Or, we could arm and quickly train 50,000 Kurds. And give them some special forces guys to call in air support as needed.
If innocent Muslims get killed, it'll be by other Muslims. The Republican Guard will be fighting people whose families they've nerve gassed. They may more readily consider surrendering to US forces.
No, he did it because he felt it is in the best interest of the US. That the Iragis will (hopefully) benefit is just frosting on the cake.
It appears that Bush believes that by creating a democratic, secular, Muslim mid-east country, it will compel other Muslim mid-east countries to reform. When it's in the national interest, the US is quite capable of nation-building (see Germany and Japan for examples).
Terrorists are created because corrupt, tyrannical Arab states keep their citizens from hating *them* by getting them to hate the US. The US props up those tyrannies (you could argue that any nation that buys oil from them props up those tyrannies; France and Russia have been propping up Iraq for a decade). Having a secure, prosperous, free Iraq may change that.
>> Iraq didn't even account for the WoMD that we know they had after 1991.
> I think Iraq _said_ they had been destroyed. How exactly can they account for their destruction in a way that you would believe it? Should they make up proof?
Of course they're telling the truth. And when they were destroying all these weapons, they just *forgot* to invite the inspectors? The inspectors that were the reason they had to destroy the weapons? Please. Do you think the US takes Russia's word for it (or vice versa) when we're decomissioning nukes and ICBMs?
They were required to destoy the weapons in the presence of the inspectors. They didn't. That makes it their problem, not anyone else's.
1441 is a Security Council resolution. Member states are *obligated* to enforce them.
The resolutions concerning Israel are General Assembly resolutions. Not only are member states not obligated to enforce them, they aren't even *allowed* to enforce them.
And yes, I know that as long as the US is a member of the Security Council, no Security Council resolutions concerning Israel will be passed.
Not that this info will keep you from imitating a broken record.
1) You don't need to mix the warm and cold water. You can discharge them at depths where the temperature is appropriate.
2) The best place to use these would be out in the deep open ocean, where there really isn't much of a biosphere (no nutrients in the upper ocean where there's sunlight). You wouldn't have to worry about biofouling in the heat exchangers.
There's a kind of conveyer-belt motion going on in the oceans anyway. Where do you think the cold water comes from? Water cools down and sinks near the poles, and moves towards the equator. The water at the equator slowly rises, but it'll warm up well before it gets to the surface. Then the water moves back to the poles (i.e. gulf stream), where the process repeats (takes thousands of years). OTECs would slightly accelerate the process.
No. It would be closed-system, using ammonia at about half-ambient pressure. The warm water would vaporize it (via heat exchangers), it would run through a turbine, then the cold water would cool it (again, using heat exchangers) to the point it can be easily compressed.
It's a refrigerator running in reverse. The fresh water is the condensation dripping off the coils:). Really. You'd be running this thing in the tropics, with HUGE amounts of chilled water being brought up from the depths. Mix with 100 degree, 100 percent humidity tropical air, and you're drowning in fresh water.
The other way to run an OTEC would be to pull a vacuum over the warm water; the water would evaporate and the low-temperature steam would drive the turbine. The cold water would condense this steam, which would be fresh water. I've read that dissolved oxygen, nitrogen in the water would make this too inefficient (the vacuum would pull the gasses out along with the water vapor and it would take to much energy to pull the vacuum).
You're all wrong. Rotational momentum would be conserved. Tidal drag has slowed the rotation of the moon so that it keeps the same face to the Earth. It has also slowed the Earth's rotation (geological evidence confirms that Earth's day was 18 hours long a hundred million years ago or so). Earth's rotation will continue to slow because of tidal drag. Using tides to generate energy may increase this drag (I doubt by much, if at all). Regardless, conservation of angular momentum means that as Earth's rotation slows, the moon moves into a *higher* orbit. Eventually, the moon is expected to be far enough from the Earth it'll kinda just break away and drift away (whether or not we use tides for power). Of course, that could be bad, because its orbit may still intersect Earth's orbit occasionally.
I've read there's also an OTEC in Cuba. Don't know if it's still operational, but I have read that they did try to shut it down once and the local fisherman complained so much they started it up again (the water it brought up improved local fishing conditions considerably).
You're right; it's a very interesting book, if a little Pollyanna-ish. One of the main things I've looked into that may be an engineering problem is that he severely underestimates the amount of electricity it would take to build structures using accretion.
1) You'd want to use these near the equator; OTECs output power is incredibly sensitive to the temperature differential (like to the 4th power). You won't have the high winds and waves near the equator; weather is quite a bit more moderate there.
2) If you don't want to stir up the waters too much, you can pump the cold water down a few hundred feet before you discharge it. I imagine if you get it below the thermocline and below where sunlight can penetrate, it shouldn't affect the ecology too much.
3) You might want to stir up the waters. Increasing the fertility of the tropical Pacific ocean would increase the rate that algae grows, and the rate that CO2 is absorbed. Most of this algae, when it dies, would descend into the deep ocean depths. Build enough of these, and you may be able to reverse CO2 buildup in the atmosphere.
If you haven't already, you may want to read Marshall Savage's "Millenium Project".
Well, if takes the world as long to get around to do anything about America as it would have taken them to do anything about Iraq, I don't think I'm going to be losing any sleep anytime soon.
What will more likely happen is something like Rwanda, where the rest of the world will bitch and moan because the US isn't interested in getting involved.
They wouldn't be speaking German. They'd be speaking Russian.
Re:In case you haven't noticed...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Gee, maybe we're worried that politically motivated Eurotrash leaders might want to score points with the teeming masses of unemployed socialists populating their countries. Nah, could never happen.
How about in a few months we try some French leaders in American courts for violating the sanctions?
Re:Not How its Supposed To Be
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
From what I've read, Bush has assured Putin that they'll at least get what's owed to them. But I think the French are going to take a bath. Figuratively, not literally:)
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd guess you live in California or New York, because that's about the only places I can think of where that could be true.
Re:this war makes no sense
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
The only reason Saddam let inspectors back in was the threat of violence.
France has said that it will *never* approve military action. So, if the UN dictates when force is used, Saddam has nothing to fear. He can kick ot the inspectors again.
Bush can either ignore the UN resolution for Saddam to disarm, or he can ignore the UN (i.e. France's) wishes for there to never be military action. Can't do both.
Interesting article. You did notice, though, it was mall security guards asking him to leave, and then charging him with trespassing when he didn't? He wasn't arrested for disagreeing with the government, he was arrested because private citizens charged him with trespassing on private property.
Of course, a mall is a public place, and they'll likely be sued, and most likely will lose, as they should.
Yeah, but dead people (and pets) predominantly vote for Democrats. JFK probably wouldn't have been president if Daley hadn't swung the dead people vote in Chicago:).
Slashdot Mirror
Or, we could arm and quickly train 50,000 Kurds. And give them some special forces guys to call in air support as needed.
If innocent Muslims get killed, it'll be by other Muslims. The Republican Guard will be fighting people whose families they've nerve gassed. They may more readily consider surrendering to US forces.
No, he did it because he felt it is in the best interest of the US. That the Iragis will (hopefully) benefit is just frosting on the cake.
It appears that Bush believes that by creating a democratic, secular, Muslim mid-east country, it will compel other Muslim mid-east countries to reform. When it's in the national interest, the US is quite capable of nation-building (see Germany and Japan for examples).
Terrorists are created because corrupt, tyrannical Arab states keep their citizens from hating *them* by getting them to hate the US. The US props up those tyrannies (you could argue that any nation that buys oil from them props up those tyrannies; France and Russia have been propping up Iraq for a decade). Having a secure, prosperous, free Iraq may change that.
>> Iraq didn't even account for the WoMD that we know they had after 1991.
> I think Iraq _said_ they had been destroyed. How exactly can they account for their destruction in a way that you would believe it? Should they make up proof?
Of course they're telling the truth. And when they were destroying all these weapons, they just *forgot* to invite the inspectors? The inspectors that were the reason they had to destroy the weapons? Please. Do you think the US takes Russia's word for it (or vice versa) when we're decomissioning nukes and ICBMs?
They were required to destoy the weapons in the presence of the inspectors. They didn't. That makes it their problem, not anyone else's.
1441 is a Security Council resolution. Member states are *obligated* to enforce them.
The resolutions concerning Israel are General Assembly resolutions. Not only are member states not obligated to enforce them, they aren't even *allowed* to enforce them.
And yes, I know that as long as the US is a member of the Security Council, no Security Council resolutions concerning Israel will be passed.
Not that this info will keep you from imitating a broken record.
Hmmm . . .
Tanks rolling into Hungary, maybe?
Kruschev saying "We will bury you"?
Poland's part of Europe; Stalin split Poland up with Hitler.
There's evidence that Hitler attacked Russia because they had intelligence indicating Russia was planning to attack them.
Of course the Soviets wouldn't invade Europe. The reason? We had nukes. That's the whole point of this thread.
1) You don't need to mix the warm and cold water. You can discharge them at depths where the temperature is appropriate. 2) The best place to use these would be out in the deep open ocean, where there really isn't much of a biosphere (no nutrients in the upper ocean where there's sunlight). You wouldn't have to worry about biofouling in the heat exchangers.
There's a kind of conveyer-belt motion going on in the oceans anyway. Where do you think the cold water comes from? Water cools down and sinks near the poles, and moves towards the equator. The water at the equator slowly rises, but it'll warm up well before it gets to the surface. Then the water moves back to the poles (i.e. gulf stream), where the process repeats (takes thousands of years). OTECs would slightly accelerate the process.
No. It would be closed-system, using ammonia at about half-ambient pressure. The warm water would vaporize it (via heat exchangers), it would run through a turbine, then the cold water would cool it (again, using heat exchangers) to the point it can be easily compressed.
:). Really. You'd be running this thing in the tropics, with HUGE amounts of chilled water being brought up from the depths. Mix with 100 degree, 100 percent humidity tropical air, and you're drowning in fresh water.
It's a refrigerator running in reverse. The fresh water is the condensation dripping off the coils
The other way to run an OTEC would be to pull a vacuum over the warm water; the water would evaporate and the low-temperature steam would drive the turbine. The cold water would condense this steam, which would be fresh water. I've read that dissolved oxygen, nitrogen in the water would make this too inefficient (the vacuum would pull the gasses out along with the water vapor and it would take to much energy to pull the vacuum).
You're all wrong. Rotational momentum would be conserved. Tidal drag has slowed the rotation of the moon so that it keeps the same face to the Earth. It has also slowed the Earth's rotation (geological evidence confirms that Earth's day was 18 hours long a hundred million years ago or so). Earth's rotation will continue to slow because of tidal drag. Using tides to generate energy may increase this drag (I doubt by much, if at all). Regardless, conservation of angular momentum means that as Earth's rotation slows, the moon moves into a *higher* orbit. Eventually, the moon is expected to be far enough from the Earth it'll kinda just break away and drift away (whether or not we use tides for power). Of course, that could be bad, because its orbit may still intersect Earth's orbit occasionally.
I've read there's also an OTEC in Cuba. Don't know if it's still operational, but I have read that they did try to shut it down once and the local fisherman complained so much they started it up again (the water it brought up improved local fishing conditions considerably).
Mostly they'd use ammonia at about half-ambient pressure. Not too bad environmentally, but I wouldn't want to be in the room if it leaks.
You're right; it's a very interesting book, if a little Pollyanna-ish. One of the main things I've looked into that may be an engineering problem is that he severely underestimates the amount of electricity it would take to build structures using accretion.
Some points:
1) You'd want to use these near the equator; OTECs output power is incredibly sensitive to the temperature differential (like to the 4th power). You won't have the high winds and waves near the equator; weather is quite a bit more moderate there.
2) If you don't want to stir up the waters too much, you can pump the cold water down a few hundred feet before you discharge it. I imagine if you get it below the thermocline and below where sunlight can penetrate, it shouldn't affect the ecology too much.
3) You might want to stir up the waters. Increasing the fertility of the tropical Pacific ocean would increase the rate that algae grows, and the rate that CO2 is absorbed. Most of this algae, when it dies, would descend into the deep ocean depths. Build enough of these, and you may be able to reverse CO2 buildup in the atmosphere.
If you haven't already, you may want to read Marshall Savage's "Millenium Project".
Um, he *did* say the Gulf War was a larger coalition. Relax and take a few deep breaths.
Well, if takes the world as long to get around to do anything about America as it would have taken them to do anything about Iraq, I don't think I'm going to be losing any sleep anytime soon.
What will more likely happen is something like Rwanda, where the rest of the world will bitch and moan because the US isn't interested in getting involved.
You must hang out with some really dumb people. I don't know *anybody* who thinks Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
You probably believe that the average American is as dumb as the morons Jay Leno quizzes on the street.
They wouldn't be speaking German. They'd be speaking Russian.
Gee, maybe we're worried that politically motivated Eurotrash leaders might want to score points with the teeming masses of unemployed socialists populating their countries. Nah, could never happen.
How about in a few months we try some French leaders in American courts for violating the sanctions?
From what I've read, Bush has assured Putin that they'll at least get what's owed to them. But I think the French are going to take a bath. Figuratively, not literally :)
It's the Saudi bases that really piss them off. What possible reason would there be to keep American troops in Saudi after this war is over?
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd guess you live in California or New York, because that's about the only places I can think of where that could be true.
The only reason Saddam let inspectors back in was the threat of violence.
France has said that it will *never* approve military action. So, if the UN dictates when force is used, Saddam has nothing to fear. He can kick ot the inspectors again.
Bush can either ignore the UN resolution for Saddam to disarm, or he can ignore the UN (i.e. France's) wishes for there to never be military action. Can't do both.
Interesting article. You did notice, though, it was mall security guards asking him to leave, and then charging him with trespassing when he didn't? He wasn't arrested for disagreeing with the government, he was arrested because private citizens charged him with trespassing on private property.
Of course, a mall is a public place, and they'll likely be sued, and most likely will lose, as they should.
Yeah, but dead people (and pets) predominantly vote for Democrats. JFK probably wouldn't have been president if Daley hadn't swung the dead people vote in Chicago :).
1) Surround Baghdad
2) Arm 50,000 Kurds and truck them to Baghdad, with Special Ops to call in air support as needed.
3) ???
4) Profit!