals (they do it to each other so why not us), but I still think it is wrong to drill in Alaska...then again, I'm not for "giving money to the terrorists" either.  Like I said, there is a third option that doesn't kill animal or give money to terrorists, it is called renewable energy sources.  Any carbon product (meaning plants) can be made into fuel and put into cars in enough quantities that we could cut out Middle Eastern oil within a year.

i love how ace competly ignored bondo's perfectly viable answer to the problem. after all we have more than enough corn grown in this country to create a decent fuel supply. and have we all forgotten about the huge national oil reserve that the government has? if the bad guys decided to cut our oil supply, it wouldnt be instant death for the nation and there would more than likely be enough time to convert to more ethanol based fuels. would it hurt? more than likely. but it's not like the nation would grind to a halt

p.s. i'm sorry if this post is rambling and off topic a bit, but it's late and i'm tires so just dealwithit

First, Typhy, not giving money to terrorists is a damn fine excuse to do a lot of stuff, especially cutting down some damn trees. Why don't you go tell someone who lost a loved one in 9/11 that you would give your money to terrorism to keep your precious trees.

Second, Brain and Bondo, the problem with that is that switching from oil to another fuel source is not efficient enough as of yet. To my knowledge, there are no combustion engines capable of using such fuels while still retaining the power they would need for our automobiles. If this is the case sometime in the near future where it is a viable option, I guess it would be a good idea. I just better buy myself a big gas guzzling American V8 (Mustang or Vette preferably) before they are no more.

No, cars can't run well on pure ethanol, but what I'm suggesting is that we go to a 50/50 mix of gas/ethanol rather than the 95/5 or so that it is now.  Cars could more than capably handle this.  Secondly we need to more actively get hybrids out which are about twice as efficient as a normal car.  Together these two things could quickly cut down our usage to a third (would be a quarter but the hybrids wouldn't be immediate like the ethanol would be).  That type of cut would be more than enough to not need oil from hostile nations.

Ace, I lost my uncle, I used to stay with him at times when we went to Florida to see my Gradparents, everyone else would stay with my Gradparents, I would stay with him, we would watch sports, talk about sports, do a ton of stuff, one of the greatest people that I've ever known.

typhy,
ok, if 4 snow foxes die so 20 million people can drive to work and help the economy, i say fuck the animals. If a pig is gonna have to be burnt in lab research tests to help burn victums, i'd light the torch. i live in seattle, and i'm sickened by how much people care.

A local story is of a killer whale that was spoted swimming without a pod in puget sound. many local people were upset and tried to get the whale moved to alaska were its native pod resides. This little concern quickly escalated into a news worthy story. I haven't seen a episode of the local news in the past 3 weeks without at least 3minutes of coverage devoted to this whale. Yesterday they spent alot of time and money to capture and ship this 1 whale to alaska. And for what? I'd guess that the cost to move a whale in a cadermaran, make it a enclosed pen, and mark and track the whale would be astronomical. This so that one whale, that should have died via Survival of the fittest can weaken the gene pool of its pod.

The point of the rant is that when a small, meanless thing, like drilling oil in a small contained area in alaska gets media atention. Sudenly, people who have nothing else to do get upset, and protest. Most of the protesters are ignorant to the specs of the project, and what it could mean in our dependance on saudi arabia for oil. With times being tough in the middle east, we will need this oil. Typhy be realistic, every once and a while we have to kill animals. Today i had a sandwich with... turkey and ham. that means that 2 animals died to make me a sandwich, big fucking deal i needed the lunch, just like america needs do gain some dependance in the oil world.

I have a deep hatred for organizations such as, greenpeace, peta, and other organizations for fat single women and guys who wear birkenstocks. Much of the work these people do does nothing.  But then again i hate to see people pray cause its a waste of time.

this isn't to say i hate nature and litter. I recycle everyday, i pick up litter, and i'm for many environmental reforms. However when you look at drilling for oil in alaska, its not a matter of Bush wanting to drill for it, its a matter of america needing oil from alaska.
jeb
ps. why don't we see more desel cars on the market, they get better milage than gas cars, and replicate the power. As seen in many Large trucks.  ;D

Ah yes Jeb, we have something in common. Personally, I like the video I saw of a Russian cruiser shelling and destroying 5 greenpuke craft for trying to interfere with a drilling platform being built.

Hmm, I've said that we can not drill but still not get oil from the middle east twice but no one seems to hear me ;).  I don't support fanaticism or eco-terrorism because that just puts environmentalists a step back as the public continues its idea that we are crazy.  For every person who chains themselves to trees to prevent it from being cut down there are 100 that don't but wish the tree wouldn't get cut down and try to use political means to accomplish this goal.

sin, going back to your post before last.
no these methods are not efficient as of yet, BUT if we start them into production now, the repeated usage will help increase efficency many times faster than if we just hold them in the lab until they are efficient enough

What? I said nothing about efficiency Brain...my post before last was a semi-slam of casper:

Hate to double post...but Bondo is correct on the natural fuels thing. Diesel engines were unveiled at the World's Fair about a century ago with the intent of the creator that they be operated by natural fuels (crop based). That being said, you can buy this type of fuel now for diesel engines, but it isnt as efficient and it costs ruffly $5.00 a gallon. (special thanks goes to my neighbor, who is a biologist, for this info.)

Well, yes, the price is a bit higher, but if they dropped the tax on gasoline it would be back down to a reasonable level that wouldn't hurt the economy.  Although my friend tells me the goverment will never put an end to a tax, I think it could happen if it got us away from Middle Eastern oil.

DOH!!!
sorry sin, i ment to say ace

boy do i feel like an idiot

Much like Bondo, I appear to be a little late.  But regardless, let me try to add a little bit of the famed jn logic/lunacy to the mix.

I have no idea where this terrorist shit has come from.  OPEC does not support terrorists.   The contributers to the bueracratic disaster/monstrosity that is OPEC do not support terrorists.  The European countries who get oil from OPEC don't support terrorists.  The U.S., who gets their middle east oil from OPEC, sure as hell doesn't support terrorists.  The U.S. and, more importantly, the U.N. have sanctions against those countries who do support terrorists, whether or not they have oil.  I hope my repatition has validated my point.

On a sidebar, Typh, there are 2 rules on the forum.  1) Don't be stupid 2) Don't be evil.

You broke rule 1, and you stretched rule 2 with some of your remarkes.  

Ace, as the resident ass and head of the "fucking internet republicans" fiercely enforces these rules on his personal moral grounds.  And rather eloquently I might add.  Much like the forum, there are 2 rules concerning him 1) Don't cross him 2) If you do cross him, make sure you do it with wit, intelligence, eloquence, and evidence.

You didn't follow either, so he will, (and has) in the purely figurative net-based realm, ripped you apart.  

Work on that.  Don't do it again. (sorry, long sidebar, back to substance)


A)  We have no idea how much oil is down there.  Enviromentalists and Liberals say not nearly as much as we think, Conservatives and Unionists estimate much more.  All these groups publish different numbers, according to the evidence they've gathered, and, sadly, the interest group they support.  No doubt they are all wrong in their etimtes, and that it is somewhere in between.

Finding how much oil there is, exactly, is a rather easy, and extremly non-invasive procedure.  In one year we can have precisly the correct number of gallons in ANWR (or liters for those across the pond).  Before we do anything so stupid as drilling or anything as shortsighted as banning drilling, we need to have all the facts.

2)But what of the facts?  To me they are inconsiquential.  No matter how small the drilling area is with horizontal drilling techniques--be it 10 miles, 1 mile, or 10 feet--enviromentalists all agree that  it would be disruptive to migratory patterns of birds and caribou, and dangerous to endangered species and threatened species.  I'm inclined to trust the enviromentalists on this matter over their political opposites simply because they are paid to study the enviroment.  That and they support the clean water and air acts, which have done immesureable good for the enviroment and which republicans are in the process of dismantaling.

3)It costs to drill.  No matter how much oil there is in ANWR, the source will run out.  Recent reports say we have 20 years left of oil, 40 of coal, and 100 of natural gas.  We are running out, and will continue to run out.  That money would be much better spent on more effective and efficient alternative sources of energy glossed over by Bondo and others.

4)Drilling is short-sighted and dangerous.  Better options exist.  Hopefully wiser men will prevail.  But they won't, because U.S. society loves instant gratification, and there are few options more instant or more gratifying to the U.S. public than drilling in ANWR

    GM recently began a billion-dollar R&D effort towards making production fuel cell vehicles. That'll take a few years, but it's a very promising sign that a large company is looking a little further ahead.

    As for alternative fuels, don't forget cannabis oil. Heh.

I derive the terrorist reference from Bin Laden. I know his father is a Saudi multi-millionaire/billionaire, and I believe that it is from oil. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one.




Don't worry, I'm not just like this on the net. My friends refer to me as the "Republican bastard," which probably comes as no surprise to you. I don't enforce those rules per se. I merely suggest them through excessive flaming when someone breaks them. :P




Dare I say I somewhat agree with roy on a political issue? Everyone put your money on the Cubbies winning the World Series in that case. All joking aside, Roy provides some very reasonable solutions/advice regarding the situation.

1) I'll take your word that we can determine relatively accurately how much oil there is in ANWR, in which case we should have people up there right now checking it out.

2) I also agree that this will affect more than just the immediate area that is being drilled at. However, I think that is inconsequential. Last time I checked, we are higher up on the food chain than anyone. Our first and foremost concern should be ourselves, not some little furry animal. If you want to argue that having the reserve for human enjoyment is worthwhile, you would have at least a chance in my mind of making sense of it.

3 & 4) As with all oil fields, ANWR has a finite supply. Like I said before, alternative energy sources are not capable of fully replacing oil yet. This leaves two course of action as I see it. First, we must work on finding renewable energy sources to eventually replace oil. Second, we must create an advantageous oil solution in the present that doesn't totally fuck us over in the future. I think losing a few woods than anyone hardly ever goes to is the end of the world despite what some environmentalists may argue.

Oil and a large construction business.

I made my terrorist referrence because of the likes of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Omar Ghaddafi of Libya, who as you should know, are part of OPEC. These two have recently (within the past decade for ghadaffi, presently with saddam) actively supported terrorism and could care less what happens as long as their agendas are fufilled.



While this may be the case, no one is currently looking into the actual size of the oil field due to the enviro-commies arguing against it. Write your local congressperson folks.

Sin, I would like to point out first that I too liked that video of the Peter the Great shelling those greenpeace fucks. How dare they go and fuck with our operations. Secondly, we do not heavly rely on oil from the mideast. ANWR will only put a drop in the bucket. Not to mention the slightest change in ecological system will effect a larger area. Also who is so certain that leaching will occur. Then again. Terrorists are bad, so is the Isreali Defence Force. A combination of more fuel efficent engines, bondo's idea, and reliance on other nations. Such as Mexico, Pakistan, India, the Central Asian republics (remeber all the "stans"). Not to mention there are huge oil reserves in Siberia. Our cooperations would not be able to drill there (thanks to a brilliant law passed by the Duma and Putin) but they would be able to buy oil from them. Remember the biggest contributer to our oil is VENUZUELA! People need to agknowledge that. Most of the oil those unstable middle eastern states provide is going to Europe. However Europe is switching over to the Russian option gradually and the British and Norwegians are making more oil platforms in the North Sea. Reliance on the middle east for petrol is gardually dwindling. Also on a totally different note. Do any of you know what is happening in the Spratly Islands in the Yellow Sea? If oil is found there Jiang Zemmin vowes to send the Chinese Fleet to "secure all the islands" this includes islands right off the philippenes. I am not sayin the United States will be destroyed, but China getting expansionist and waving their nuclear sabres at everyone including the US eighth fleet is not a good thing. What I am tring to say is that so much rests on this one resource. China for all its vastness has no real oil reserves and they want oil. Oil has a strnglehold on our economy. May I propose Fission powered cars?

Cossack Out (just pokin fun of rebel)

Ok, sorry but that doesn't really make sense.  The fact that we are the top of the food chain doesn't mean we can ruin the environment to aid ourselves because if we ruin the environment enough we cut out the bottom of the food chain and die.  And besides, unlike many animals, humans are overpopulated so we shouldn't further depopulate animals in order to continue to overpopulate our species.

Ace: Just because humans are at the top of the food chain, doesn't mean that we should just go kill off everything lower than us. It's a fact that the overall damages caused to ANWR from digging for oil would be greater in terms of time than the oil gained from there, I think that we should start working away at the supply of oil that we've got, and kick in all of our money that would be spend digging for oil, to try and find an alternative source of energy. Any company that finds a good afordable alternative to oil etc, will get a lot of money. That should be an encoragement for all of the companies to try and find one, however, I guess that they would rather just think of now, not into the present, and dig for oil instead of try and find another source.

If this makes no sence, Just ignore it, I am very tired.

Jeb, I go by the idea, give 1 life to save 2, I will always go by that, if there was ever a time in my life where I had to give my life to save 2 other peoples, I would do it. For me, the same is true for smart animals, Bear, Eagles, etc. While I don't feel like you should give up your life to save 2 of these, I do feel though, that it isn't right to kill these animals unless it's %100 nesscessary, If you've gotta kill a few animals to dig for oil, I say "No way". If a pig has to die to find a cure to a life threatning sickness that effects more than 1 person, then so be it as long as it doesn't inflict the animal in any pain, or as long as it's not cruel to the animal.

-Typhy

Thats understandable typhy,
i wasn't sure if you were one of those fanatical persons.
But still, even if a bear doesn't die from drilling, millions of cows die to make cheeseburgers. Were is the sense in saving 1 life when there are animals being slaughtered?

I'd hate to see the day when all cars are fuel cell cars, or hybrid cars. Mb i just like driving, but the honda hybrid is rediculously slow. That might be a good car for a girl to drive to the mall in, but not for me.

Oh I almost forgot to say. Our oil supply is more than 20 years. It is around 70 years in all truth! I dont want to sound nationalistic, but there are oil feilds in Russia that are the size of Canada. Of coarse alot of it is in the frozen tundra. And for many Of my claims here are a few links for you to read up on.http://www.howstuffworks.com/gas-price3.htmhttp://english.pravda.ru/usa/2002/04/17/27736.html I would also like to back down from my venuzuela claim. I seemed to have missread a past article. Infact our biggest oil contributer are the fuckers in Saudi Arabia. The relationship between Saudi Arabia and US is the same relationship between junkie and dealer. Credits to John Stewert for that analogy.

Jeb, I'm sure that if my 4 cylinder Subaru Wagon can have great acceleration and go over 100 mph (mind you I use all the rpms that it doesn't mark with red) then I'm sure they can make a alternative fuel car that can do just as well.  Sure, we may not get 0-60 in 5 seconds but you'll get a car that can go 100 and can accelerate pretty well.  It just takes a little while for the technology to be perfected.

Well, I don't support Cattle being slaughtered. Personaly, I really don't think the taste of a few Burgers can be worth a life.

The only meat I eat for the most part is poultry, while I do eat hamburger if the family happens to be, I don't actively seek it.  I do like chicken and turkey though.  Have a bit of ham on sandwiches occasionally as well.

Thoughts on Ace's food chain  -- The Fundemental rule of the food chain, when the bottom layer dies, or is poisened, the effects are seen, and often magnified  farther up the food chain.  Bad omen for us if you ask me.

Thoughts on Typhy's vegatarianism  --  Man has two types of teeth, and certain stomach acids, indicating consumtion of both flora and fauna.  Here the food chain applies.  If a vegatarian doesn't want meat, that is their perogative,  so long as they arn't vegans, who try to convert people to their ways.  (Ever notice vegans act like aneorexics, "You'd never guess what I ate today!?!")

So typhy, have fun with your veggies, I don't begrudge you it.  But let me tell you, few things in the world beat a good veal parmagiana

I've eaten meat before in my life, It's true, one of my favorite foods used to be Turkey. However, through time, I've just found it unnatural to eat animals.