Offshore drilling is the right thing to do for the United States.

Lets just get right down to bussiness, 1. First off, oil is not an infinite source of energy, so leaving the current supplyers for oil off of our own (America's) coasts is not averting an energy crisis, its going to cause one. We are not making any strides froward toward renewable energy sources, so we're only prolonging the inevitable by at the least five years, and at the most nine. Least we forget that President Obama made no secret about the fact that this move WAS very political, as in to gain votes for a clean energy bill stalled out in Congress by winning more Republican votes. So yes, he does support renewable sources, but doesn't nessessarily support offshore drilling. 2. Allow me to provide you with a list of oil spills in this link (which includes "areas at risk of a spill") : . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Just copy and paste it, and remember the most recent oil spill was this month, April 3rd 2010 off the coast of Austrailia. So yes they do spill and yes it has happened as recently as a few days ago. 3. No, I am in no way, shape, or form saying that we need to drill. I just found it odd that this new oil plan was taking harsh criticism from, well, everyone even though it was in your oppinion the "right" thing to do. Its taking criticism for two reasons, a. Republicans claim it doesn't go far enough and the most promising areas in the northeast, the west coast, and Bristol Bay are "off limits". Does it make sense to you that all of the oil you mention is practically off limits from offshore drilling and that the areas that won't do much to help the econemy or create jobs? Not to mention that absolutely no drilling will take place for at least a few years until scientists have completed studies to find out if its safe or even how much oil is there. With those heavy limits, it's still no oil for years, and without them you would have oil in the palm of your hand. In other words, I understand that the idea is that anywhere off the shores of the US is a fine drilling place in terms of this debate, but that doesn't mean it makes political, economic, and scientific sense. And b. for reasons stated in c2, with oil spills, it is still a very risky bussiness. 4. Yes, we do have limited places to put the oil rigs, and they can be anywhere within a 125 mile distance. So those three miles become increasingly important with such limited space for oil companies. Also, any spill that occurs offshore can effect the shore, Sen. Frank Lautenberg expressed concerns ""Giving big oil more access to our nation's waters is really a kill, baby, kill policy — it threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars," said Lautenberg, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Offshore drilling isn't the solution to our energy problems, and I will fight this policy and continue to push for 21st century clean energy solutions," he said. Lautenberg noted that when the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil in Alaska in 1989, the oil spread 470 miles. The Virginia coast is less than 100 miles from New Jersey. And drilling off Delaware's northernmost shore could potentially put rigs within 12 miles off the coast of Cape May, environmentalists said. The beaches and beach towns of New Jersey generate about $50 billion in economic activity yearly and employ nearly 500,000, Lautenberg said. He noted that when medical waste washed up on a New Jersey beach in 1988, "a panic ensued" and the state lost a third of its annual tourism revenue. " Clearly, even 60 - 90 miles offshore is a problem 5. I know. 1) Why are we fighting the war in the first place? Terroism? Not in Afghanistan . No, that war is for control of FORGIN OIL. As a matter of fact, during the Cold War, America set up a dictatorship in the middle east to gain control over forgin oil instead of the Soviet Union. That is where the terroists hate toward America comes from, not to mention our love of Israel. 2)Oil still costs money, and even if we got it from off America's coasts it would still cost money. And by the by, we are not curbing our addiction to oil by switching suppliers, we're just remaining stagniant on the issue. 3)Sounds like we should stop playing the "world police" and leave everyone alone, or just move to more renewalbe energy sources in general and stop the addiction to oil from causing more trouble than it already has. 2 Again, someone has to pay for the oil being distributed. And also for the employee's paychecks. That someone will be the American citizen, especially with private oil companies in control of all of the oil America has, expect to see the prices go up not down. And we don't have much influence over the golobal market if anyone of our "allies" can turn on us. "These are my new points. My other points are in Round 1, so please look to them for reference. Two things I want to point out: 1. My opponent has failed to further his case or to even mention his points and only refuted mine. 2. This debate is not about Obama's plan. It's about offshore drilling in whole. What I put in the background is just to show what spiked this debate back up. " As for this 1. My points are part of my refutaions, they're counterpoints. Just work backwards when reading, common sense really. And 2. Obama's plan offers very good expert refutaions and criticism supporting my side of the argument. I'd like to think that was obvious but hey, you know. ;)