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.

I wanna start a Healthcare thread since it's such a hot topic here in the bassackwards USA. Can I do that or should I dig through and find the USA Politics thread?

Well many dams aren't built on lakes, the act of building a dam makes the lake. The WASR Act basically just says that while we (the U.S.) dam some rivers, other rivers should be protected from development and man-made changes, and should remain un-dammed. Kind of an Endangered Species Act for rivers. The difference is in the ability of organisms that lived in that river to freely move up and down it. Fish also don't tend to like being shot through turbines. And having a giant wall of concrete can hinder behaviours of certain species (like going upstream to spawn for example). They have rectified this with varying degrees of success by using fish ladders and by-pass runs and other measures.

Umm...green religious sect? Right... You still haven't informed us how solar and wind power mean no progress. How does it matter if your power comes from the sun or wind rather than burning fossil fuels? You still get the power. So please enlighten us as to exactly how no progress (however you want to define it) will be made. So aside from merely attempting ad hominem attacks, please inform us "ignorant" people why progress in non-polluting forms of energy will suddenly send us to the dark ages. While you are at it, please throw in what "green politics" of Africa you speak of, and to what successes you refer.

I really shouldn't feed the troll, but I will anyway. Honestly, I don't even know what the hell you are talking about. You bust on me for using "the benefits of Western civilization" while doing the same yourself. Or did you get your computer and electricity from a magic tree? You think the forum you are complaining on just appeared? Second, you basically accuse me of wanting to horde all my comforts for myself. You are welcome to point exactly to where I said anything of the kind. Please feel free to quote any of my posts. Lastly, because I am talking about solar power and wind power, I'm suddenly against civilization and progress? Please enlighten me on your logic as to why exactly that is.

Uh...so me and my "lot" are to blame, and whether or not I did anything, it's still my fault. Ummm..ok.

I don't even know what to make of the above... Har-dee-har

I don't think I gave the most restrictive, but the most inclusive definition. That is why I included "minimize the anthropogenic effects." Solar and Wind are by far more "green" then a coal fired plant. No matter what we do, in some way we alter the environment. Would I rather our energy portfolio include solar and wind? Yes. Do I acknowledge that these forms of energy will also have some environmental effects, whether we know about them or not? Yes. Doesn't mean I don't wish my house had a solar panel on it. Free-flowing by definition, and included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (and amendments), means a river not dammed. It is literally...free-flowing. I'm not anti-hydro...but at the same time you have to include the eco-system destruction that is inherent in dam building. Since you said I could have the last word I will. First off, you can't "trust the earth will take care of itself" from us pumping excess CO2 in the air, and then be 'concerned' about the developing world. The developing world is the one that is going to be hardest hit by any changes, including the eradication of part of their land. Second, I'm not just pulling CO2 saturation outta my butt. It's in the link I posted as well as the journal that documents it. Yes the earth system is ever-changing, but it doesn't change overnight just as species don't evolve overnight. It takes time, and I mean geologic time, not human time. In the meantime we keep pumping millions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas. Regardless of how much we put in the air, it is in excess of what the system has evolved to handle. At the same time, we are destroying many of these carbon sink landscapes. And more importantly, because the earth is currently warming, the arctic tundra is melting releasing even more CO2...as in billions of tonnes. One conservative estimate has it at an amount equal to one-quarter of the total in the atmosphere or 10 years worth of human produced emissions. First you say water vapor is causing global warming and now you are saying it is causing global cooling??

The link I posted above gives an analysis of this claim. As I previously stated, the earth is a system. Yes, natural processes expel tonnes of CO2, however the system is balanced such that there are process that re-capture this carbon for continued life processes. Man's contribution is above what the system is capable of recapturing. There are journal articles showing that a number of these capturing systems (ie oceans, forests, etc.) are either at saturation point or, in the case of forests, being destroyed. Biomass for deforestation of the Amazon is also releasing captured CO2 beyond what the system can capture while at the same time destroying this CO2 capturing rain forest.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm Take the source as you like, but it has links to scientific journal articles backing up their statements. EDIT: Here is also a link about water vapor: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm Again, contains links to journals. A NOAA link http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html Basically states that water vapor is not causing global warming, but a by-product of global warming, as well as an amplifier.

Fair enough, my apologies. But it does illustrate a point. What do countries in the Sahel and other hostile landscapes do for economic growth (aside from the debate about how to power that growth)? Actually, scientists are in consensus that man-made greenhouse gases are the likely cause of global warming. However I will await your sources which I presume won't be the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) or other Exxon and petroleum industry funded "think tanks."