Thrawn's Revenge
Off Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: siegfried1 on September 04, 2008, 08:32:02 PM
-
Pulling out of Iraq before it completely stabilizes is a bad idea. Country would have a civil war between Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds. They would probably split Iraq into different regions for each group, disrupting the flow of oil from Iraq and negatively impacting the global economy.
First of all, who cares if they have a civil war, i mean, we do nothing about it in Africa, so what's another one (note, this is sarcasm). Second, there is enough oil for us and the west, and that's all that matters.
-
How would you like a price hike on oil? How would the rest of the world?
-
Well, there's a lot more oil than just that in the middle east. There's probably trillions in Canada.
-
Good idea, tomorrow at eight we'll shut down all pipelines from the middle east and all go pump oil outta canada! Oh wait, that won't work.
-
iraq having a civil war would suck. i dont care about the iraqis, just the oil prices. and we dont stop the civil wars in africa because its not worth sending a squad of marines. half of africa's civil wars start because some guy stole a pig or goat from a person in another country
-
iraq having a civil war would suck. i dont care about the iraqis, just the oil prices. and we dont stop the civil wars in africa because its not worth sending a squad of marines. half of africa's civil wars start because some guy stole a pig or goat from a person in another country
so USA didn't go to Iraq to bring it's people democrazy and freedom?
-
In my opinion, it was oil first, and while were there lets set up a democracy. another world super-power like china would just take the oil and let the iraqi people fend for themselves. ( I have nothing against china, just saying what I think they would do)
-
hmmm...im torn between the two.
Obama would be perfect, but the one thing that makes me dislike his policies is the "pull out of Iraq" stuff. The US (and us in GB) should never have gone there. but now we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we caused and ensure Iraq is stable.
However, i could never like McCain or his decisions either, bar Iraq. The republicans seem to stand for the exact opposite to what i believe is right. luckily, as i live in good 'ol Britain, i dont have to worry about that. i just have to worry about Brown or Thatcher Mkll...
-
Now ive looked into things, i think i'd actually like Ralph Nader to win. Unfortunately, there's no chance of that happening =[
-
with nader, the only bad thing is, he's technically the reason bush served 2 terms, or even 1, for that matter.
in both 2000 and 2004 he took votes from mainly democrats, meaning republicans had an advantage. however, nader seems like a civilised american politician.
-
Good idea, tomorrow at eight we'll shut down all pipelines from the middle east and all go pump oil outta canada! Oh wait, that won't work.
Okay smart ass, i just meant there's more than just what's in the Middle East. It was just an alternative idea.
-
The problem is, most of it is in the Middle East, at least whats usable right now. So like it or not, the world relies on the middle east for oil right now.
-
also, you don't pump oil as soon as a rig or pump is assembled. it takes a long time for any substantial supply of oil is pumped. While i believe iraq should be gradually pulled out from, i am not against the ides of temporary bases with garrisons of troops, similar to in Cyprus.
-
who cares about oil, ethanol is the best. which just happens to be supplied by Brazi or most of it.
-
Except, in many cases, bioethanol creates just as much CO2 as oil (through deforestation, etc). Also, the land used to grow the ethanol crops cannot then be used for growing food crops, pushing up food prices.
-
bioethanol in the USA is made through corn. this has led to a shortage in food supplies of both corn, and livestock, and as it has taken pressure off oil, has been kept in place, and heavily subsidised, wasting taxpayer's money. biofuels in the USA are a failure.
-
In my opinion, ethanol is the bigget scam just about ever. Its marketed as a way to help the environment, but thats just a big lie. The process ends up producing more co2 than normal gas, costs more than normal gas, requires more expensive engines to run on, drives up food prices worldwide, and devastates rain forests.
-
Hey, its an alternative fuel. though expensive and costly to your wallet and the enviorment. and scarecrow, it produces a little less co2 than normal gas. and all the global warming crap is BS anyways so who cares
-
and ethanol is made by slave labor. wasn't that abolished few hundred years ago? but this is going way out of topic right now.
-
In my opinion, ethanol is the bigget scam just about ever. Its marketed as a way to help the environment, but thats just a big lie. The process ends up producing more co2 than normal gas, costs more than normal gas, requires more expensive engines to run on, drives up food prices worldwide, and devastates rain forests.
i totally agree. i don't see anything good about biofuels.
sure it's renewable, but it's not very environmental.
plus, it has caused huge inflation of meat prices in the USA, as all the crops are being reserved for bioethanol.
this causes inflation, and causes people to not be able to pay, and may eventually cause farmers to lose their livelihood.
-
Hey, its an alternative fuel. though expensive and costly to your wallet and the enviorment. and scarecrow, it produces a little less co2 than normal gas. and all the global warming crap is BS anyways so who cares
So its more expensive than oil (which many Americans complain is too expensive already), is harmful to the environment, causes huge inflation in food prices, and produces equivalent or more CO2 than regular fuel (this is a certifiable fact, at least for the current generation biofuels). That makes it a rather poor alternative.
And FYI, Global Warming is real. While it may not be wholly caused by human activity, that doesnt mean that we should continue changing the atmosphere by pumping out more greenhouse gases.
-
just rely on nuclear power. it's safe and doesn't pollute.
-
seems me and meyer have similar views on where the immediate future lies.
has this topic been officially hijacked? lol. i dont think anyone is interested in that videos message...
-
Okay, but has anyone heard of Chernobyl (i think that's how it's spelled)......
-
Nuclear power plants ruin the ecosystems of the fish. They draw on the cool water from oceans or other sources to cool the reactors and they excrete warm water, which is NOT good for the fish.
Won't SOMEBODY think of the fish?! (hm)
-
Okay, but has anyone heard of Chernobyl (i think that's how it's spelled)......
25 years ago, and a poorly maintained power station. modern ones are frequently checked and safe.
-
I just don't want something that can eplode and kill everyone for miles in my back yard. and what Dr. Nick said, i like fish personally.
-
the cause of chernobyl was poorly trained staff operating a complex power system and forgetting every rule in the book during a routine test.
-
nuclear fission is pretty poor. nuclear fusion is awesome.
once they find a mechanism by which fusion makes more energy than it requires, it'll be great.
also, the half life is only 30 years for fusion.
-
Hey, its an alternative fuel. though expensive and costly to your wallet and the enviorment. and scarecrow, it produces a little less co2 than normal gas. and all the global warming crap is BS anyways so who cares
The actually ethanol when used in a car produces less co2, but you forget the process of transporting corn and such from the fields to refineries and the cutting down of huge amounts of rainforests, which release co2.
Okay, but has anyone heard of Chernobyl (i think that's how it's spelled)......
And yes, that was nearly 25 years ago caused by a combination of poor construction, poorly trained staff, and a supervisor that didnt know what he was doing. At this point nuclear power is the best solution we have. Look at France (i know, im actually praising the french), they get 75% of their power from 59 nuclear powerplants, and look, no explosions. It shows it can be done with proper attention to safety.
-
I did not mean there is no such thing as global warming, though i admit i did a crappy way of saying it. I just think that global warming is a cycle that happens every so and so years. but i dont think we people are causing it. We may be speeding up the process, but that has yet to be determined.
-
Well, I have no doubt we are changing the environment, but what i dont get is, the climate on earth has been changing for millions of years, whats the big deal with it changing again? I'm not saying we shouldn't try to be more environmentally friendly, but i think its been blown way out of proportion.
-
So you think we should do nothing to stop it...? (to Delta 07)
-
Look at France (i know, im actually praising the french), they get 75% of their power from 59 nuclear powerplants, and look, no explosions. It shows it can be done with proper attention to safety.
Arent you forgetting the recent scares the French have had with their nuclear reactors? The series of leakages of irradiated material.
The uranium, etc used in nuclear reactors is a non-renewable energy source (it will run out eventually), and leaves an increasing legacy of radioactive waste (which will increase at an accelerated rate when new plants come online in the future). Instead of investing in another exhaustible fuel, surely we should be investing in solar technology: Free, pollutionless, and essentially inexhaustible.
-
(to Siegfried) There is no point to trying to stop global warming because it happens every so and so years. are tax payers money could go to something worth researching
-
Even if human activity isnt causing Global Warming, that doesnt mean we should continue as we are. Global Warming has drawn attention to the extent of the pollution we are causing to Earth, which is a very real and urgent issue, and something well worth investing in.
-
I couldn't have said it better myself Slornie
-
So, why do they try researching to prevent global warming instead of research for cleaning the pollution.
-
This is an Obama thread.
-
Wow, we really got sidetracked......
-
There.
-
So, why do they try researching to prevent global warming instead of research for cleaning the pollution.
Because in many cases, the technology for one can be used to combat the other.
-
Very true Slornie. And how did we get from Obama and McCain, to iraq,to global warming and then pollution in the world?
-
something about palin and mccain having differing environmental views.
but the new topic is energy.
-
Yeah, and i'm likin' the possibilites of the vacuum energy theory (near infinite sounds great to me)
-
never heard of that
-
It's just in developmeant, but it draws a near infinite amount of power that's drawn from vacuum. I'm gonna admit i don't understand it entirely, but it sounds promising.
-
It may sound promising, but it doesnt sound like its going to happen this century. hey, i dont know that though
-
As i said, it's just in theoretical phase, but they said it's anywhere from 30-40 years off, not that bad.
And i thought it was just something they made up for Stargate!!
-
We should totally do what star trek did and use anti-matter =D
-
We should totally do what star trek did and use anti-matter =D
except it's the most volatile substance conceivable? and contact with air causes it to combust?
-
It's hard to make stuff not touch air