Akira

<----In the light of my join date: Had many an argument and lively discussion in this forum since that day. Went from an outright jingoistic-nationalistic attitude to perhaps a more enlightened attitude. Looks like just about everyone that used to be here back then has moved on. Some of the people that were around helped in my shifting attitude toward the whole War on Terror bit.

Nice article: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/04/war_dog

Oh yeah. Let us not forget that we just crashed a top secret helicopter that few knew was on the drawing board let alone operational in a country that is none to happy with us right now.

Stealth Blackhawks are apparently operational.

There is no way that we would get involved in a land war in Iran (which is technically Asia and you know how that goes...). We just don't have the military capability to do it right now. Our armed forces are still dealing with the double blow Bush The Brainiac dealt them. Not to mention the civil unrest that would be caused. Iran would have to do something like nuke a city for us to care enough. From a civilian stand point, I don't even think an attack on Israel would rally us enough. Not to mention it would completely destroy what support we have there now...

I see the Freepers have found this site now...

The likelihood of a nuclear tipped torpedo being used against a CVBG is remote. It would open up the possibility of retaliatory strikes. I haven't seen anything regarding the Chinese ASBM's time to launch sequence. How long does it take to gather coordinates, pass targeting to crews, and input and ready the missile to launch?

Sadly, and despite having read his other posts, I have to agree with pviera11. The government has no right. Silly Constitution and all. The community center is being built by a group of moderate muslims to combat extremism. There is no proof they have any connection what-so-ever to Al Qaeda, and in point of fact, there is evidence they disagree and actively work against Al Qaeda in the community. But the fact that the narrative of this complete non-story has been taken over by the right-wing xenophobes is what is the most saddening (and disturbing). If you haven't read it, here is a good story by Salon timelining the whole issue and highlighting how it was turned into a story by an extreme right-wing blogger who once said Malcom X was Obama's secret father: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/index.html Other issues with the story: 1) There is an actual mosqe closer to the WTC than this community center. 2) There is a mosque in the Pentagon. 3) If if is about the "sacred-ness" of the WTC site, why have porno stores closer than this community center? 4) If it is just this one "mosque" that is the issue and it's location, why are mosques being protested against across the country?

You sound (and write) like someone who lives on their parents' dime.

It's not a mosque...it's a community center.

Desertification is actually a pretty large problem, exacerbated by our need to chop down every tree we see. Every desert in the world is pretty much growing. The way Brazil is going, many environmental scientist see the best landscape they can hope for is a savanna.

Nuclear energy is pretty clean in the short term. It doesn't shoot out carbon or other greenhouse gases. What it DOES do is make the site of the reactor radioactive for a few thousand years. It also produces highly radioactive waste (spent fuel for example) that you need to do something with. You have to seal it away for another few thousand years and hope it doesn't leak into the water table or the surrounding soil. On average, plants costs a couple hundred millions to build and have an active life on average of about 60 years.

Being in tropical climes is not needed. What is needed is good insolation. However, as members of Sweden and England have pointed out...it ain't for everyone. Uh maybe in England. But again, here in Texas it has already approached oil competitiveness. If more development is undertaken, it will reach the same cost structure but have its own infrastructure issues (current storage, consistency, etc.) But both points are well made. Not every country is going to have the same alternative energy sources available based on their physiological characteristics. Iceland has a significant geothermal sector, for example, but that might not be what works in Romania. A solar array is planned for Nevada, and Texas continues to build windfarms but that might not work in New Zealand or India. Every country (and even every region within that country) has its own energy availability to determine whether it be hydroelectric or nuclear (which I consider a necessary evil).

Incorrect. Solar energy is a cost saver in the long run...that has already been proven. Yes, you have to make an initial large payment, but in the long run solar energy pays for itself and then some (looking at an individual basis). There are enough stories already about solar energy users selling back energy to electric companies. Coincidently, if it wasn't a long-term investment, electric companies wouldn't be considering charging users for NOT using enough electricity. I agree with the first half, but it is NOT more CO2 "efficient" (whatever that means) to get your produce from Brazil. How is it less "efficient" for a farmer to drive 10 miles to a farmers market then to fly and drive your produce from Brazil? Alternative energies are greener. Not cheaper right now, but definitely greener. Wind power is approaching cost competitivness to petroleum/coal based power.

Downloaded the RC and have been running it exclusively on my laptop for about a month. I actually like it a lot. It's a lot faster that is for sure.