Posted by
michael
on from the now-I'll-never-get-a-mr.-fusion dept.
Chuck1318 writes "The US is halting its national nuclear fusion energy project, FIRE, and pinning its hopes on the internation fusion research program ITER. However, ITER is stalled over a dispute on where to locate the facility. The dream of fusion power is getting no closer..."
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
darkmeridian
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Why not put it in Japan? They have the most experience in dealing with such matters.
-- A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
rosie_bhjp
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
well remember when Japan bombed pearl harbor in 1941?
It was clearly Mexico's fault and we should have declared war on THEM. Yeah, so they didn't fund the Japanese or give them training or intelligence or even really talk to them but that doesn't matter it was obviously their fault anyway. But instead! That liberal pissant Roosevelt decided to attack the country that ACTUALLY attacked us!? can you believe such a thing!?
Now the grand parent poster is MUCH more in line with current, and I have to say, much more advanced thinking and rationalization. That is, since the World Trade Center attacks were carried out by mostly Saudi Citizens, who were financed and supported by Al Qaeda, who get the majority of their funding from Yemeni, Iranian, and Saudi origins, who had set up rather nice camps in Afghanistan as a base of operations, it is very obvious and if you don't see this you are an ABSOLUTE MORON, that we MUST attack Iraq!
In addition! Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. No? Oh Wait. Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs! Not that either? Hmmm Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs! Still no dice? Oh, Iraq has Interest in Future Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs! Yeah thats it!
You still don't understand? It has NOTHING to do with oil! Its all because of Iraq's (non)involvement in 9/11 and their hideous Interest in Future Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs. You know they can deploy them(I don't care if they don't exist! they can still deploy them!) in 45 minutes right? Doesn't that scare you? Doesn't that SCARE you? It has nothing to do with oil. Be afraid. They have a jet fighter with a range of 450 miles. That can reach the United States! The United States is further than 450 miles from Iraq? Puh-lease! They are SNEAKY! Did you ever think they could land at Heathrow and refuel? Hmmm? HMMM?
You know he gassed his own people right? I don't care if Iraq and Iran were engaged in tit-for-tat biological attacks against each other for several months prior. I don't care if we actually helped him build the stuff. We thought he was going to make cupcakes out of it! Egg on our face for that one! I told you they were SNEAKY! It has nothing to do with oil.
I for one am glad we are protected each day and night by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. I for one am glad that our president is a puppet for their interests. I for one am especially glad we have a good upstanding citizen like Bill O'Reilly to explain this all to us because this advanced thinking is beyond most of us and he makes it easy to understand!
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
imaginate
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Actually, I believe that the "question" or, rather, the questionable statement that the grandparent responded to was that attacking Iraq was essentially equivalent to attacking those who took out the twin towers.
All this BS about maintaining the power of UN resolutions seems like just more spin to me, on the order of the "but Iraq has WMD" or the "but Saddam is a bad man" statements - they have *nothing* to do with why we went to war with that country. There are plenty of evil dictators, plenty of countries with verified and *admitted* WMD, and at least a few countries that have *repeatedly* defied the UN (On that last one at least, Americans can look in the mirror).
The argument that we did this in the UN's best interests completely neglects the fact that most of the people who favor the war in Iraq have long *despised* the UN and have acted against the UN in word or deed for years. The people encouraging and/or justifying this war are the same people who will straight up say that they don't *want* the UN to be powerful.
Personally, I think it has a little something to do with oil, something to do with the fact that Bush Jr. didn't like Saddam trying to take out his old man, and a whole lot to do with the neoconservative ideal of what would happen to the middle east if they took out Saddam (see www.newamericancentury.com). They want America to be some kind of dynastic empire that protects itself by being mightier than everyone else, discounting the fact that such thinking has never worked in the past. I think they're just inept - if you read what they thought would happen in Iraq you could see before the war that it was a pipe dream. Iraq is a hotbed of radically different religions and cultures who have repeatedly not gotten along (to put it mildly), the people of Iraq have never *asked us* with any kind of coherant voice to revolutionize/occupy them, and the idea that they or any of the surrounding nations would look heroically upon an outside country that attacked them is unbelievably simplistic, if not downright insane. As if the neocons needed any help in their failure, calling their actions a "crusade" just about sealed the deal (while further revealing Bush's ignorant self-righteousness toward the peoples he was supposedly going to help).
I agree that Hussein being out of Iraqi leadership is a good thing in itself, though it's distinctly possible that even worse things may come of the way it was done, especially for America. As for the justifications, like "we gave strength to the voice of the world community," those will wear thin, if they haven't already. But, no doubt, more will be spun, equally thin and equally unbelievable to the families of the people we killed...
Meanwhile, the problems we really need to tackle, like security in America and security for people around the world, will continue to wait...
P.S. How exactly do you "prove" that you don't have something you don't have? If there was to be such a proof, wasn't that what the UN weapons inspectors were supposed to provide? If so, why did we attack Iraq before they had finished doing their jobs? The "proof" that we should be more upset about is the "proof" that our *own goverment* provided claiming that Iraq *did* have WMD. *That* was the proof that was supposed to convince the world that this was a "just war," and that was the false proof that will turn even more people against our country.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not put it in Japan? They have the most experience in dealing with such matters.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
well remember when Japan bombed pearl harbor in 1941?
It was clearly Mexico's fault and we should have declared war on THEM. Yeah, so they didn't fund the Japanese or give them training or intelligence or even really talk to them but that doesn't matter it was obviously their fault anyway. But instead! That liberal pissant Roosevelt decided to attack the country that ACTUALLY attacked us!? can you believe such a thing!?
Now the grand parent poster is MUCH more in line with current, and I have to say, much more advanced thinking and rationalization. That is, since the World Trade Center attacks were carried out by mostly Saudi Citizens, who were financed and supported by Al Qaeda, who get the majority of their funding from Yemeni, Iranian, and Saudi origins, who had set up rather nice camps in Afghanistan as a base of operations, it is very obvious and if you don't see this you are an ABSOLUTE MORON, that we MUST attack Iraq!
In addition! Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. No? Oh Wait.
Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs! Not that either? Hmmm
Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs! Still no dice?
Oh, Iraq has Interest in Future Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs! Yeah thats it!
You still don't understand? It has NOTHING to do with oil! Its all because of Iraq's (non)involvement in 9/11 and their hideous Interest in Future Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs. You know they can deploy them(I don't care if they don't exist! they can still deploy them!) in 45 minutes right? Doesn't that scare you? Doesn't that SCARE you? It has nothing to do with oil. Be afraid. They have a jet fighter with a range of 450 miles. That can reach the United States! The United States is further than 450 miles from Iraq? Puh-lease! They are SNEAKY! Did you ever think they could land at Heathrow and refuel? Hmmm? HMMM?
You know he gassed his own people right? I don't care if Iraq and Iran were engaged in tit-for-tat biological attacks against each other for several months prior. I don't care if we actually helped him build the stuff. We thought he was going to make cupcakes out of it! Egg on our face for that one! I told you they were SNEAKY! It has nothing to do with oil.
I for one am glad we are protected each day and night by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. I for one am glad that our president is a puppet for their interests. I for one am especially glad we have a good upstanding citizen like Bill O'Reilly to explain this all to us because this advanced thinking is beyond most of us and he makes it easy to understand!
A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
Actually, I believe that the "question" or, rather, the questionable statement that the grandparent responded to was that attacking Iraq was essentially equivalent to attacking those who took out the twin towers.
All this BS about maintaining the power of UN resolutions seems like just more spin to me, on the order of the "but Iraq has WMD" or the "but Saddam is a bad man" statements - they have *nothing* to do with why we went to war with that country. There are plenty of evil dictators, plenty of countries with verified and *admitted* WMD, and at least a few countries that have *repeatedly* defied the UN (On that last one at least, Americans can look in the mirror).
The argument that we did this in the UN's best interests completely neglects the fact that most of the people who favor the war in Iraq have long *despised* the UN and have acted against the UN in word or deed for years. The people encouraging and/or justifying this war are the same people who will straight up say that they don't *want* the UN to be powerful.
Personally, I think it has a little something to do with oil, something to do with the fact that Bush Jr. didn't like Saddam trying to take out his old man, and a whole lot to do with the neoconservative ideal of what would happen to the middle east if they took out Saddam (see www.newamericancentury.com). They want America to be some kind of dynastic empire that protects itself by being mightier than everyone else, discounting the fact that such thinking has never worked in the past. I think they're just inept - if you read what they thought would happen in Iraq you could see before the war that it was a pipe dream. Iraq is a hotbed of radically different religions and cultures who have repeatedly not gotten along (to put it mildly), the people of Iraq have never *asked us* with any kind of coherant voice to revolutionize/occupy them, and the idea that they or any of the surrounding nations would look heroically upon an outside country that attacked them is unbelievably simplistic, if not downright insane. As if the neocons needed any help in their failure, calling their actions a "crusade" just about sealed the deal (while further revealing Bush's ignorant self-righteousness toward the peoples he was supposedly going to help).
I agree that Hussein being out of Iraqi leadership is a good thing in itself, though it's distinctly possible that even worse things may come of the way it was done, especially for America. As for the justifications, like "we gave strength to the voice of the world community," those will wear thin, if they haven't already. But, no doubt, more will be spun, equally thin and equally unbelievable to the families of the people we killed...
Meanwhile, the problems we really need to tackle, like security in America and security for people around the world, will continue to wait...
P.S. How exactly do you "prove" that you don't have something you don't have? If there was to be such a proof, wasn't that what the UN weapons inspectors were supposed to provide? If so, why did we attack Iraq before they had finished doing their jobs? The "proof" that we should be more upset about is the "proof" that our *own goverment* provided claiming that Iraq *did* have WMD. *That* was the proof that was supposed to convince the world that this was a "just war," and that was the false proof that will turn even more people against our country.