Once again America proves its social and moral immaturity

[The Overlord]

Instead of throwing a tantrum

Yes I could, and I apologize for being that harsh, but as I just got done saying about the patronizing bit- that little part about feeling high and mighty over another poster just because you don't agree with their tactics. Well, we're right back to square one, along with the pot and the kettle.

[OldSchoolGamer]

How about we have a discussion on the technical merits of the electric car versus the internal combustion engine?  No one has refuted the points I laid out about drawbacks to the electric car.

Don't get my wrong--I'd love to see a car that plugs into the wall, is quiet and non-polluting, has a cruising speed of 70 miles an hour and could go 400 miles or so on a charge.  But we're not there yet.  Again, it's the battery: no battery in the world has anywhere near the potential energy per unit of volume that gasoline does.  And that's the main problem.

[Zakharra]

 What about the electronic engine? Are those reliable enough to last for years without replacing? Without shorting out suddenly as things like alternators and electronic devices are prone to do?

I've always questioned the battery and where to get the power for an electronic car. Those who push for them have never given an answer to -where- the electricity must come from, and how do you measure how much the charge is and pay for it? I know I would not want to have an electronic car plugged in and have to end up paying the bill. They'd likely draw a lot of power charging up and a sudden spike in the electricity bill isn't going to be welcome. Which makes me wonder where will you be able to charge them up? How will the government find a way to tax the power used to charge the car? If they can plug into an ordinary wall socket, they means anyone would plug in anywahere and effectively steal 'fuel'. Leaving someone else to pay the cost.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Actually, the electric motor itself is more reliable and easier to use than an internal combustion engine.  For starters, you don't have components repeatedly heating to several hundred degrees Fahrenheit and then cooling back down.  That alone makes wear and tear a lot lower.

But the point about electricity is valid.  As things stand today, the electric car is not going to save much energy.  All it's doing is shifting the locus of energy consumption from the gas tank to the power plant that provides the electricity that charges the battery.  And most of those power plants still run on...you guessed it: fossil fuels.

[PhantomPistoleer]

Same thing could be said of Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac, their mismanagement of loans crashed the housing market. This is all mostly due to greed and stupidity. You can throw big business and big government into the pot and roast them for all this.

As an aside:

Being the financial wizard that I am (read: I lost 200K on FRE in the stock market), I have a little bit of knowledge in regards to what Sallie and Freddie did wrong.  They did nothing wrong, but indeed, attempted to comply with the demands of the Democratic party.  The Democratic party felt that everyone who wanted a house should have a house and that anyone who wanted a loan could get one.  This is hard for me to admit because I'm a huge Democrat, but mortgage giants were playing win/win scenarios for a while.  Either of two things were possible: we give guy A a loan and he'll pay it off (and we win) or we give guy A a loan and he won't be able to pay it off, meaning we get a house for a reduced cost (because guy A paid some of the loan back) and we can get our money back by selling it (and we win).  Since houses were rising in cost, people naturally assumed that it was going to keep rising.  This meant that the housing market became a bubble, because people who shouldn't have been purchasing houses were purchasing houses.

So mortgage giants didn't crash the housing market; the housing market crashed the mortgage giants.  Greedy, air-castle-seeking American folk crashed the housing market (but it's okay; this happened in Japan a decade ago!).

[Zakharra]

Actually, the electric motor itself is more reliable and easier to use than an internal combustion engine.  For starters, you don't have components repeatedly heating to several hundred degrees Fahrenheit and then cooling back down.  That alone makes wear and tear a lot lower.

But the point about electricity is valid.  As things stand today, the electric car is not going to save much energy.  All it's doing is shifting the locus of energy consumption from the gas tank to the power plant that provides the electricity that charges the battery.  And most of those power plants still run on...you guessed it: fossil fuels.

Can electric moters keep a sustained long range use? What about constant stop and go? Can they haul a heavy load? Get wet if the vehical drives through a puddle? With an internal combustion engine, the engine compartment does not need to be sealed. The engine can get wet and still run without shorting out.

A cheap way to get electricity is through nuclear power plants, but the enviromentalists are dead set against that being used. They want nearly only 'clean' power like wind (which killed thousands of birds a year) or solar, (which will not supply the power needed for an industrial society).  Geothermal is possible, but that uses a great deal of water and building where the earth's crust is thinner. Like the Yellowstone basin.

We could build clean burning coal plants and nuclear power plants in only a few years. IF the applications were not stymied in the courts by enviromentalists. Those stop more construction than anything else. Enviromentalists are a huge roadblock to better progress in technology.

[Dashenka]

The world is a mighty big place with 6 billion people living on it and it is impossible to please everybody simply for the fact that everybody is different. Admitting I am always one of the first people in the room to mock the US, I have to admit that they are not doing so bad. In which country in the world do 4 million people cheer for their president?

The cultural differences between Europe and the US are huge and therefore I think a political farce like the United Nations will never ever work. The US is one big country and Europe counts as twenty (or more) countries. Sixteen million people in the Netherlands or Belgium can block something for hundreds of millions in the US.

An example very close to my bed: Serbia does not want to split off Kosovo but the UN does. Despite protests from the country currently owning Kosovo, the UN passes a bill to split off the province.

What if the UN decide that Canada should be a part of the US and that Alaska should be given to Russia. They vote and two countries vote no but they loose.

This is the farce the UN is and no bill they pass should be taken seriously by ANYBODY. The world is a world of different opinions and that is what makes it good.

[Zakharra]

 I am in full agreement with this.

[Cecily]

What if the UN decide that Canada should be a part of the US

Oh god don't even joke about that. 

[The Overlord]

Oh god don't even joke about that. 

Are you kidding? Show me a recent event where the US actually listened to the UN? 

[The Overlord]

The world is a mighty big place with 6 billion people living on it and it is impossible to please everybody simply for the fact that everybody is different. Admitting I am always one of the first people in the room to mock the US, I have to admit that they are not doing so bad. In which country in the world do 4 million people cheer for their president?

The cultural differences between Europe and the US are huge and therefore I think a political farce like the United Nations will never ever work. The US is one big country and Europe counts as twenty (or more) countries. Sixteen million people in the Netherlands or Belgium can block something for hundreds of millions in the US.

An example very close to my bed: Serbia does not want to split off Kosovo but the UN does. Despite protests from the country currently owning Kosovo, the UN passes a bill to split off the province.

What if the UN decide that Canada should be a part of the US and that Alaska should be given to Russia. They vote and two countries vote no but they loose.

This is the farce the UN is and no bill they pass should be taken seriously by ANYBODY. The world is a world of different opinions and that is what makes it good.

Careful...Russia and the former Soviet bloc have been anything but magnanimous angels themselves, but I digress.



Problem with the UN is that it is, and I’d expect it to remain, massively split by nations and factions. As long as the major players; North America, Europe, Russia and China remain content to play a game of chess with the world map, the UN is going to remain a farce.

The differences of opinion , ethics, and politics between East and West are ongoing with no end in sight. I’m tempted to think the UN as it is needs…some sort of restructuring, or perhaps a replacement.

[Zakharra]

Careful...Russia and the former Soviet bloc have been anything but magnanimous angels themselves, but I digress.



Problem with the UN is that it is, and I’d expect it to remain, massively split by nations and factions. As long as the major players; North America, Europe, Russia and China remain content to play a game of chess with the world map, the UN is going to remain a farce.

The differences of opinion , ethics, and politics between East and West are ongoing with no end in sight. I’m tempted to think the UN as it is needs…some sort of restructuring, or perhaps a replacement.

But they aren't necessarily voting to split up countries. I'm wary when people say the UN needs some restructuring or a replacement, because about the only thing that would be an effective reforming, would be to make the UN, or it's replacement, a true world government. Able to levy taxes, control/regulate commerce, form and direct armies at it's own whim. Despite what any members, or none members might want. It would not necessarily work for the betterment of the countries, but for it's own grandeur.

[Dashenka]

I think that was the plan initially. To make it some sort of world government and that has failed. What power does this Ban Ki-Moon person really has?

The USA will do as they please and will simply ignore the UN when it comes down to Iraq. China will never sign the Kyoto pact in it's current form simply because it will destroy their economy and Russia... well we are Russia.

Restructuring the UN would never work with so many differences only in the biggest nations of the world. Let alone the smaller ones. In my opinion the UN only destroys. (South Ossetia and Kosovo) but I might not be completely independent.

As for the USA, they never listen to anybody so why would they listen to the UN? But maybe Obama will change that, we'll have to wait and see but the UN never did anything good for Russia and I really wouldn't mind if they just cancelled the UN.

[Zakharra]

 The UN does serve a purpose. it sets a forum where the nations of the world -can- discuss things. It's scope is what failed. It can be argued (at the risk of reopening an old one) that the UN -did- in fact give permission for the attack on Iraq. It's a matter of perspective. anbd that's where it fails in many ways. Nations look out for themselves and their people. Which they should since they are responsible to their own citizens. In some nations, the population has less of a say in national and international matters than others and they would wish.

Nations should not sign sucide pacts, which Kyoto is economically. Being forced after a military defeat is somrthing else entirely

[The Overlord]

The UN does serve a purpose. it sets a forum where the nations of the world -can- discuss things. It's scope is what failed.

There's too much personal interest and agendas, hardly anything gets done. Because of the asinine UN rules of engagement, this meddlesome pirate situation off the Somali coast hasn't been handled. Can't engage pirates once they've taken a ship, what the frack is that??? Here's a case where the big powers need to take off the kid gloves and do what must be done, and to hell with the UN. Each nation must weigh the risk to its own shipping; if you attack and seize our ships, we're coming in to take them back, at the threat of deadly force if need be. If you kill the crew, we'll bomb Somalia so fracking hard that your children will be reeling from the shockwaves five generations from now. You can't play bunnies and kittens with pirates; bullies only understand one language, they figure it out once someone knocks them on their ass hard.

  I'm wary when people say the UN needs some restructuring or a replacement, because about the only thing that would be an effective reforming, would be to make the UN, or it's replacement, a true world government.

You're not thinking wide enough; the only alternative is not a true world government, because no matter who tries to implement that, it's doomed to failure.

I must be blunt; as a species we're still too tribal and underdeveloped...the sort of thing that Star Trek's galactic Federation would quarantine and leave to their own devices. The 'alternative' may need to be power blocs; regional or continental UN's. I believe some times we all need a big 'time out', and get set back in our respective corners of the sandbox with T-shirts that say Doesn't Play Well With Others.

The USA will do as they please and will simply ignore the UN when it comes down to Iraq.

Correction; the USA under a Bush administration will do as it pleases with Iraq, but Bush is gone now. Invading Iraq was about securing resources, plain and simple; any other cause that anyone cites including humanitarian aid and freeing Iraq from a despot is pure collateral effect. The Iron Triangle did not remove Saddam because he was a dirtbag, they did it because he wasn't playing ball with them anymore. Same with Panama.

We can only have faith in Obama that he will work closely with the Iraqi government for a timely withdrawal. Being as the government there has stated prior that they favor Obama's proposed timeline, I'd expect some good results to occur.

Russia should consider a vested interest in US success and withdrawal from Iraq as well, regardless of our differences past and present, as the more troops we don't have there, it removes a major theatre of operations that can shift forces into Afghanistan to utterly crush the taliban, al queda and whoever else we need to take out.

Several decades of our little Cold War has been heating the pot in Asia and now it's boiled over with this 'war on terror', which consists of combatants who bear no love for mother Russia either. This is one situation where our countries should be collaborating, UN or no UN, but there are indeed others...

[Zakharra]

 

Russia should consider a vested interest in US success and withdrawal from Iraq as well, regardless of our differences past and present, as the more troops we don't have there, it removes a major theatre of operations that can shift forces into Afghanistan to utterly crush the taliban, al queda and whoever else we need to take out.

Several decades of our little Cold War has been heating the pot in Asia and now it's boiled over with this 'war on terror', which consists of combatants who bear no love for mother Russia either. This is one situation where our countries should be collaborating, UN or no UN, but there are indeed others...

Russia spent the last 60-70 years as the major adversary against the US. What harms us is good for them. I can't see them and especially the current leadership, being happy with a satisfactory US withdrawl from Iraq or and successful suppression of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would free US resources, military and funds  to be used elsewhere.

There's too much personal interest and agendas, hardly anything gets done. Because of the asinine UN rules of engagement, this meddlesome pirate situation off the Somali coast hasn't been handled. Can't engage pirates once they've taken a ship, what the frack is that??? Here's a case where the big powers need to take off the kid gloves and do what must be done, and to hell with the UN. Each nation must weigh the risk to its own shipping; if you attack and seize our ships, we're coming in to take them back, at the threat of deadly force if need be. If you kill the crew, we'll bomb Somalia so fracking hard that your children will be reeling from the shockwaves five generations from now. You can't play bunnies and kittens with pirates; bullies only understand one language, they figure it out once someone knocks them on their ass hard.

I have no real disagreement against that. Just that we deal with the ships being held and against those we -know- are supporting them. No attacks against the country as a whole. Pinpoint strikes. Use the US Navy,  SEALs, and Marines. I'd use a Q-ship or five to nail the pirates. Then try and hang them.

You're not thinking wide enough; the only alternative is not a true world government, because no matter who tries to implement that, it's doomed to failure.

I must be blunt; as a species we're still too tribal and underdeveloped...the sort of thing that Star Trek's galactic Federation would quarantine and leave to their own devices. The 'alternative' may need to be power blocs; regional or continental UN's. I believe some times we all need a big 'time out', and get set back in our respective corners of the sandbox with T-shirts that say Doesn't Play Well With Others.

What sort of alternative then? Regional blocks? Who'd run the blocks? I do not think Mexico, Canada and Cuba would be glad at the US running the N. America Block. Who'd run the European one?  The EU or Russia?   The Asian? China, Japan, Vietnam?  S. America? Venezuela would want to run it. Or Brazil.   Africa? Who knows on that one.   he Middle East? Israel would not be allowed and nearly every nation around them would use the power of leading the Bloc to isolate and find a way to remove Israel.

[Oniya]

  What sort of alternative then? Regional blocks? Who'd run the blocks? I do not think Mexico, Canada and Cuba would be glad at the US running the N. America Block.

Considering the grassroots reaction to NAFTA, I don't think Joe Average in America would want to be in such a block. 

*imitates next-door neighbor*  Dang furrners, takin' jobs from hard-workin' Murrcans!

[The Overlord]

Russia spent the last 60-70 years as the major adversary against the US. What harms us is good for them. I can't see them and especially the current leadership, being happy with a satisfactory US withdrawl from Iraq or and successful suppression of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would free US resources, military and funds  to be used elsewhere.

Not always true. For one thing, the warr on terror is as much their fault as it is ours. Hypothetically speaking, with the US out of the picture, Al Queda or whomever would be free of fighting US intelligence and forces, and free of what I'm sure is a very uncomfortable specter of US missile drones suddenly appearing out of nowhere and eradicating their sorry existence, given how damnably effective they are. Free then to turn its weight against Russia, who in the name of bloody red empire has done its share to stir the pot in greater Asia. Care to see how they'd fare?

A world without the US might also result in a Russia more emboldened to take designs on European territory once again, which of course would eventually go nuclear with at least the UK and France, ‘nuff said'.

Also, in the time that the US and Russia have worked together, we have accomplished some great things, our space programs being a prime example that proves we can do more. I think in a post-Cold War era we better find a way to work it out, especially now in the Obama era, Europe is more likely to stand with the US if push comes to shove. To paraphrase Obama, I doubt Russia wants to find itself on the wrong side of history.

I have no real disagreement against that. Just that we deal with the ships being held and against those we -know- are supporting them. No attacks against the country as a whole. Pinpoint strikes. Use the US Navy,  SEALs, and Marines. I'd use a Q-ship or five to nail the pirates. Then try and hang them.

Well yeah, to be more specific here pinpoint and exacting strikes. Paving all of Somalia with carpet bombs isn't really an option, being as all of Somalia isn't responsible for it.

What sort of alternative then? Regional blocks? Who'd run the blocks? I do not think Mexico, Canada and Cuba would be glad at the US running the N. America Block. Who'd run the European one?  The EU or Russia?   The Asian? China, Japan, Vietnam?  S. America? Venezuela would want to run it. Or Brazil.   Africa? Who knows on that one.   he Middle East? Israel would not be allowed and nearly every nation around them would use the power of leading the Bloc to isolate and find a way to remove Israel.

We seem to have been doing this in one more another already. My issue with the UN is that all the infighting really makes it something of a paper tiger in a lot of ways, and as mentioned above, the ludicrous rules of engagement with the Somali coast being a prime example. If you're not going replace it, at least fix it so it can function better. Actually, the aims of the League of Nations were solid ones, but came at a bad time since everyone had the wind knocked out of them following WWI.

[overfiend87]

I heard about this some time ago from a jurnal on DA. I think it's quite stupid to have no signed it, however ofcourse Arab states didn't sign it since it is illegal to be gay in their country. Punishable by hanging.

[Dashenka]

I heard about this some time ago from a jurnal on DA. I think it's quite stupid to have no signed it, however ofcourse Arab states didn't sign it since it is illegal to be gay in their country. Punishable by hanging.

It is too in the most Christian of all countries, The Vatican, so let's not blame the Arabs for being intolerant when Christianity is in fact the most intolerant religion in the world.

[consortium11]

A world without the US might also result in a Russia more emboldened to take designs on European territory once again, which of course would eventually go nuclear with at least the UK and France, ‘nuff said'.

Also, in the time that the US and Russia have worked together, we have accomplished some great things, our space programs being a prime example that proves we can do more. I think in a post-Cold War era we better find a way to work it out, especially now in the Obama era, Europe is more likely to stand with the US if push comes to shove. To paraphrase Obama, I doubt Russia wants to find itself on the wrong side of history.

Russia could cripple, or at least gain a huge amount of control over almost all of continental Europe without using a single military unit. All it has to do is stop pumping gas. Look at the recent situation with Ukraine to see the effect that can have... almost all of Eastern and some of Central Europe lost upwards of 75% of their supplies. The UK was somewhat protected by North Sea oil suppies, but they're dwindling. And that was shutting off the pipelines that ran through 1 country... Russia still sent gas out in a lot of other ways.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Russia could cripple, or at least gain a huge amount of control over almost all of continental Europe without using a single military unit. All it has to do is stop pumping gas. Look at the recent situation with Ukraine to see the effect that can have... almost all of Eastern and some of Central Europe lost upwards of 75% of their supplies. The UK was somewhat protected by North Sea oil suppies, but they're dwindling. And that was shutting off the pipelines that ran through 1 country... Russia still sent gas out in a lot of other ways.

Every coin has two sides, and the other side of an energy embargo is the loss of income on the part of the nation withholding energy from the market.

[consortium11]

Agreed, but Russia can absorb gas losses easier than Europe can go without gas. State control means that Russia was able to simply shut down the market during the recent crises... they can take on the loss. It would not be a prudent long term move, but, for a while at least, they can starve Europe.

[Dashenka]

All that you are saying is true but why would we want to take over Europe? Have you ever seen a world map and the sheer size our country is? Vladivostok in the far east of Russia is closer to London and Washington than to Moscow. We cover already half the world, what on earth do we need with more land?

The only reason I could think of is power but as it is at the moment, the most powerful country of Europe is Russia so we don't really need more power.

I'm very happy though that Medvedev is reaching out to Obama to start talking again with words in stead of missiles and rockets. Russia and the US can take the world to another level and after 8 years of that fake war on terror I think it is time to get to that next level.

[consortium11]

Once again agreed, although Putin has always been slightly agressive with regards to Western expansion: the frosty relationship with Ukraine attests to that. While I doubt there is any intention to physically expand Russia there is a definate intention to expand their influence into the Eastern Bloc, or, at the very least, combat US/NATO interests.

The points I made were more in response to The Overlord's post that Russia may have designs on Europe, which would eventually go nuclear. I cannot see any nation having the political will to launch nukes is response to an economic/resource based "attack". In a similar vein to China (although China's economic power against the US is far more direct and threatening if they ever dared use it) Russia has an unconventional MAD stratergy if needed, one that avoids both conventional and nuclear war.