RE: My new Iraq Analogy

RE: My new Iraq Analogy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/16/2007 9:39:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I've yet to see this analogy topped: Invading Iraq in response to 9/11, is a little like if we had invaded Canada in response to Pearl Harbor. Actually that analogy is kind of stupid. In response to 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan. The reason given to invade Iraq would be their alleged WMDs and alleged connections to terrorism, however the primary reason was always the WMDs. It wasn`t stupid. You know what she meant(Iraq),you just want`a seem clever.It was a good analogy. So you`re one of those special folks, who still believes that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate? You`re one of the 28%ers ? Hey Laz, are you in the military?If not,why? This link is for you Laz,if you haven`t seen it yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/16/2007 9:41:59 PM)
The primary reason is that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al. engaged in a systematic plot to tell lies, 1/2 truths, misstatements, and statements made with reckless disregard to their veracity, in violation of 18 USC 371, et. seq.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/16/2007 11:01:28 PM)
Kind of like you being a carefully selected plant, of those that want big business brought down? Planted by the communist party, that has placed invisible satelites, that keep track of our every move? I am glad certain peoples telepathic powers work, because mine do not. Have you ever studied the market and what actually causes gas to go up and down? The information is out there. I show that you made an inaccurate statement and this is the best you can do? Every investigation into price gouging off the oil industry, has turned up squat. If they are doing it, then it is being done in a legal way. Do you drive a car? If so, then you are contributing. quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH Yes, their generosity is indeed staggering: $1/gallon up to $3/gallon in less than a decade, then lower it slightly to keep us from suspecting price-gouging?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/16/2007 11:08:50 PM)
You make an unsupported statement that gas prices are artificially high, but provide no data to back that up. Please provide data to support that, and I will be happy to research it, and if it is faulty, show the data that proves it faulty. gas prices should be whatever the open market of supply, demand, and speculation makes it. I will agree that it should not be in the stock market, so that speculation does not come into play. It should be percentage increase of cost to attain a supportable net profit. So how many refineries do we have in the US? How long since new ones have been built? Who was President when most of the small and medium refineries went belly up or sold out? Why did they sell? R&D on alternative fuel aside, has the US government offered any assistance in helping to create US refineries for small and medium business, so that the big oil companies have compettition? quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH Yes, their generosity is indeed staggering: $1/gallon up to $3/gallon in less than a decade, then lower it slightly to keep us from suspecting price-gouging? Well put! I was going to say the same thing.Gas prices are artificially high. Ok,conservatives,let`s hear the arguments as to why gas prices should be high.

farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 5:45:30 AM)
Exxon Mobil's 2005 net income for the year was $1,146 a second. And I have no idea why we don't all drive Plug-Ins. We have the sun. We have the technology, and we have the 400 Billion required to get it done.

SimplyMichael -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 9:47:49 AM)
Orion, None of us are as smart as you so I am sure you already dismissed their record profits as any indication of price gouging and we also know that whenever Bush investigates his friends and families they do a thorough job. What's next, an endorsement of Haliburton?

Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 3:31:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Let's hear the arguments about why we're burning petrochemicals for electricity in the first place. The sun provides ALL the energy our planet could ever need, and we're too damn stupid to go and get it. You know, it would have cost LESS than the money wasted in Iraq, and requires 1980's technology, so what's the hold up? Generally speaking we burn coal for electricity. There are not many oil burning electrical plants.

farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 4:20:29 PM)
Ok, you miss the point. The ONLY reason we burn oil or coal, is that we've CHOSEN to not build the infrastructure needed to ensure our national security and energy independence.

Griswold -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 5:23:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael What we did in Iraq was invade a high security prison, kill off all the guards then held elections and keep getting surprised that things aren't working out. So?

Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 6:01:00 PM)
Actually we mine our own coal and have enough domestic supply for the forseeable future. We should be building more nuke plants, the most economic, effiecient, and least polluting forms of energy but for some reason people seem to not like that idea. We could go with hydrogen cars or electric but there are problems with both of those technologies. The truth of the matter is that we use gas powered cars because it's the cheapest form of energy.

Sinergy -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 6:06:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Durus The truth of the matter is that we use gas powered cars because it's the cheapest form of energy. Not really. We use gas powered cars because the volume of gas to energy produced is the most efficient a la Henry Ford. We continue to use them because the Oil Companies, the Automobile companies, etc., have conspired for years and years to kill... Public transit (search for Los Angeles and public transportation) Auto efficiency. A car that gets 100mpg will be unprofitable for gas companies. Electric car. (Who killed the Electric Car, among others) I could go on. We need to develop an infrastructure, but every time somebody steps up to the plate to do so he gets ridiculed and trashed by the Corporatocracy and their generally right wing corporate drones. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 6:08:27 PM)
NO, NO, NO! The solution is Space Based Solar, with Ground Stations just plugged into the grid where the old generating stations stand. It's UNLIMITED ENERGY, FOREVER once the 400 Billion dollars is INVESTED. Zero Imports. Zero Emissions. As a benefit, we get to offer ground stations to our strategic allies. It's 1970's/80's technology, and less money than we've wasted in Iraq. Oh, and we get heavy lifting capacity into GEO. Once you're there, you go to the Moon for long weekends. And you go everywhere else because it's there.

Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 6:46:31 PM)
We use gas powered cars because the volume of gas to energy produced is the most efficient a la Henry Ford. If a less efficient fuel could be produced more cheaply we would use it. We continue to use them because the Oil Companies, the Automobile companies, etc., have conspired for years and years to kill... We still use it because it's cheapest Public transit (search for Los Angeles and public transportation) That only works in population dense areas, and none of them are self sufficient. It's not a big plot. Auto efficiency. A car that gets 100mpg will be unprofitable for gas companies. But it sure would be popular for the company that made the cars. I'm sure people are giving up being billionairs in deference to gas companies. Electric car. (Who killed the Electric Car, among others) The electric car has big problems that are not produced by oil companies. First of all we do not have the infrastructure to produce the electricity that we would need. Secondly and more importantly battery technology isn't quite there yet. There are some exciting cars coming out (tesla sportster) but in five years when the battery needs to be replaced and the person is looking a huge bill and we as a nation have to worry about disposal of batteries with toxic polluting chemicals in them it begins to look like it isn't THE solution at least right now. We need to develop an infrastructure, but every time somebody steps up to the plate to do so he gets ridiculed and trashed by the Corporatocracy and their generally right wing corporate drones. The undue amount of power that coporations weild over the polital process isn't hard to fix...but anyone in the postition to do it wants the cash it provides. Then we have to remove the control government has over business because ultimately that's what feeds the beast. Any alternative infrastrure requires energy from some source and as far as I can determine we need to start building nuke plants now to support it.

Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 6:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle NO, NO, NO! The solution is Space Based Solar, with Ground Stations just plugged into the grid where the old generating stations stand. It's UNLIMITED ENERGY, FOREVER once the 400 Billion dollars is INVESTED. Zero Imports. Zero Emissions. As a benefit, we get to offer ground stations to our strategic allies. It's 1970's/80's technology, and less money than we've wasted in Iraq. Oh, and we get heavy lifting capacity into GEO. Once you're there, you go to the Moon for long weekends. And you go everywhere else because it's there. Uhhhh..... Maybe we could just put Mr.Fusions on everone cars too. Let's stick to what is technologically possible today or it will get silly (er)

farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 7:22:51 PM)
Like I said, it's 1970's/1980's technology, and would have cost LESS than the Occupation of Iraq. Tell me what aspects of it which is "Sci-Fi", and not commercially producible with the will, and a budget of 400 Billion Dollars. The secret is to not send astronauts, but to send construction workers, mechanical engineers, and enough supplies and basic tools for them to fabricate whatever is needed. That's the "How do we mass produce the satellites?" part... There's the heavy-lifting part: Congress could just GIVE the American Company which puts a target weight into orbit, and then turns around and uses the same ship 30 days later to lift another same sized load... then 30 days after that... then 30 days after that, say, 250 Billion TAX FREE, and let the Market work out the details...

Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 7:30:51 PM)
Tell me what aspects of it which is "Sci-Fi", and not commercially producible with the will, and a budget of 400 Billion Dollars. The aspect of power transmission for one...it has never been done. Secondly do you have any idea of the square footage of solar cells, even those in orbit, that would be required to replace current power sources? Thirdly do you realise how vulnerable solar stations would be in orbit? I don't think it's technologically feasible or desirable even if it were.

farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 7:47:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Durus Tell me what aspects of it which is "Sci-Fi", and not commercially producible with the will, and a budget of 400 Billion Dollars. The aspect of power transmission for one...it has never been done. You are incorrect. This paper is from 1992. I'm sure that the intervening 15 years has only made the processes involved cheaper. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/22/3793/00141357.pdf?arnumber=141357 "For a beamed system starting with a DC source of power, converting it to a microwave beam for transmission through space, and ending with DC power output at the receiving end, an experimentally measured and certified DC-to-DC efficiency of 54% has been achieved. " quote: Secondly do you have any idea of the square footage of solar cells, even those in orbit, that would be required to replace current power sources? SHIT. I wanted to run some numbers before replying... I'll get back to this point in a few minutes. quote: Thirdly do you realise how vulnerable solar stations would be in orbit? Against what? You're at the TOP of the Gravity Well. Now, putting aside the obvious, "What do you have a Navy for, but to secure your lines of commerce?", I think we would work out how to perhaps lase all that power into something which could vaporize any threats... That's for the Hi-IQ boys and girls out on the stations and the Navy to figure out... quote: I don't think it's technologically feasible or desirable even if it were. Own oil stocks, do you? Or do you just wish to see America deprived of Security and an in-exhaustable source of energy, forever? Think of the commercial advantage to our economy when we don't have to burn shit for power and fuel!

Griswold -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 7:49:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Durus (Okay...sorry...had to do it...) We use gas powered cars because the volume of gas to energy produced is the most efficient a la Henry Ford. If a less efficient fuel could be produced more cheaply we would use it. We continue to use them because the Oil Companies, the Automobile companies, etc., have conspired for years and years to kill... Okay...we can run all the "tobacco" correlations we need to but...the oil companies are selling oil because...we're buying it. (There's no "conspiracy"). We still use it because it's cheapest (Uh huh). Public transit (search for Los Angeles and public transportation) That only works in population dense areas, and none of them are self sufficient. It's not a big plot. It's an outlet...not a panacea. Thankfully we're in a position to offer it...as an outlet. (Not a panacea). Auto efficiency. A car that gets 100mpg will be unprofitable for gas companies. So? But it sure would be popular for the company that made the cars. I'm sure people are giving up being billionairs in deference to gas companies. I did (but let's not discuss the immense wealth I transferred {that may have only taken me hours} to smaller countries during this rather important topic). Electric car. (Who killed the Electric Car, among others) Mmmmm...I'd bet a fair guess at the "alternate" energy companies...anyone who ain't oil would be a safe bet. The electric car has big problems that are not produced by oil companies. First of all we do not have the infrastructure to produce the electricity that we would need. Secondly and more importantly battery technology isn't quite there yet. There are some exciting cars coming out (tesla sportster) but in five years when the battery needs to be replaced and the person is looking a huge bill and we as a nation have to worry about disposal of batteries with toxic polluting chemicals in them it begins to look like it isn't THE solution at least right now. Electric cars need electricity. Currently 57% of our electricity comes from coal. Anyone convincing themselves that electricity is clean energy....ought to roll me one. (Of course, I refer to Christmas wrappings in that). We need to develop an infrastructure, but every time somebody steps up to the plate to do so he gets ridiculed and trashed by the Corporatocracy and their generally right wing corporate drones. If by that, you mean we need to establish a national infrastructure program, wherein which our roads, bridges, airports, and all other port issues that hinder our growth are funded appropriately....I'd agree. If by that you mean every possible enactment of some govt. bilge that allows us each to sit back and wait for someone else to produce the goods....no thanks. The undue amount of power that coporations weild over the polital process isn't hard to fix...but anyone in the postition to do it wants the cash it provides. Then we have to remove the control government has over business because ultimately that's what feeds the beast. Any alternative infrastrure requires energy from some source and as far as I can determine we need to start building nuke plants now to support it. All wealth is concentrated. If it weren't...few would have opportunity. Wealth creates power. I haven't know many wealthy people who didn't inherently understand the plight of those who had less. And the ones I've known, make more attempts at seeing to it that those who aren't in their own social caste....have a chance to be so, than those who only aspire.

farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 7:58:44 PM)
July 2006 - URSI Inter-commission Working Group on SPS 1 GW SPS power plant has the following typical dimensions. The area of a solar cell panel is approximately 10 km2 (2km x 5km) for production of 2GW DC power with the solar cell conversion efficiency of 15%. Transmitting antenna is about 1km in diameter. Rectenna Ground Stations are about 2km in diameter. You just hang rectennas on the old, obsolete coal/oil/nuke plants. ( You could make a case for keeping a few nukes online... )

Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 9:01:30 PM)
You are incorrect. This paper is from 1992. I'm sure that the intervening 15 years has only made the processes involved cheaper. But it still hasn't been done...and experiments in atmosphere doesn't prove the system. SHIT. I wanted to run some numbers before replying... I'll get back to this point in a few minutes. keep in mind that any solar energy absorbed by those screens are not hitting earth. Against what? You're at the TOP of the Gravity Well. Now, putting aside the obvious, "What do you have a Navy for, but to secure your lines of commerce?", I think we would work out how to perhaps lase all that power into something which could vaporize any threats... That's for the Hi-IQ boys and girls out on the stations and the Navy to figure out... How about a nuke or 2? They are more vulnerable in space then on earth. Own oil stocks, do you? Or do you just wish to see America deprived of Security and an in-exhaustable source of energy, forever? Think of the commercial advantage to our economy when we don't have to burn shit for power and fuel! Of course I would like in-exhaustable sources of energy...I just don't think that is the way to do it. [/quote]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875