The EU would like to buy American gas rather than Russian, but getting enough LNG infrastructure to replace piped gas is incredibly expensive and not something that can be built quickly.
The issue is US export infrastructure, not EU. EU already has an existing underutilized LNG import infrastructure. And, as late as 2008, the EU had plans to double the number of import terminals, but it was cheaper to buy Gazprom. And then the EU began building pipelines to the Middle East, hoping to drive down prices even more. When the world realized this, investment into LNG expansion "tanked".
Point is, the EU hardly cares where they get their gas. The buyer "would like to buy" at the lowest and the seller would like to sell at the highest. Even with LNG investment, the US couldn't beat Russia's price. A preference on who to buy from only becomes part of the equation once the seller starts acting egregiously and the conversation turn from economics to politics. The political conversation, in the form of "sanctions" is an effort to make gas from Russian more expensive than LNG imports. It may take some time for people in EU to realize their gas prices going up. When they do see the bill rise, they will blame Russia easily enough.
On the US side, simply the perception that it would be economically advantageous to ship LNG to EU may be all that is needed to spur investment in LNG export terminals. US companies have long been wanting to converting their now useless import infrastructure: http://www.houstonchronicle.co...
As usual this is all about about, as they say in Texas, "eril".
Putin is an idiot. He started playing games with Ukraine and never saw the long game.
Doubtful this evidence is fabricated. The US isn't going to fabricate evidence that can be corroborated by others independently. Its not like any of those images are too small for Google Earth. The EU, China, Japanese, and all even some commercial interests have satellites that can see the same thing. Now the US has told them where to look, others can see for themselves. Nobody (except maybe Pravda) has called BS on this.
But the Russians may be right about a US lead smear campaign..... This is all about sanctions by the EU, which is really all about who sells the EU Natural Gas. The US has some serious gas reserves that is itching to sell for good money. Hard to do if EU is purchasing from Gazprom.
But this is all on Putin. If he didn't provide the smear material, the US couldn't use it.
Nonsense. Read your Marx. Communism and Socialism don't even remotely resemble one another. The only reason people get them confused is that Communism, as defined by Marx, was the ideal human goal and has never actually existed.
If Communism never actually existed, then what the heck was the deal with USSR, China, E. Germany, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, et al.? There are a lot of nations that insist they are following some Communist ideal, why would the non-practiced version be any more valid than the one these countries actually implemented?
The problem with Communism is that it is a sham. Communism the ideal really only accounts for this by rising up and taking out the existing capitalists / imperialist / other non-communist ideology greedy control freaks by force. It does nothing to account for the greedy control freak Communists that are left.
Communism, the Marxist verity which was put into practice by several nation states, did exists and was a failure. It was a failure because it didn't take into account human nature. Marx thought that the problems of the world were the result of a system, not the nature of man. He had this kookie idea that changing the system would eliminate something that could never be eliminated. Yes he was a loon, but his ideas were incredibly incomplete and flawed.
Socialism, the more liberal type that gets mixed with capitalism in all Western democracies (sorry US tea party, you've had socialism for many, many years) , tends to at least account for the fact that people are greedy, and makes an attempt to balance greed, through capitalism, with social well being, through socialism. But the reason some form of socialism exists in all these countries is that the greedy control freak bastards with all the money have learned that if they don't give at least a little to the rest, then it is likely some joker will start nationalizing their stuff. Socialism is just a way to avoid getting overthrown while externalizing the costs of keep the masses placated through taxes that, if you are wealthy enough, you can figure out how to avoid paying.
You seem angry. Did you miss part where "these states generally correlate", or did the cat urinate in your Wheaties? . Regarding correlation, we seem to agree.
The correlation is interesting because an argument often given for not raising the minimum wage is that a rise in the minimum wage will increase unemployment and negatively impact the economy. The evidence, from a list of standard economic indicators that anyone with an internet can look up, suggest this argument to be bunk.
As you've so eloquently reiterated, in the end this is just a correlation....
One can either accept that a connection between the conomic indicators and minimum wage exists, or one can place arguments about the minimum wage negatively impacting the economy and stick them in an orifice of their choosing. Can't have it both ways.
Admission, in a legal sense, usually implies not only admitting the facts, but also that there was an error or wrongdoing by the party doing the admitting.
I'm glad you are not my attorney, it sounds as though you are working off the Code of Hammurabi. In regards to most US and EU laws, you are conflating an admission of an act with an admission of guilt. For instance, one can admit to shooting someone, but can be found non-guilty by reason of self defense, insanity, etc. At least in cultures dominated by US/EU, defending oneself by denying facts is usually the worst defense. Maybe that works in cultures dominated by the Russia, China, and Mullahs/Ayatollahs... I'm glad I don't live in those places.
The only people assigning motive and guilt to the MH17 flight shooting seem to be the Ukrainians, who are going out of there way to call this "Terrorism". I think most rational people in the US/EU world are reading this incident something like this: Some drunk yahoos accidentally shot down an airliner with a sophisticated weapon system. I think we all know that the Russians supplied the yahoos with the weapon system which make Putin look bad. No one believes this was terrorism or an intentional attack on an airliner, but we all know, from all the topless pictures, how much Putin hates to look bad.
What you're quoting isn't an apology or an acknogledgment of wrongdoing
Who said anything about an "apology" or "acknowledgment of wrongdoing"? What I was responding to was the assertion from above:
"The US Government never really admitted"
Certainly the government admitted to shooting down the plane. Lower in that article is a quote from Reagan:
President Reagan in a statement said he was "saddened to report" that the Vincennes "in a proper defensive action" had shot down the jetliner. "This is a terrible human tragedy. Our sympathy and condolences go out to the passengers, crew, and their families . . . . We deeply regret any loss of life."
That looks like an admission to me. Reagan raised his hand and said we did it. Certainly one could argue weather it was a proper defensive action.
Even lower in the article, summarizes the US governments official position on the issue:
Navy leaders said Iranian commercial aircraft had flown over U.S. warships in a threatening manner at least eight times before the Stark was hit by two French Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi jet. Ever since the Stark attack, skippers in the gulf have been less tolerant of such apparent threats.
The US was a combatant in a simmering conflict with Iran. This is the same conflict its been in from 1979 until today. The US claims that Iran was using commercial aircraft in this conflict. Since there is little or no diplomatic communications between the countries - Iran's choice, btw - it is really hard for either nations to come to an understanding of what the commercial aircraft were doing, if anything prior to the Exocet strike. Its also really hard for the US to offer an apology to Iran for anything since Iran has yet to apologize for the embassy hostages. An apology from the US to Iran for anything just isn't going to happen until Iran apologizes for killing some of its diplomats and holding the rest hostage for months.
Nobody can say the US didn't admit to shooting down the airbus, and the US government did offer up an explanation. People may not like the explanation, or agree with it, but at least the US stood up for its actions.
Malaysia and the Netherlands are not in a conflict with Ukraine, Russia, or the separatists. Both countries have good diplomatic ties with Ukraine and Russia. There is dialog. The fact that nobody can't even raise their hand to say they did, or say they know who did is reprehensible. Time for the parties to man up, offer up their explanations and take their knocks.
For people to come here and say this behavior - shooting down an airplane and then claiming someone else did it - is the norm because the US didn't apologize to Iran for shooting down a plane is, as someone else pointed out, whataboutism. And bad whataboutism at that.
The US Government never really admitted, from wikipedia: The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident, but the United States never released an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing.[8]
Look at states with the lowest minimum wages. These states generally correlate to highest unemployment, lowest household median income, and highest poverty.
These are usually the same states that vote for politicians from the party that more openly advocates for business friendly taxes laws and minimum wage.
Where are the headlines about Ukrainians having already done the same thing? Where is the balance?
The Russians are sending arms and support into Ukraine and have created a war there. If there appears to be bias against the Russians, then the Russians have brought it on themselves.
If the Russians hadn't been in Eastern Ukraine, where they don't belong, then nobody would be complaining about Russians. Instead, Putin and his buddies have been acting like jerks, which kind of makes the Russians look like suspect #1.
You can use Al, but Sn is best. Al doesn't protect well against many of the mind control waves, though it can work OK for HAARP. Sn can be found here: http://www.advent-rm.com/catal... You are right - pricey. But better than the alternative.
The real problem is that they are working on the neutrino control ray under south pole icecap. Once they figure that out, we are screwed. Neutrinos go right through Sn.
Oh yea, I get it... They want us to think that those sunglasses allow us to see the alien reptilian faces so that when we put them on and see human faces we think the alien reptiles are real people. I have found that tinfoil makes the sunglasses work. You should try it.
And the United State / England have never armed foreign groups to mount wars by proxy? Then you know nothing of South America, the Middle East or Africa.
Get. Off. Your. High. Horse.
I shouldn't be so harsh on you... you probably derive all your "news" from Western media (Fox / BBC / Reuters /...)
So has your non-Western media ever told you of the western democracies arming a bunch of yahoos with SAMs that could shoot down commercial airliners?
At least when we arm are proxy forces, we're not dumb enough to give them weapons that make us look stupid. You Russians are idiots for that one.
Actually the US "STILL" hasn't admitted fault in that incident. They blamed it on the hostilities in Iran and then proceeded to cover up the whole incident as best they could, like the location of the ship, breach of orders, no court marshal despite blatant crew failings etc.
There is a big difference between admitting fault and admitting a fact. The US never denied shooting down the plane.
Claiming that an incident where nobody is even raising their hand as to who shot it down is the same as the Iran Air incident makes you sound like the kind of person that wants the vilify the US wherever they can.
The US government never admitted it's mistake, or apologised.
Certainly it admitted a mistake. The US government admitted shooting the plane down rather immediately, called it a mistake, and has since used it as a training case in the military for what not to do. You either weren't alive back then, or you have a twisted view of history...
Apologized is a different story. The idea of an apology became a bit of a political football during an election year, with Dukakis stating that the US should apologize and then Bush beating the crap out of Dukakis by saying we should never apologize for American troops. Bush won, and the apology never came. But Bush could be a bit of a douche. He did run the CIA.
I don't trust any of the parties involved. They're all war mongering liars.
Certainly the Russian and their armed separatists are war mongers. It's not clear if the Ukrainian government really wants a war or just wants sovereignty.
Russia is clearly the aggressor here, and no matter who fired the missile, Russian has a huge responsibility in the matter. Provda shouldn't be editing the Wiki.
Are those 'objectively' known? If not, then what am I doing here?
Btw. does anyone here remember the USS Vincennes?
I don't remember the US government editing the Wiki page on Iran Air Flight 655. Rather, the US government admitted to the mistake rather quickly, without attempting to blame Iran.
This MH17 thing is different. Russia has a huge role in this, no matter who shot down the plane. At the very least, the Russians armed an ethnic population in a foreign nation to create a war. And it is this war that got that plane shot down. I think, objectively, everyone can agree on this... It does cast suspicion on any Russian attempt to shape the Wiki truth.
Writing this off as not effective misses the point. Most reasonable people - certainly most reasonable technical people - know this is ineffective. But this isn't about finding terrorists.....
If a defense contractor can convince bureaucrats and politicians that an ineffective big system can effectively ID potential terrorist, then we are left with either a false sense of security and/or a lot of innocent people being treated like potential terrorists. It makes for good security theater at the expense of civil liberties.
The retaining of 8 years worth of data is the biggest problem here. What is the value of 8 year old Credit Card numbers? You'd figure after 8 years they'd know who tried to light that shoe on fire....
So yes, it's News.... unless you work for an intelligence contractor or agency and knew about this already.
Slashdot Mirror
The EU would like to buy American gas rather than Russian, but getting enough LNG infrastructure to replace piped gas is incredibly expensive and not something that can be built quickly.
The issue is US export infrastructure, not EU. EU already has an existing underutilized LNG import infrastructure. And, as late as 2008, the EU had plans to double the number of import terminals, but it was cheaper to buy Gazprom. And then the EU began building pipelines to the Middle East, hoping to drive down prices even more. When the world realized this, investment into LNG expansion "tanked".
Point is, the EU hardly cares where they get their gas. The buyer "would like to buy" at the lowest and the seller would like to sell at the highest. Even with LNG investment, the US couldn't beat Russia's price. A preference on who to buy from only becomes part of the equation once the seller starts acting egregiously and the conversation turn from economics to politics. The political conversation, in the form of "sanctions" is an effort to make gas from Russian more expensive than LNG imports. It may take some time for people in EU to realize their gas prices going up. When they do see the bill rise, they will blame Russia easily enough.
On the US side, simply the perception that it would be economically advantageous to ship LNG to EU may be all that is needed to spur investment in LNG export terminals. US companies have long been wanting to converting their now useless import infrastructure: http://www.houstonchronicle.co...
As usual this is all about about, as they say in Texas, "eril".
Putin is an idiot. He started playing games with Ukraine and never saw the long game.
Doubtful this evidence is fabricated. The US isn't going to fabricate evidence that can be corroborated by others independently. Its not like any of those images are too small for Google Earth. The EU, China, Japanese, and all even some commercial interests have satellites that can see the same thing. Now the US has told them where to look, others can see for themselves. Nobody (except maybe Pravda) has called BS on this.
But the Russians may be right about a US lead smear campaign..... This is all about sanctions by the EU, which is really all about who sells the EU Natural Gas. The US has some serious gas reserves that is itching to sell for good money. Hard to do if EU is purchasing from Gazprom.
But this is all on Putin. If he didn't provide the smear material, the US couldn't use it.
The Germans have never heard of Steve Austin.
Nonsense. Read your Marx. Communism and Socialism don't even remotely resemble one another. The only reason people get them confused is that Communism, as defined by Marx, was the ideal human goal and has never actually existed.
If Communism never actually existed, then what the heck was the deal with USSR, China, E. Germany, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, et al.? There are a lot of nations that insist they are following some Communist ideal, why would the non-practiced version be any more valid than the one these countries actually implemented?
The problem with Communism is that it is a sham. Communism the ideal really only accounts for this by rising up and taking out the existing capitalists / imperialist / other non-communist ideology greedy control freaks by force. It does nothing to account for the greedy control freak Communists that are left.
Communism, the Marxist verity which was put into practice by several nation states, did exists and was a failure. It was a failure because it didn't take into account human nature. Marx thought that the problems of the world were the result of a system, not the nature of man. He had this kookie idea that changing the system would eliminate something that could never be eliminated. Yes he was a loon, but his ideas were incredibly incomplete and flawed.
Socialism, the more liberal type that gets mixed with capitalism in all Western democracies (sorry US tea party, you've had socialism for many, many years) , tends to at least account for the fact that people are greedy, and makes an attempt to balance greed, through capitalism, with social well being, through socialism. But the reason some form of socialism exists in all these countries is that the greedy control freak bastards with all the money have learned that if they don't give at least a little to the rest, then it is likely some joker will start nationalizing their stuff. Socialism is just a way to avoid getting overthrown while externalizing the costs of keep the masses placated through taxes that, if you are wealthy enough, you can figure out how to avoid paying.
You seem angry. Did you miss part where "these states generally correlate", or did the cat urinate in your Wheaties? . Regarding correlation, we seem to agree.
The correlation is interesting because an argument often given for not raising the minimum wage is that a rise in the minimum wage will increase unemployment and negatively impact the economy. The evidence, from a list of standard economic indicators that anyone with an internet can look up, suggest this argument to be bunk.
As you've so eloquently reiterated, in the end this is just a correlation....
One can either accept that a connection between the conomic indicators and minimum wage exists, or one can place arguments about the minimum wage negatively impacting the economy and stick them in an orifice of their choosing. Can't have it both ways.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Minimum+W...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Unemploym...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Poverty+b...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Household...
Admission, in a legal sense, usually implies not only admitting the facts, but also that there was an error or wrongdoing by the party doing the admitting.
I'm glad you are not my attorney, it sounds as though you are working off the Code of Hammurabi. In regards to most US and EU laws, you are conflating an admission of an act with an admission of guilt. For instance, one can admit to shooting someone, but can be found non-guilty by reason of self defense, insanity, etc. At least in cultures dominated by US/EU, defending oneself by denying facts is usually the worst defense. Maybe that works in cultures dominated by the Russia, China, and Mullahs/Ayatollahs... I'm glad I don't live in those places.
The only people assigning motive and guilt to the MH17 flight shooting seem to be the Ukrainians, who are going out of there way to call this "Terrorism". I think most rational people in the US/EU world are reading this incident something like this: Some drunk yahoos accidentally shot down an airliner with a sophisticated weapon system. I think we all know that the Russians supplied the yahoos with the weapon system which make Putin look bad. No one believes this was terrorism or an intentional attack on an airliner, but we all know, from all the topless pictures, how much Putin hates to look bad.
What you're quoting isn't an apology or an acknogledgment of wrongdoing
Who said anything about an "apology" or "acknowledgment of wrongdoing"? What I was responding to was the assertion from above:
"The US Government never really admitted"
Certainly the government admitted to shooting down the plane. Lower in that article is a quote from Reagan:
President Reagan in a statement said he was "saddened to report" that the Vincennes "in a proper defensive action" had shot down the jetliner. "This is a terrible human tragedy. Our sympathy and condolences go out to the passengers, crew, and their families . . . . We deeply regret any loss of life."
That looks like an admission to me. Reagan raised his hand and said we did it. Certainly one could argue weather it was a proper defensive action.
Even lower in the article, summarizes the US governments official position on the issue:
Navy leaders said Iranian commercial aircraft had flown over U.S. warships in a threatening manner at least eight times before the Stark was hit by two French Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi jet. Ever since the Stark attack, skippers in the gulf have been less tolerant of such apparent threats.
The US was a combatant in a simmering conflict with Iran. This is the same conflict its been in from 1979 until today. The US claims that Iran was using commercial aircraft in this conflict. Since there is little or no diplomatic communications between the countries - Iran's choice, btw - it is really hard for either nations to come to an understanding of what the commercial aircraft were doing, if anything prior to the Exocet strike. Its also really hard for the US to offer an apology to Iran for anything since Iran has yet to apologize for the embassy hostages. An apology from the US to Iran for anything just isn't going to happen until Iran apologizes for killing some of its diplomats and holding the rest hostage for months.
Nobody can say the US didn't admit to shooting down the airbus, and the US government did offer up an explanation. People may not like the explanation, or agree with it, but at least the US stood up for its actions.
Malaysia and the Netherlands are not in a conflict with Ukraine, Russia, or the separatists. Both countries have good diplomatic ties with Ukraine and Russia. There is dialog. The fact that nobody can't even raise their hand to say they did, or say they know who did is reprehensible. Time for the parties to man up, offer up their explanations and take their knocks.
For people to come here and say this behavior - shooting down an airplane and then claiming someone else did it - is the norm because the US didn't apologize to Iran for shooting down a plane is, as someone else pointed out, whataboutism. And bad whataboutism at that.
The US Government never really admitted, from wikipedia:
The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident, but the United States never released an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing.[8]
Bullshit.
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.
Look at states with the lowest minimum wages. These states generally correlate to highest unemployment, lowest household median income, and highest poverty.
These are usually the same states that vote for politicians from the party that more openly advocates for business friendly taxes laws and minimum wage.
Suckers.
Fair enough.
If you are pointing out that Wiki editing by the Russians really has nothing to do with the US handling of Iran Air 655, then I agree.
Where are the headlines about Ukrainians having already done the same thing? Where is the balance?
The Russians are sending arms and support into Ukraine and have created a war there. If there appears to be bias against the Russians, then the Russians have brought it on themselves.
If the Russians hadn't been in Eastern Ukraine, where they don't belong, then nobody would be complaining about Russians. Instead, Putin and his buddies have been acting like jerks, which kind of makes the Russians look like suspect #1.
You can use Al, but Sn is best. Al doesn't protect well against many of the mind control waves, though it can work OK for HAARP. Sn can be found here: http://www.advent-rm.com/catal... You are right - pricey. But better than the alternative.
The real problem is that they are working on the neutrino control ray under south pole icecap. Once they figure that out, we are screwed. Neutrinos go right through Sn.
First, as others have posted the US has not admitted to the mistake.
Not "others". Just AC Ruskie.
Oh yea, I get it... They want us to think that those sunglasses allow us to see the alien reptilian faces so that when we put them on and see human faces we think the alien reptiles are real people. I have found that tinfoil makes the sunglasses work. You should try it.
You are watching too much "Western Media", my AC Ruskie friend.
A ha ha ha ha ha !!!
And the United State / England have never armed foreign groups to mount wars by proxy? Then you know nothing of South America, the Middle East or Africa.
Get. Off. Your. High. Horse.
I shouldn't be so harsh on you ... you probably derive all your "news" from Western media (Fox / BBC / Reuters / ...)
So has your non-Western media ever told you of the western democracies arming a bunch of yahoos with SAMs that could shoot down commercial airliners?
At least when we arm are proxy forces, we're not dumb enough to give them weapons that make us look stupid. You Russians are idiots for that one.
Actually the US "STILL" hasn't admitted fault in that incident. They blamed it on the hostilities in Iran and then proceeded to cover up the whole incident as best they could, like the location of the ship, breach of orders, no court marshal despite blatant crew failings etc.
There is a big difference between admitting fault and admitting a fact. The US never denied shooting down the plane.
Claiming that an incident where nobody is even raising their hand as to who shot it down is the same as the Iran Air incident makes you sound like the kind of person that wants the vilify the US wherever they can.
Donald Rumsfeld Wikipedia article edited anonymously by US House of Representatives
Clearly the NSA wants us to know that Rumsfeld is an alien reptile. Maybe the NSA listens to us is because they are out of gum?
The US government never admitted it's mistake, or apologised.
Certainly it admitted a mistake. The US government admitted shooting the plane down rather immediately, called it a mistake, and has since used it as a training case in the military for what not to do. You either weren't alive back then, or you have a twisted view of history...
Apologized is a different story. The idea of an apology became a bit of a political football during an election year, with Dukakis stating that the US should apologize and then Bush beating the crap out of Dukakis by saying we should never apologize for American troops. Bush won, and the apology never came. But Bush could be a bit of a douche. He did run the CIA.
I don't trust any of the parties involved. They're all war mongering liars.
Certainly the Russian and their armed separatists are war mongers. It's not clear if the Ukrainian government really wants a war or just wants sovereignty.
Russia is clearly the aggressor here, and no matter who fired the missile, Russian has a huge responsibility in the matter. Provda shouldn't be editing the Wiki.
Are those 'objectively' known? If not, then what am I doing here?
Btw. does anyone here remember the USS Vincennes?
I don't remember the US government editing the Wiki page on Iran Air Flight 655. Rather, the US government admitted to the mistake rather quickly, without attempting to blame Iran.
This MH17 thing is different. Russia has a huge role in this, no matter who shot down the plane. At the very least, the Russians armed an ethnic population in a foreign nation to create a war. And it is this war that got that plane shot down. I think, objectively, everyone can agree on this... It does cast suspicion on any Russian attempt to shape the Wiki truth.
Writing this off as not effective misses the point. Most reasonable people - certainly most reasonable technical people - know this is ineffective. But this isn't about finding terrorists.....
If a defense contractor can convince bureaucrats and politicians that an ineffective big system can effectively ID potential terrorist, then we are left with either a false sense of security and/or a lot of innocent people being treated like potential terrorists. It makes for good security theater at the expense of civil liberties.
How is this different from what the Stasi did?
The Stasi needed "electricians" to install bugs. We now buy the bugs and install them ourselves.
Why wouldn't they have this info?
Why should they?
The retaining of 8 years worth of data is the biggest problem here. What is the value of 8 year old Credit Card numbers? You'd figure after 8 years they'd know who tried to light that shoe on fire....
So yes, it's News.... unless you work for an intelligence contractor or agency and knew about this already.