The Duchess of Zeon wrote:In this case, I'm talking about imposing democracy, under the specific conditions of doing so in nations where it is possible, where the groundwork of secularism has been laid, and doing so in a fashion that gives it the lead time to work before we let it run on its own.
You actually believe your own bullshit? You truly think that is what our object is? Impose democracy? (oxymoron) Hate to have to remind you of this little inconvenient fact, but 60% of the Iraqi population would elect a Sh'ite government if they had the chance to do so.
Democracy is a nice long-term goal, but unlike most Democracy advocators, it's not the end-all of problems. Before starting with all the superficial stuff like the freedom to choose our own brand of VCR there are important things to solve, the economy and infrastructure of the country for one. Democracy is pretty weak for those purposes.
The government that doesn't suit us, I should note, doesn't suit its own people, either.
That may be the case, but they may well prefer the devil they know to foreign occupation.
MKSheppard wrote:
Jesus, CSS clone shows his stupidity again. Wind farms are worthless,
take up enormous amounts of land in return for negligable MW ratings..
Of course it would not be the wisest use of arable land.But they are economically viable.
Yep, and places like the States with the vast open planes could put up a lot of them. It's the right way to go, Unlike B.C., which is looking into building coal power plants.
Beautiful British Columbia, Welcome to the 16th century.
And what happens when your beloved wind farms stop working because
there's no wind?
Down here in MD, we don't have a problem with coal plants belching out clean reliable power....or our Calvert Cliffs Nuke Plant...
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:General Augusto Pinochet was a true Chilean patriot and hero of the Cold War, a defender of his people against the evils of Marxism and the cruel designs of Salvadore Allende. The scales of fate were weighed to judge him: When he stepped down voluntarily from his post they adjudged him a just man. He acted when his country needed him, repaired the damage, and set things right.
Hahahaha. Ha. Ha ha.
"The Evils of Marxism". How appropriate. That's sounds almost exactly like CIA propaganda.
Kissinger set the CIA against Allende, not to preserve democracy or to counter a Soviet puppet in Latin America, but to prevent a charismatic socialist from providing a democratic alternative to American policy.
Don't insult what he did to me.
What, were you dating him or something??
We need those kinds of people - Against the potential tyranny of elected officials gone bad. Remember that military officers swear their oath to the Constitution, to defend it, not to the President. If he breaks the Constitution, their oath requires them to remove him from power if that's what it takes to defend the Constitution.
The Chilean Constitution is modeled on the American Constitution.
Obviously, since Pinochet was a puppet to the U.S.
MKSheppard wrote:And what happens when your beloved wind farms stop working because there's no wind?
Oh yeah, like the wind will ever stop blowing. Sure, they may wax and wane, but stop? That's not going to happen. Wind power is very reliable, so is solar.
They're like oil wells, you don't just put them anyone, you test to see if it's a viable place to put them.
Down here in MD, we don't have a problem with coal plants belching out clean reliable power....or our Calvert Cliffs Nuke Plant...
Coal. Clean? Huh? How can you call coal clean? That has to be sarcasm.
Coal plants are FAR from clean running. They belch out more pollutants than oil burning plants! As far a nuclear goes, far too often those plants are not kept to a proper level of maintenance, and containment of the waste materials is still not being handled properly.
Cthulhu-chan wrote:Coal plants are FAR from clean running. They belch out more pollutants than oil burning plants! As far a nuclear goes, far too often those plants are not kept to a proper level of maintenance, and containment of the waste materials is still not being handled properly.
I say we launch nuclear waste into the Sun. ... Or Florida.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Coal. Clean? Huh? How can you call coal clean? That has to be sarcasm.
Modern coal plants with pollution controls are very clean, and reliable
generators of power, as opposed to hippe fantasies like Solar and Wind..
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
You'd be expending a huge amount of energy to get rid of a few hundred tons of waste. I'd agree with you on Florida if it weren't for the fact that it's a peninsula, and a relatively narrow one at that.
Cthulhu-chan wrote:You'd be expending a huge amount of energy to get rid of a few hundred tons of waste. I'd agree with you on Florida if it weren't for the fact that it's a peninsula, and a relatively narrow one at that.
It's called a joke. Would it help if it was less mature.
He he he. Penisula, that sound almost exactly like penis. Now sing a song about a goblin.
But seriously folks, nuclear's not bad. The chance of another Three Mile Island is slim, and the envornmental damage done by the same amount of coal power plants over their lifetime is probably less than the average done by nukes, include Thre Mile, Chernobal (SP?), etc.
Nuclear isn't great, but it does have the benifit of keeping ecological damage localized. It's also easier to minimize the damage, to a point (long term containment of waste).
There are plenty of renewable energy sources available that don't rely on fickle circumstances like wind and solar. The only reason they aren't viable at the moment is because the infrastructure isn't there.
Cthulhu-chan wrote:Nuclear isn't great, but it does have the benifit of keeping ecological damage localized. It's also easier to minimize the damage, to a point (long term containment of waste).
There are plenty of renewable energy sources available that don't rely on fickle circumstances like wind and solar. The only reason they aren't viable at the moment is because the infrastructure isn't there.
Geothermal is stable, just not as wide spread as wind or solar. What about tidal?
I would just like to point out that there are too many alternatives not to go for it.
MKSheppard wrote:And what happens when your beloved wind farms stop working because
there's no wind?
Netherlands used windmills to pump the water out their country.Evidently you do it only where winds are relatively regular.Conventional powerplants can compensate for the occasional power gaps.
Intensify the forward batteries. I don't want anything to get through
MKSheppard wrote:
Modern coal plants with pollution controls are very clean, and reliable
generators of power, as opposed to hippe fantasies like Solar and Wind..
Carbon dioxide emissions are still four times higher than methane,no matter how advanced the plant is.Wind is no more an hippie fantasy.
Power installed is increasing esponentially.In effects some greens are starting to complain of the environmental damage of windmills.Which should confirm to you that it is becoming a viable technology.
Intensify the forward batteries. I don't want anything to get through
Cthulhu-chan wrote:Nuclear isn't great, but it does have the benifit of keeping ecological damage localized. It's also easier to minimize the damage, to a point (long term containment of waste).
There are plenty of renewable energy sources available that don't rely on fickle circumstances like wind and solar. The only reason they aren't viable at the moment is because the infrastructure isn't there.
Geothermal is stable, just not as wide spread as wind or solar. What about tidal?
I would just like to point out that there are too many alternatives not to go for it.
I don't think the environmentailist wackos would like tidal power, they don't want a big power generator near their million-dollar beachside mansion.
Compared with fossil fuels, nuclear is safer and cleaner, and the only problem is disposing of the waste. We can safely transport waste to dosposal sites, but there aren't enough.
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
I don't think the environmentailist wackos would like tidal power, they don't want a big power generator near their million-dollar beachside mansion.
Compared with fossil fuels, nuclear is safer and cleaner, and the only problem is disposing of the waste. We can safely transport waste to dosposal sites, but there aren't enough.
Tidal energy is just a niche.Nuclear is more expensive than many fossil fuels.That,combined with popular opposition is what froze it.
Intensify the forward batteries. I don't want anything to get through
It seems to me that much of this debate involves only one aspect of oil, namely that as an energy source. But it seems to me that oil can be used for a variety of purposes. If we reduce our dependency on oil, do we have in place alternatives that can make up the shortfall? In other words, can we make lego with less oil, if at all?
As a matter of fact, there are alternatives to oil for various petroleum products. Plants have been developed that produce natural plastics, and numerous synthetic petroleum products are already in use. That aside, the U.S. has more than enough oil reserves to ween ourselves off oil products while implementing less wasteful alternatives.
Oil as an energy source has us by the balls, though.
The Saudis don't have THAT much oil. We could get by without them if we just bought more from other places, and maybe fucking sucked it up a little when things got rough.... but noooo......
If Religion and Politics were characters on a soap opera, Religion would be the one that goes insane with jealousy over Politics' intimate relationship with Reality, and secretly murder Politics in the night, skin the corpse, and run around its apartment wearing the skin like a cape shouting "My votes now! All votes for me! Wheeee!" -- Lagmonster
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:The Saudis don't have THAT much oil. We could get by without them if we just bought more from other places, and maybe fucking sucked it up a little when things got rough.... but noooo......
They're number one in the world. Add in the number of smaller producers that hate the States, like Algeria, Quatar, United Arab Emerate, Nigeria, Lybia, Kuwait, Ian, Iraq, Indonesia, Egypt, China, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Norway, UK, Canada, Most of the US, etc. and you see how little friendly oil there is.
Ok, so I'm overstating the Anti-American sentiment in some of those countries, but you get the picture. America is dependent on it's enemies for survival.
BTW, There are four states with semi-active sepertist movements. Hawaii, Florida, Texas and Alaska. Guess what the last two have in common!
As a pro-nuke turned anti -nuke, I have read that the total cost in energy input, mining, refining, waste disposal, construction costs of power plants with a FINITE lifespan before being to hot to use, nuclear power uses almost, if not more power than it produces.
Mining- This is radioactive ore, remember, so NBC protocalls must be observed.
Refining-Same smell, different fart. Uranium refining is an energy pig, just like refining aluminum ore, because is uses electricity for heating the ore.
Waste disposal- Even if the cost is pennies per pound per year, the pounds are always going up, and the year factor is HUGE!
Finite powere plant lifespan-Every 35 years or so, the whole place is shut down and entombed. Cost of plant, +cost of entombment + REPLACEMENT cost of replaced reactor.
Upside, NO exhaust gases, and all that wonderful plutonium, suitable for bombs.
Oil can be burned, straight out of the ground, (albeit VERY ineficiently before the refining process)to provide heat, for warmth, or boiling water.(steam turbine)
The refining process is simple, and well understood, and ALREADY HAS an exsisting infrastructure.
As to the methanol/ethanol stuff, the amount of energy stored in 1 liter is consideably less than that of petrolium. Same problem with propane or CNG. The fuel tank must be twice as large, for the same range/refuel time.
The upside being it is renewable.
The present day system will stay with us for a LONG time. Hydrogen is merely a substitute for power lines. It is NOT, in and of it self, an energy source.-----KEY POINT--------!!!!!!!
The evolution of the car will follow this path(s).
1. present day cars will be adapted to use fuel cell motor power, with catalytic reformulators, that receive gasoline, in a tank, and convert it to hydrogen to fuel the fuel cell.(CO and H2O byproduct)
2. EVENTUAL replacement of gasoline infrastructure, with pure hydrogen infrastructure as it's replacement.(50/150 years)
2a. Develoupment of realy good batteries, instead of fuel cell.
Hmmmmmm.
"It is happening now, It has happened before, It will surely happen again."
Oldest member of SD.net, not most mature.
Brotherhood of the Monkey
The Royal Family in Saudi Arabia does a lot of good things, as well. They are fanatically religious, but they kind of have to be in order to run their country properly. It's sort of hard to explain, for someone who hasn't lived there, but the highest and most important members of the Royal Family are usually not the ones that donate money to converting others and blowing things up.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
T UCC: Um, you DO know that hydrogen is infact highly flamable, right? The Hindenberg didn't go up in a ball of flames by magic, it was full of hydrogen. So, your argument that hydrogen could not be used as a standard energy source doesn't hold much water...
