War with Syria

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Also don't forget that Canada has the world's largest solar plant, at least until some of the others under construction now are completed. And last I checked Canada wasn't in a sunbelt, so please explain why Canada can make a solar plant work when you say that solar should be worthless up there.



People also have mentioned storage - yeah it's an issue but one they've been working on for a while now. Some expect the battery market to assplode if homeowners with small PV setups (utility interconnected or not) actually start increasing on their own w/o massive inducements. This way the onus for storage could/would be distributed to homeowners, rather than having to build battery farms. The other thing is that there are ways to store energy right now. Wind turbines could store energy by pumping water (already exists, look up pumped-storage hydroelectric for example) without the development of new tech, and with solar they've been experimenting with stuff like molten salt thermal storage (more for non-PV solar).
Yeah, from everything I've read, Solar could be viable anywhere--the problem is just storage and conduction of use. We could easily power the entire U.S., forever, with just a small fraction of our unused land--the problem is moving moving and storing the juice to where it's needed.

Our energy problems, essentially, come down to not efficiently being able to convert energy into potential energy, again, as far as I understand it (I'm no engineer). The moment we're able to either increase battery life, or find a way to produce a compound that has a very high energy to mass ratio, that we can convert excess peak energy production into, we'll have solved our energy crisis. The problem is, oil so so god damn cheap, the research has been somewhat slow (On everything but small batteries.) Again, from what I've read, the last decade, since speculation has driven the oil market crazy has seen some of the biggest advancements in energy storage/conduction, just because more money is finally flowing into it. (Actually read about molten salt--isn't the first plant to store energy that way being constructed as we speak?)

Also, agree with Cad on Nuclear energy. Our lack of nuclear energy advancement, such as high efficiency (90%+ Fuel usage) reactors, or salt/thorium based reactors, is really dumb.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Compare that to what happens to an oil company if a fucking nuisance bird happens to die of old age on their property, or what happens if they try to remove birds that are nesting on their premises to protect them.

A dry fucking, that's what happens. On top of the fine for the company, they'll put the HSE manager on probation.
You're right. Why doesn't the oil industry get the props it deserves for respecting wildlife and the environment?

rrr_img_43929.jpg
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
John mccain publishes op ed in pravda as a counter to putins op ed

Senator John McCain: Russians deserve better than Putin
When Pravda.ru editor, Dmitry Sudakov, offered to publish my commentary, he referred to me as "an active anti-Russian politician for many years." I'm sure that isn't the first time Russians have heard me characterized as their antagonist. Since my purpose here is to dispel falsehoods used by Russia's rulers to perpetuate their power and excuse their corruption, let me begin with that untruth. I am not anti-Russian. I am pro-Russian, more pro-Russian than the regime that misrules you today.

I make that claim because I respect your dignity and your right to self-determination. I believe you should live according to the dictates of your conscience, not your government. I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few. You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced and just. I make that claim because I believe the Russian people, no less than Americans, are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A Russian citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered. President Putin and his associates do not believe in these values. They don't respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations that defend your right to self-governance. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even assassinate journalists who try to expose their corruption.

They write laws to codify bigotry against people whose sexual orientation they condemn. They throw the members of a punk rock band in jail for the crime of being provocative and vulgar and for having the audacity to protest President Putin's rule.

Sergei Magnistky wasn't a human rights activist. He was an accountant at a Moscow law firm. He was an ordinary Russian who did an extraordinary thing. He exposed one of the largest state thefts of private assets in Russian history. He cared about the rule of law and believed no one should be above it. For his beliefs and his courage, he was held in Butyrka prison without trial, where he was beaten, became ill and died. After his death, he was given a show trial reminiscent of the Stalin-era and was, of course, found guilty. That wasn't only a crime against Sergei Magnitsky. It was a crime against the Russian people and your right to an honest government - a government worthy of Sergei Magnistky and of you.

President Putin claims his purpose is to restore Russia to greatness at home and among the nations of the world. But by what measure has he restored your greatness? He has given you an economy that is based almost entirely on a few natural resources that will rise and fall with those commodities. Its riches will not last. And, while they do, they will be mostly in the possession of the corrupt and powerful few. Capital is fleeing Russia, which - lacking rule of law and a broad-based economy - is considered too risky for investment and entrepreneurism. He has given you a political system that is sustained by corruption and repression and isn't strong enough to tolerate dissent.

How has he strengthened Russia's international stature? By allying Russia with some of the world's most offensive and threatening tyrannies. By supporting a Syrian regime that is murdering tens of thousands of its own people to remain in power and by blocking the United Nations from even condemning its atrocities. By refusing to consider the massacre of innocents, the plight of millions of refugees, the growing prospect of a conflagration that engulfs other countries in its flames an appropriate subject for the world's attention. He is not enhancing Russia's global reputation. He is destroying it. He has made her a friend to tyrants and an enemy to the oppressed, and untrusted by nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world.

President Putin doesn't believe in these values because he doesn't believe in you. He doesn't believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous societies. Or, at least, he doesn't believe Russians can. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you.

I do believe in you. I believe in your capacity for self-government and your desire for justice and opportunity. I believe in the greatness of the Russian people, who suffered enormously and fought bravely against terrible adversity to save your nation. I believe in your right to make a civilization worthy of your dreams and sacrifices. When I criticize your government, it is not because I am anti-Russian. It is because I believe you deserve a government that believes in you and answers to you. And, I long for the day when you have it.
 

W4RH34D_sl

shitlord
661
3
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/18/...war-crowd-now/

"Do you remember the days, weeks, and months following the start of the Iraq war in early 2003? Do you remember the throngs of celebrities ? Michael Moore, Sean Penn, and Susan Sarandon to name a few ? and the Democrats in Washington (i.e. then-Senator John Kerry and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi), who marched in the streets, signed petitions, and flooded the air waves with anti-war rhetoric? ?Bush lied. People died? became the all-too-popular catch phrase.

Flash forward a decade, and we find ourselves on the precipice of war. Just last week, President Obama admitted the U.S. is now providing arms to the Syrian rebels, despite the overwhelming evidence that the rebels have been overrun by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.

So where is the anti-war crowd now? Well, Hollywood has gone silent. Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have completely changed their tune. On tonight?s Glenn Beck Program, Glenn exposed the hypocrisy
."

Fuck he's starting to sound reasonable! I'm scared!
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
25,684
12,168
You're right. Why doesn't the oil industry get the props it deserves for respecting wildlife and the environment?

rrr_img_43929.jpg
Oh look a live bird. Because the oil industry cares. Wanna compare it to bird that's had a run in with the wind industry?
 

Northerner

N00b
921
9
Ha!

Hey, let's be honest, no one actually gives a flying fuck about birds. If you actually live near an ocean for a while, you'd soon want to kill all of them. Preferably by covering them in oil.

Anyhow. I'll cheerfully admit that no one in the Oil and Gas sector gives a shit about wildlife. Truth.

Still, wedospend tens and hundreds of millions of dollars pretending to care about animals, the environment, indigenous peoples and so on. It is bullshit but it does actually work pretty well. Not enough? Lobby your representatives to make the laws even harsher and the oil companies will comply. It is annoying but meh, the cost just gets passed along anyhow, even though it does bugger up the demand curve.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
A reminder where the "red line" came from

in the middle of the 2012 presidential race, romney would attack obama saying he was weak on foreign policy, obama parried that line of attack by talking about the "red line" in syria, at the time this allowed obama to look strong without having to do anything while he was trying to win the presidential race.


Obama's initial comments

Let's look at the first time Obama used the "red line" phrase. It was on Aug. 20, 2012, at a press conference in the White House briefing room.

A reporter asked this question: "Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safekeeping of the chemical weapons, and if you're confident that the chemical weapons are safe?"
~
Obama: "... I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That's an issue that doesn't just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. ..."

The key points: The reporter raised the issue of the U.S. using force. Obama said he had no plans at the moment but that would change if chemical weapons were used. There was no confusion. The red line described the point at which military force could be brought to bear.
It's obvious how and why obama issued the "red line" and it was political in nature, it helped him win the election.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
In Syria, There are no Moderates

If the US & its allies are funding "moderates," who is funding Al Qaeda? (The US).
However, now, according to Western leaders, the public is expected to believe that despite the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey flooding Syria with billion in cash, and thousands of tons of weapons, all sent exclusively to "secular moderates," somehow, Al Qaeda has still managed to gain preeminence amongst the "opposition."

How can this be? If a 7-nation axis is arraying the summation of its resources in the region behind "secular moderates," who then is arraying even more resources behind Al Qaeda? The answer is simple. There never were any "secular moderates," a fact the New York Times has now fully admitted.

In its article titled, "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," the New York Times admits:
Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
However, in an explanation that defies reason, the article states [emphasis added]:
The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion, which has been led since its start by Syria's Sunni Muslim majority, mostly in conservative, marginalized areas. The descent into brutal civil war has hardened sectarian differences, and the failure of more mainstream rebel groups to secure regular arms supplies has allowed Islamists to fill the void and win supporters.
To "secure regular arms supplies" from whom? According to the West, they have been supplying "mainstream rebel groups" with billions in cash, and thousands of tons of weaponry - and now according to the BBC, training as well. Where if not intentionally and directly into the hands of al-Nusra, did all of this cash, these weapons, and training go?

The NYT also admits (emphasis added):
Of most concern to the United States is the Nusra Front, whose leader recently confirmed that the group cooperated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and pledged fealty to Al Qaeda's top leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's longtime deputy. Nusra has claimed responsibility for a number of suicide bombings and is the group of choice for the foreign jihadis pouring into Syria.
Not only is the Syrian government fighting now openly admitted Al Qaeda terrorists, but terrorists that are not even of Syrian origin.

More outrageous still, is that the New York Times fully admits that the very oil fields the European Union has lifted sanctions on and is now buying oil from in Syria (see BBC's "EU eases Syria oil embargo to help opposition"), are completely controlled by Al Qaeda - meaning the European Union is now intentionally exchanging cash with known international terrorists guilty of horrific atrocities, in exchange for oil. The NYT reports:
Elsewhere, they [al-Nusra] have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.
And:
In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.
The Times continues by admitting (emphasis added):
Nusra's hand is felt most strongly in Aleppo, where the group has set up camp in a former children's hospital and has worked with other rebel groups to establish a Shariah Commission in the eye hospital next door to govern the city's rebel-held neighborhoods. The commission runs a police force and an Islamic court that hands down sentences that have included lashings, though not amputations or executions as some Shariah courts in other countries have done.

Nusra fighters also control the power plant and distribute flour to keep the city's bakeries running.
This last point, "and distribute flour to keep the city's bakeries running," is of extreme importance, because that "flour" they are "distributing" comes admittedly, directly from the United State of America.

The US feeds Al Qaeda...

In the Washington Post's article, "U.S. feeds Syrians, but secretly," it is claimed that:

In the heart of rebel-held territory in Syria's northern province of Aleppo, a small group of intrepid Westerners is undertaking a mission of great stealth. Living anonymously in a small rural community, they travel daily in unmarked cars, braving airstrikes, shelling and the threat of kidnapping to deliver food and other aid to needy Syrians - all of it paid for by the U.S. government.
The Washington Post then claims that most Syrians credit Al Qaeda's al-Nusra with providing the aid:
"America has done nothing for us. Nothing at all," said Mohammed Fouad Waisi, 50, spitting out the words for emphasis in his small Aleppo grocery store, which adjoins a bakery where he buys bread every day. The bakery is fully supplied with flour paid for by the United States. But Waisi credited Jabhat al-Nusra - a rebel group the United States has designated a terrorist organization because of its ties to al-Qaeda - with providing flour to the region, though he admitted he wasn't sure where it comes from.
Clearly, the puzzle is now complete. Indeed Mr. Mohammed Fouad Waisi was correct, Jabhat al-Nusra, a listed terrorist organization by the US State Department, is supplying the people with flour - flour it receives by the ton directly and intentionally from the United States in direct contradiction to its own anti-terror laws, international laws, and the US State Department's own frequent denials that it is bolstering terrorists inside of Syria.

Clearly the US and its allies are propping up terrorism, and more alarming is that the "aid" they have been providing the Syrian people, appears to have been used as a political weapon by Al Qaeda, allowing them to take, hold, and permanently subjugate territory inside Syria. It should be noted again, that the New York Times itself admits that the ranks of al-Nusra are filled with foreign, not Syrian, fighters.

US narrative aims at "saving" non-existent "moderates" from the Al Qaeda terrorists they themselves are intentionally arming.

Revealed is a conspiracy so insidious, so outrageous, and a web of lies so tangled, that Western governments perhaps count on their populations to disbelieve their tax money is being used to intentionally fund and arm savage terrorism while purposefully fueling a sectarian bloodbath whose death toll is sounded daily by the very people driving it up to astronomical heights. The cards are down - the US has been exposed as openly funding, arming, and supplying Al Qaeda in Syria for over two years and in turn, is directly responsible for the death, atrocities, and humanitarian disasters within and along Syria's borders that have resulted.

While the US attempts to sell military intervention on behalf of Al Qaeda in Syria, using the flimsy, yet familiar pretext of "chemical weapons," it appears that before even one American boot officially touches Syrian soil, an already horrific crime against humanity of historic proportions has been committed by the US and its allies against the Syrian people.

This is a crime against humanity the West intends to fully compound with its new narrative of "moderates" fighting Al Qaeda. The goal is to justify the continued torrent of cash and weapons into Syria to fuel the conflict and perhaps to have "safe zones" imposed across Syria's borders under the guise of "running out" Al Qaeda. Of course, Al Qaeda will continue to be armed and funded by the very interests "running them out" deeper and deeper into Syria.

It is important to understand two undeniable, verified facts. First, there are no moderates in Syria, and second, Al Qaeda's ascendance in Syria is the direct results of the West intentionally arming them, funding them, training them, providing them with tactical, logistical, and strategic support, as well as financing them through the purchase of Al Qaeda-controlled oil fields. Understanding these facts lifts the veil regarding the latest round of lies and fabrications by the West to regain the initiative amidst their premeditated, 2-plus year assault on Syria.
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
25,684
12,168
I thought last week it had a chance of passing the senate. Heard on a radio show where they were interviewing a senator. I think his comment was that they thought they had just enough votes to pass it because enough dems were catching a rash of shit from their constituents, but not enough to override a veto.
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
I thought last week it had a chance of passing the senate. Heard on a radio show where they were interviewing a senator. I think his comment was that they thought they had just enough votes to pass it because enough dems were catching a rash of shit from their constituents, but not enough to override a veto.
How bizzare would it be if sometime next month Congress quietly passed a bill authorizing military action in Syria and Obama vetoed it?