And yes, this is why I've heard many people say that Bush is stupid and monkeylike, Clarence Thomas is an evil man, and probably a rapist, was smeared through the mud, Newt Gingrich was smeared by the press until he had to resign, Cheney is fat and an evil corporate whore, Rush Limbaugh is fat and stupid, Reagan was just a stupid actor, all republicans are homophobes, Trent Lott had to resign because of bsing at friend's funeral and the subsequent press smearing, Borked was--well--borked, oh and let's not forget Dan Quayle--yet another "stupid" republican.
Heard any of those before? Because those are all just ad hominem attacks.
You can talk about ad hominem attacks all you want, but they happen on BOTH sides of the aisle. I don't know about you, but I've heard more venom against Bush then I ever heard against Clinton..
I still disagree, and I even got modded down, ouch!:-p
No, I will not argue that there has been no climate change over the past ten thousand years--in fact I said that I wouldn't argue that point. I will strenuously argue as to the causes of the changes, and indeed the extent.
Point 1--the area is a STILL a fertile crescent. The entire region is a semi-arid zone. This is due not simply to the (lack of large amounts of vegetation) but ocean currents--among them, the monsoon winds, as well as physical geography. Mountain ranges that "bottle" up from the red sea (a plate boundary) north into Turkey, along the Zagros in Iran, etc. This makes much of the region lack rainful. However, you can view Satellite imagery--there are incredibly fertile areas. These are linked to water resources, and expanded by man through canals, irrigation etc.
I'll admit that I've never read (nor ever heard of) Thom Hartmann, however as I see other books he's written include "The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights" I immediately suspect that h'es more of an activist writer than an actual historian, and one should be careful with the average armchair historian. I can't say this with certainty though, as I said, I've never heard of him--but I can say I take his writings with a rather large, excuse the pun, grain of salt.
You can't argue with it because you've apparently never bothered to do a whit of research on the topic. But I suppose you're more learned than Jared Diamond, or just about any other ecological scientist on the planet?
No I of course wouldn't make such a claim, but I am a Middle Eastern historian, so I like to think I have some basic knowledge of the region. As I've pointed out, we have no direct evidence of any human impact on the environment (and indeed, similiar changes happening worldwide--I'll especially note the case of Northern China) makes the argument that human civilization created one of the greatest semi-arid zones in the world utterly ludicrous. If you examine the types and methods of agricutlural developed in this region, it all falls into place--these are areas which NEVER (at least not within the "civilizational timeframe") experienced the amount of rainfall you claim. Herodotus--Egypt is the gift of the Nile. Likewise, Mesopotamia, etc.
Actually I think I just realized what you might be getting at--yes, human causes CAN have temporary effects on the environment that are quite nasty--actually, read my other post. the key is TEMPORARY. Salt in the soil may have been a problem 4000 years ago, but it's easily fixable, and indeed is. The BIGGEST reason it's a problem is that the rivers were the only source of water. After all, you don't get salty soil from rainfall.
and the expression Fertile Crescent is NOT at all ludicrous today.
Like civilizations in many places. People in rain forests live near the rivers, for pity's sake.
The difference is the green line. If you've ever lived in a desert area this is something you just realize right off the bat. It seems much less obvious to those of us from temperate climates.
Even in rainy climates, farmers still irrigate. The presence of irrigation technology doesn't rule out forests and rain.
You're of course correct--the key are the types and extent of irrigation.
It was overfarming, including irrigation with salt-contaminated water, that burned out the fields and led to agricultural collapse.
If you buy the theory that there WAS an agricultural collapse! Egypt around the Nile is hugely fertile today. Same in Iraq. Palestine/Israel produces tons of dates and olives. Even in Afghanistan until recent warfare there were HUGE date forests. This region is just as semi-arid as it ever was, and it's still quite fertile!
You can point to TEMPORARY collapses of agricultural. For instance in 9th century iraq, a slave rebellion (by black African slaves in southern Iraq, called Zanj IIRC) led to a breakdown in authority (see my earlier post about hydraulic empires). Problem--salination of fields. The slaves stopped working, the fields salted up. No problem, it took a while to reverse, but these were not new problems. You can clean up salty land.
Did I say there were large populations of slaves in China in the past 2000 years? No, I did not, I think you must be confusing what "early" means in the context of Chinese history. Try going back a few thousand more years.. There's a lot of Chinese history to cover;)
And also tell me, in any society in China, from let's say T'ang on, how many freedoms did the average non-aristocrat have? This is the age of the Venetian republic, and the growth of political rights (albet a bit later) in Europe for comparison.
I say that because yes, most early ancient empires DO share large numbers of similarities.
China did used to hold a signifigant number of slaves, as you say not irreversible, but neither was it irreversible in Greece. In Ancient Greece many slaves were held in honored positions, and could gain power and authority--the same pattern is seen later in the Byzantine Empire, and then later in many Islamic Empires. Very foreign to a Western view point.
I also say this because even when we're not talking about slaves, China's history has definitely tended to the authoritarian. (overstatement, hyperboly!) I forget the name of the site, but an very early site in China shows evidence of hundreds of farm workers who weren't called slaves, but lived as such, not owning land or the implements they worked.
The simple fact is, most people lived lives pretty much bereft of choice and freedom, whether they were called slave or not, until pretty recently.
Yes, climates change (duh). The climate of what we today call the middle east (let's say Nile to Oxus to make it easy) has probably not changed that much in the past several thousand years. It's always been a semi-arid zone. Look at the placements of ancient civilizations, and communities? Notice how they're all clustered around rivers, wells, etc? The situation as of at least 2000 was verifiably no different than today. One simply needs to look at the multitude of irrigation techniques that arose in the area as a necessity (qanats are my personal favorite--extremely interesting and ingenious method of water transportation).
It is absolutely NOT a (correct) statement of historical fact that the area was once covered by "vast temperate forests" and that these forests brought rain--I can't argue you this point, because it's simply not correct..
Incidentally, there area today STILL has large amounts of trees--where there is water. The vast majority is desert. As it has been for thousands of years.
Again, I say, go to Egypt for a PERFECT example of the situation we are dealing with (since I wouldn't recommend going to Iraq right now;) I'll one up you in fact:
Google maps...typed in "Cairo, Egypt"... this is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. Look how green it is! Look wha'ts growing--trees! Crops, etc. Look how SUDDEN the line is where greenery ends, and trees begin. This is because of the water. You can follow such a pattern the length of the Nile (until you get into the tropical sub-Saharan regions of course). The same is true for the "middle east." PEOPLE made the area fertile.
Uh, the fertile crescent is called such because it's the region that despite what you say, is still here today, in which there are significant water resources in an otherwise arid territory. If you've been through Egypt along the Nile, or elsewhere such as the more hilly areas of Lebanon, and compare to say--much of Jordan, you'll instantly understand. If anything, mankind through irrigation, canal building, and daming, MADE this area the ferticle crescent.
There's actually a whole (though somewhat discredited theory) that early civilizations arose in areas like this where wateer resources were difficult for INDIVIDUALS to control, because kings could control large numbers of people to massively change the land--the "hydraulic despotisms." It's easier to control people when they are dependent on a greater organization to farm, than say areas in much of the Americans, Europe, Africa, where water resources are generally more easilny available (though of course across huge swathes of the entire world, people have lived in arid zones)
That's not the question (though I realize my previous post was the most poorly worded thing I've ever written).
To restate:
It's commonly said that the action of creating hydrogen via a petroleum-fueled process is a net energy LOSS. That is, we'd be better to just burn the oil, than to convert it to hydrogen.
If this is true for petroleum, a fuel and process with which we have a great deal of experience, how much more true is it with new, alternative energy processes?
ie, how much energy do we lose creating solar cells that we then use to get hydrogen?
that's the question, and one to which I don't have an answer.
Well, since once nuclear plant can produce more energy than acres and acres and acres of wind energy generators, I'd have to say I'd rather have one nuclear plant than acres of the other.
You're right about off-shore windfarms, except for issues of birds, ships, the states without oceans and homeowner complaints (this has come up in CA--turns out the people who own beachfront homes (ie $$$) don't want to ugly and loud turbines in their view).
I understand this my point is--it's commonly said creation of hydrogren for fuel using petroleum fueled devices takes more energy to create the hydrogen than is returned.
Do you honestly believe we won't come up with a solution to radioactive waste shortly? Since you're tlaking 10's of thousands of years, don't you tighnk it incredibly likely that within a 100 years we can further refine/do something to waste to neutralize? Not 100 years? Maybe 200? 500?
you're looking at the long haul, and so am I, and I think it's stupid to assume that we'll never figure out a better way to deal with waste.
Solar power? Not very effective (yet). Very high initial investment (expensive to create the cells too), huge areas of the country, and times of the year when it's completely ineffective, and you need a LOT of cells for a little power. I assume you'd need a ton of cells to power any signifigant hydrogen production.
Wind power? Same thing. HUGE areas of the country where this will never work, and many trimes of the year when it's not effective. Not to mention, they're big, ugly, and loud, and kill birds as shown in recent articles.
Hydroelecetric? I think you're on to something here, but again, huge areas where there are no options. Sure, if we were Norway we could do it, but Hydroelectric leaves a lot to be desired, and also if you're building dams, has HUGE (and potentially adverse) impact on the environemtn.
Me personally? I favor nuclear. but for whatever reason, the Enviro-nuts don't like nuclear.
Not sure--but it seems logical enough--there are periods when not enough energy is produced (brownouts, blackouts, etc) so there are periods when too much energy is produced--i guess it just dissipates? too bad...
Just out of curiosity, if the prevailing conspiracy theorist opinion (to which it is obvious you readily subscribe) is now that it was a con by the Bush administration--to what gain? What could they possibly have gained?
ACtually your numbers are outdated--since maybe 2003 most SUV's get closer to 30 mpg than to 15. Heck, my 7 year old SUV got a solid 20, and they've improved every year since then (Ford Explorer for me).
If you really want to talk about vehicles that get bad mileage target Jeeps and minivans--minivans are worse than SUVs.
Realistically speaking, what other options did the US have in the Pacific theater in WW2?
Japan had attacked us first. Japan indeed had brought us into the war. The fighting in the Pacific had been extremely bloody, with countless islands and other places won with much bloodshed and cost--and we weren't even to the Japanese mainland yet.
Kamikaze--divine wind--took a pretty rough toll. On the Japanese too for sure, but us as well. It's rather indicative of the extreme lengths to which some Japanese soldiers and commanders were willing to go to win.
Would you have rather we performed a manned ground invasion of the Japanese islands and subdued the entire place by force? The Japanese leaders PROVED by ignoring the nuclear bomb not only before it was detonated but more to the point, AFTER it was detonated, that they would not easily surrender.
Estimates I've read (and common sense as well) have point casualties and destruction on both sides from a ground invasion much higher than the nuclear bombings.
No side can be completely innocent in war. Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Tokyo for that matter were horrible. So too was the rape of Nanking, and the Japanese push throughout the Asia Pacific.
What choice did we have? This was not a war of our choice, or one that would end without a decisive victory or defeat. What better outcome could there have been?
General Patton once said something like 'no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country--the trick is to make the other dumb bastard die for his.' Somewhat egalitarian if you really think about it.
Why not? A democracy is simply a method of electing leaders. Once elected if the leaders choose to keep 80% of the people then it's still a democracy. Nowhere is this more plain then in Israel where a parlimentarian democracy is subjugating millions of palestenians.
I don't understand... "if the leaders choose to keep 80% of the people" ? We can disagree with definition of democracy then. I don't believe South Africa was a democracy. It was a pseudo-democracy, but not full. This is semantics and definitions though. As the generally excepted definition of democracy (look it up)--a democracy is control exercised by the entirety of a population.
As for Iran I read your posts and I disagree with your spin on what happened. You seem to feel that the only valid democratically elected leaders are the ones that agree with US policy. That's crap.
I wouldn't say that at all. France is democratic. Turkey is democratic. Venezuela is democratic. All these countries have governments that disagree with the US. My point about Iran is that at no point under the Shah can the government be described as remotely democratic. Mossadegh was elected under the shah. Just because there are elections does not a democracy make.
I am questioning why you feel to make this nitpicky (and wrong) statement
I don't see it as nitpicky or wrong. The point of the matter is the growth of democracy across the world has brought about much greater stability than ever before. No, democracies are not flawless, but then I never said that. Yes, democracies DO see non-democratic regimes as natural foes. No surprise. I don't see why you're surprised by this? You are annoyed by my statement--argue with it--and when you can't dispute the facts attack the argument as "nitpicky and wrong".. I don't understand what's the point of this.
And it does mean a lot. yes, some democratic governments have bad track records. They don't compare to China or the Soviet Union.
And again--let me put this in very simple terms for you--Palestine is not a country. Palestine (if you wish to treat it as a country) did not have elections until the past year or so. Israel and Palestine are today at a FAR better place in terms of peace and agreements than they have been in the past..maybe 30 years. Just because today the Palestinian authorities show SOME democratic leannings does not mean they've been a democracy for the past 55 years. Heck, the IDEA of a independent Palestine is newer than that. I don't understand your arguments here.
ultimately the point is, if everyone had governments like those in Western Europe (let's ignore the Us--they're pretty much the only ones you can find examples for that are even SOMEWHAt legitimate) the world would be even more stable.
Yes, it does invalidate the point. I never said "The U.S. has never done anything to a democracy" I said "democracies very rarely go to war." I have never said democracies NEVER go to war.
People are so eager to refute this simple point that they are grasping at the slightest of straws--"the US assisted a coup that overthrow a narco-dictator who had been elected at one point and then annulled the electoral system--see, the US is bad"
Like I said, I honestly don't know enough about most of the South american cases to comment in detail. Unfortunately.. Most such actions were done in the name of preserving open elections and democracy. ~shrug~ Probably BS to a large degree. It's all the cold war. Most of the very few incidents people have been citing can be related directly back to Soviet sponsored regimes taking over. Yes, we did bad things. But it was war with the Soviet union, basically.
Personally I think the point is more or less over as no has come up with a non-US example, and the US examples are mostly cold war by proxy. Yes it sucks, but the truth is (as I do still see it): democraacies DO go to war with each other very rarely. An order of magnititude more rarely than non-democracies.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, this is why I've heard many people say that Bush is stupid and monkeylike, Clarence Thomas is an evil man, and probably a rapist, was smeared through the mud, Newt Gingrich was smeared by the press until he had to resign, Cheney is fat and an evil corporate whore, Rush Limbaugh is fat and stupid, Reagan was just a stupid actor, all republicans are homophobes, Trent Lott had to resign because of bsing at friend's funeral and the subsequent press smearing, Borked was--well--borked, oh and let's not forget Dan Quayle--yet another "stupid" republican.
Heard any of those before? Because those are all just ad hominem attacks.
You can talk about ad hominem attacks all you want, but they happen on BOTH sides of the aisle. I don't know about you, but I've heard more venom against Bush then I ever heard against Clinton..
No, I will not argue that there has been no climate change over the past ten thousand years--in fact I said that I wouldn't argue that point. I will strenuously argue as to the causes of the changes, and indeed the extent.
Point 1--the area is a STILL a fertile crescent. The entire region is a semi-arid zone. This is due not simply to the (lack of large amounts of vegetation) but ocean currents--among them, the monsoon winds, as well as physical geography. Mountain ranges that "bottle" up from the red sea (a plate boundary) north into Turkey, along the Zagros in Iran, etc. This makes much of the region lack rainful. However, you can view Satellite imagery--there are incredibly fertile areas. These are linked to water resources, and expanded by man through canals, irrigation etc.
I'll admit that I've never read (nor ever heard of) Thom Hartmann, however as I see other books he's written include "The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights" I immediately suspect that h'es more of an activist writer than an actual historian, and one should be careful with the average armchair historian. I can't say this with certainty though, as I said, I've never heard of him--but I can say I take his writings with a rather large, excuse the pun, grain of salt.
You can't argue with it because you've apparently never bothered to do a whit of research on the topic. But I suppose you're more learned than Jared Diamond, or just about any other ecological scientist on the planet?
No I of course wouldn't make such a claim, but I am a Middle Eastern historian, so I like to think I have some basic knowledge of the region. As I've pointed out, we have no direct evidence of any human impact on the environment (and indeed, similiar changes happening worldwide--I'll especially note the case of Northern China) makes the argument that human civilization created one of the greatest semi-arid zones in the world utterly ludicrous. If you examine the types and methods of agricutlural developed in this region, it all falls into place--these are areas which NEVER (at least not within the "civilizational timeframe") experienced the amount of rainfall you claim. Herodotus--Egypt is the gift of the Nile. Likewise, Mesopotamia, etc.
Actually I think I just realized what you might be getting at--yes, human causes CAN have temporary effects on the environment that are quite nasty--actually, read my other post. the key is TEMPORARY. Salt in the soil may have been a problem 4000 years ago, but it's easily fixable, and indeed is. The BIGGEST reason it's a problem is that the rivers were the only source of water. After all, you don't get salty soil from rainfall.
and the expression Fertile Crescent is NOT at all ludicrous today.
Like civilizations in many places. People in rain forests live near the rivers, for pity's sake.
The difference is the green line. If you've ever lived in a desert area this is something you just realize right off the bat. It seems much less obvious to those of us from temperate climates.
Even in rainy climates, farmers still irrigate. The presence of irrigation technology doesn't rule out forests and rain.
You're of course correct--the key are the types and extent of irrigation.
It was overfarming, including irrigation with salt-contaminated water, that burned out the fields and led to agricultural collapse.
If you buy the theory that there WAS an agricultural collapse! Egypt around the Nile is hugely fertile today. Same in Iraq. Palestine/Israel produces tons of dates and olives. Even in Afghanistan until recent warfare there were HUGE date forests. This region is just as semi-arid as it ever was, and it's still quite fertile!
You can point to TEMPORARY collapses of agricultural. For instance in 9th century iraq, a slave rebellion (by black African slaves in southern Iraq, called Zanj IIRC) led to a breakdown in authority (see my earlier post about hydraulic empires). Problem--salination of fields. The slaves stopped working, the fields salted up. No problem, it took a while to reverse, but these were not new problems. You can clean up salty land.
Did I say there were large populations of slaves in China in the past 2000 years? No, I did not, I think you must be confusing what "early" means in the context of Chinese history. Try going back a few thousand more years.. There's a lot of Chinese history to cover ;)
And also tell me, in any society in China, from let's say T'ang on, how many freedoms did the average non-aristocrat have? This is the age of the Venetian republic, and the growth of political rights (albet a bit later) in Europe for comparison.
I say that because yes, most early ancient empires DO share large numbers of similarities.
China did used to hold a signifigant number of slaves, as you say not irreversible, but neither was it irreversible in Greece. In Ancient Greece many slaves were held in honored positions, and could gain power and authority--the same pattern is seen later in the Byzantine Empire, and then later in many Islamic Empires. Very foreign to a Western view point.
I also say this because even when we're not talking about slaves, China's history has definitely tended to the authoritarian. (overstatement, hyperboly!) I forget the name of the site, but an very early site in China shows evidence of hundreds of farm workers who weren't called slaves, but lived as such, not owning land or the implements they worked.
The simple fact is, most people lived lives pretty much bereft of choice and freedom, whether they were called slave or not, until pretty recently.
I disagree with your statements, entirely
;) I'll one up you in fact:
4 6721,31.224089&spn=0.011497,0.016634&t=k&hl=en
... this is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. Look how green it is! Look wha'ts growing--trees! Crops, etc. Look how SUDDEN the line is where greenery ends, and trees begin. This is because of the water. You can follow such a pattern the length of the Nile (until you get into the tropical sub-Saharan regions of course). The same is true for the "middle east." PEOPLE made the area fertile.
Yes, climates change (duh). The climate of what we today call the middle east (let's say Nile to Oxus to make it easy) has probably not changed that much in the past several thousand years. It's always been a semi-arid zone. Look at the placements of ancient civilizations, and communities? Notice how they're all clustered around rivers, wells, etc? The situation as of at least 2000 was verifiably no different than today. One simply needs to look at the multitude of irrigation techniques that arose in the area as a necessity (qanats are my personal favorite--extremely interesting and ingenious method of water transportation).
It is absolutely NOT a (correct) statement of historical fact that the area was once covered by "vast temperate forests" and that these forests brought rain--I can't argue you this point, because it's simply not correct..
Incidentally, there area today STILL has large amounts of trees--where there is water. The vast majority is desert. As it has been for thousands of years.
Again, I say, go to Egypt for a PERFECT example of the situation we are dealing with (since I wouldn't recommend going to Iraq right now
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=cairo,egypt&ll=29.8
Google maps...typed in "Cairo, Egypt"
Actually, much of what you've just said is equally applicable for ancient china..
Uh, the fertile crescent is called such because it's the region that despite what you say, is still here today, in which there are significant water resources in an otherwise arid territory. If you've been through Egypt along the Nile, or elsewhere such as the more hilly areas of Lebanon, and compare to say--much of Jordan, you'll instantly understand. If anything, mankind through irrigation, canal building, and daming, MADE this area the ferticle crescent.
There's actually a whole (though somewhat discredited theory) that early civilizations arose in areas like this where wateer resources were difficult for INDIVIDUALS to control, because kings could control large numbers of people to massively change the land--the "hydraulic despotisms." It's easier to control people when they are dependent on a greater organization to farm, than say areas in much of the Americans, Europe, Africa, where water resources are generally more easilny available (though of course across huge swathes of the entire world, people have lived in arid zones)
That's not the question (though I realize my previous post was the most poorly worded thing I've ever written).
To restate:
It's commonly said that the action of creating hydrogen via a petroleum-fueled process is a net energy LOSS. That is, we'd be better to just burn the oil, than to convert it to hydrogen.
If this is true for petroleum, a fuel and process with which we have a great deal of experience, how much more true is it with new, alternative energy processes?
ie, how much energy do we lose creating solar cells that we then use to get hydrogen?
that's the question, and one to which I don't have an answer.
Well, since once nuclear plant can produce more energy than acres and acres and acres of wind energy generators, I'd have to say I'd rather have one nuclear plant than acres of the other.
You're right about off-shore windfarms, except for issues of birds, ships, the states without oceans and homeowner complaints (this has come up in CA--turns out the people who own beachfront homes (ie $$$) don't want to ugly and loud turbines in their view).
I understand this my point is--it's commonly said creation of hydrogren for fuel using petroleum fueled devices takes more energy to create the hydrogen than is returned.
How much more true is this for the others?
Do you honestly believe we won't come up with a solution to radioactive waste shortly? Since you're tlaking 10's of thousands of years, don't you tighnk it incredibly likely that within a 100 years we can further refine/do something to waste to neutralize? Not 100 years? Maybe 200? 500?
you're looking at the long haul, and so am I, and I think it's stupid to assume that we'll never figure out a better way to deal with waste.
How about we bury them in subduction zones?
Solar power? Not very effective (yet). Very high initial investment (expensive to create the cells too), huge areas of the country, and times of the year when it's completely ineffective, and you need a LOT of cells for a little power. I assume you'd need a ton of cells to power any signifigant hydrogen production.
Wind power? Same thing. HUGE areas of the country where this will never work, and many trimes of the year when it's not effective. Not to mention, they're big, ugly, and loud, and kill birds as shown in recent articles.
Hydroelecetric? I think you're on to something here, but again, huge areas where there are no options. Sure, if we were Norway we could do it, but Hydroelectric leaves a lot to be desired, and also if you're building dams, has HUGE (and potentially adverse) impact on the environemtn.
Me personally? I favor nuclear. but for whatever reason, the Enviro-nuts don't like nuclear.
Not sure--but it seems logical enough--there are periods when not enough energy is produced (brownouts, blackouts, etc) so there are periods when too much energy is produced--i guess it just dissipates? too bad...
The actual numbers are (I'm not parent poster)
for 2003:
Produced: 560 billion kWh
Consumed: 519.5 billion kWh
exported: 53.8 kWh
imported: 45.8 kWh
so that's a lot of importing, but more exporting, as you say
by comparison the US in 2002
produced: 3.839 trillion kWh
consumed: 3.66 trillion kWh
exported: 13.36 billion kWh
imported: 36.23 billion kWh
No, I didn't say most SUV's got 30mpg. I said most got CLOSER to 30 than to the 15mpg, the figure the parent quoted.
Look at the top selling minivans, and the top selling SUVs, and compare.
Just out of curiosity, if the prevailing conspiracy theorist opinion (to which it is obvious you readily subscribe) is now that it was a con by the Bush administration--to what gain? What could they possibly have gained?
ACtually your numbers are outdated--since maybe 2003 most SUV's get closer to 30 mpg than to 15. Heck, my 7 year old SUV got a solid 20, and they've improved every year since then (Ford Explorer for me).
If you really want to talk about vehicles that get bad mileage target Jeeps and minivans--minivans are worse than SUVs.
yeah god, I hate donations. JEEZ, so terrible.
set autolist ambiguous
;)
now tcsh is indistinguishable from bash to 99% of users
That's some response :-p
I can understand disliking Fox's editorial sections, but do you have any complaints about their news reporting, especially in a scientific article?
I do agree with this. I do not think nuclear weapons should ever be used. Then again, I don't see a potential future that is anything like WW2.
It was a horrible thing. But then, so is most of war.. imho, the key is to avoid war, rather than trying to make rules of war.
Realistically speaking, what other options did the US have in the Pacific theater in WW2?
Japan had attacked us first. Japan indeed had brought us into the war. The fighting in the Pacific had been extremely bloody, with countless islands and other places won with much bloodshed and cost--and we weren't even to the Japanese mainland yet.
Kamikaze--divine wind--took a pretty rough toll. On the Japanese too for sure, but us as well. It's rather indicative of the extreme lengths to which some Japanese soldiers and commanders were willing to go to win.
Would you have rather we performed a manned ground invasion of the Japanese islands and subdued the entire place by force? The Japanese leaders PROVED by ignoring the nuclear bomb not only before it was detonated but more to the point, AFTER it was detonated, that they would not easily surrender.
Estimates I've read (and common sense as well) have point casualties and destruction on both sides from a ground invasion much higher than the nuclear bombings.
No side can be completely innocent in war. Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Tokyo for that matter were horrible. So too was the rape of Nanking, and the Japanese push throughout the Asia Pacific.
What choice did we have? This was not a war of our choice, or one that would end without a decisive victory or defeat. What better outcome could there have been?
General Patton once said something like 'no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country--the trick is to make the other dumb bastard die for his.' Somewhat egalitarian if you really think about it.
Why not? A democracy is simply a method of electing leaders. Once elected if the leaders choose to keep 80% of the people then it's still a democracy. Nowhere is this more plain then in Israel where a parlimentarian democracy is subjugating millions of palestenians.
I don't understand ... "if the leaders choose to keep 80% of the people" ? We can disagree with definition of democracy then. I don't believe South Africa was a democracy. It was a pseudo-democracy, but not full. This is semantics and definitions though. As the generally excepted definition of democracy (look it up)--a democracy is control exercised by the entirety of a population.
As for Iran I read your posts and I disagree with your spin on what happened. You seem to feel that the only valid democratically elected leaders are the ones that agree with US policy. That's crap.
I wouldn't say that at all. France is democratic. Turkey is democratic. Venezuela is democratic. All these countries have governments that disagree with the US. My point about Iran is that at no point under the Shah can the government be described as remotely democratic. Mossadegh was elected under the shah. Just because there are elections does not a democracy make.
I am questioning why you feel to make this nitpicky (and wrong) statement
I don't see it as nitpicky or wrong. The point of the matter is the growth of democracy across the world has brought about much greater stability than ever before. No, democracies are not flawless, but then I never said that. Yes, democracies DO see non-democratic regimes as natural foes. No surprise. I don't see why you're surprised by this? You are annoyed by my statement--argue with it--and when you can't dispute the facts attack the argument as "nitpicky and wrong" .. I don't understand what's the point of this.
And it does mean a lot. yes, some democratic governments have bad track records. They don't compare to China or the Soviet Union.
And again--let me put this in very simple terms for you--Palestine is not a country. Palestine (if you wish to treat it as a country) did not have elections until the past year or so. Israel and Palestine are today at a FAR better place in terms of peace and agreements than they have been in the past..maybe 30 years. Just because today the Palestinian authorities show SOME democratic leannings does not mean they've been a democracy for the past 55 years. Heck, the IDEA of a independent Palestine is newer than that. I don't understand your arguments here.
ultimately the point is, if everyone had governments like those in Western Europe (let's ignore the Us--they're pretty much the only ones you can find examples for that are even SOMEWHAt legitimate) the world would be even more stable.
Yes, it does invalidate the point. I never said "The U.S. has never done anything to a democracy" I said "democracies very rarely go to war." I have never said democracies NEVER go to war.
People are so eager to refute this simple point that they are grasping at the slightest of straws--"the US assisted a coup that overthrow a narco-dictator who had been elected at one point and then annulled the electoral system--see, the US is bad"
Like I said, I honestly don't know enough about most of the South american cases to comment in detail. Unfortunately.. Most such actions were done in the name of preserving open elections and democracy. ~shrug~ Probably BS to a large degree. It's all the cold war. Most of the very few incidents people have been citing can be related directly back to Soviet sponsored regimes taking over. Yes, we did bad things. But it was war with the Soviet union, basically.
Personally I think the point is more or less over as no has come up with a non-US example, and the US examples are mostly cold war by proxy. Yes it sucks, but the truth is (as I do still see it): democraacies DO go to war with each other very rarely. An order of magnititude more rarely than non-democracies.