What Obama has already done for the country

Quote:

---

The funny thing is, I can tell you never looked at any of my sources because everything you just said is blatantly wrong. Efficiency is going up phenomenally, costs are going down phenomenally. It would probably cost less to get this country running on alternative energy than it would to start off shore drilling plans which would barely effect our energy surplus anyway

---

lrn2reed

1 to 2% of the energy from the sun is converted to the kinetic energy of the wind. As drew said (and you failed to comprehend, either due to a very poor knowledge of physics, atmospheric processes, or both), it should logically be much more efficient (efficiency is the ratio of useful energy to total energy) to use the sun directly.

Thats a bit crude. Studies shows its not effective, so why would you do it? It just feels 'right' that huge amount of pain should force someone to give up. Its not true but it sounds true so, your just going to go do it anyway? Figuring they are not human beings so no harm done in torturing them. Thats a pretty messed up way to think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats a bit crude. Studies shows its not effective, so why would you do it? It just feels 'right' that huge amount of pain should force someone to give up. Its not true but it sounds true so, your just going to go do it anyway? Figuring they are not human beings so no harm done in torturing them. Thats a pretty messed up way to think.

---

Are you talking to me? Khallid Sheik Muhammad gave up major secrets over the mere threat of being drowned. That is a fact. Do you know of any other category of tactics that would have worked on him? He is not some lost little teenager who can be won over by brownie point compliments or concert tickets. Innocent lives were saved.

How many times does it need to be said that there are other tactics besides torturing people? No offense but you are just being difficult. Obviously interrogation works on adults, it happens all the time. Saying non violent interrogation only works on teenagers are moronic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you talking to me? Khallid Sheik Muhammad gave up major secrets over the mere threat of being drowned. That is a fact. Do you know of any other category of tactics that would have worked on him? He is not some lost little teenager who can be won over by brownie point compliments or concert tickets. Innocent lives were saved.

---

Did you, by any chance, watch the 60 Minutes where they interviewed the guy that interrogated Saddam Hussein? He sort of became 'friends' with Saddam and got information that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Did you, by any chance, watch the 60 Minutes where they interviewed the guy that interrogated Saddam Hussein? He sort of became 'friends' with Saddam and got information that way.

---

What information exactly, and was he selling a book about the claim? Would he have gotten the heads up on the invasion of Kuwait by becoming friends with him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

How many times does it need to be said that there are other tactics besides torturing people?

---

Say it all you want, but make sure you at some point get around to backing it up with some logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

No offense but you are just being difficult. Obviously interrogation works on adults, it happens all the time. Saying non violent interrogation only works on teenagers are moronic.

---

The word "teenagers" was used as a metaphor for the weaker and more easily persuaded low level terrorists. I have several times asked what can work on the strong minded leaders. Do you honestly think mere interrogation would work on KSM, UBL, or Al-Zawirihi? If you believe it would, then please buy some of my Magic Romance Dust for the specially low price of just $19.95.

If they are a strong willed leader who has had training to resist interrogation and torture, what makes you think violence will work on them? There is no logical reason to believe that.

Especially when so many people in that type of job say that using psychological methods work far better. In fact people can train to resist torture, but many of the psychological methods are based on throwing people off guard, and surprising or confusing them. Which would make you logically think they are harder to plan for.

Of course there is no reason to believe the leadership of a terrorist group has some kind of superhuman willpower. They are human are they not? Simply being a leader in no way gives you a greater ability to resist interrogation. In fact a high up leader suddenly finding himself under the complete control of someone else can be very traumatic experience. Many of them may break even easier than the low level guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What information exactly, and was he selling a book about the claim? Would he have gotten the heads up on the invasion of Kuwait by becoming friends with him?

---

"No, I did not".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

If they are a strong willed leader who has had training to resist interrogation and torture, what makes you think violence will work on them?

---

I am telling you... It did work on Khallid Sheik Muhammad. He is one of like three or four people the U.S. government has ever used waterboarding on, and waterboarding is just the threat of torture. Do you HONESTLY think "making friends" with him or any of those alternatives would have worked on him? Serriously????? He was not some confused person going through a phase. He is somebody who wrapped his entire existence around the killing of innocent Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He is somebody who wrapped his entire existence around the killing of innocent Americans.

---

Talk about understanding your enemy. *applause*

Yes seriously. Though its not about "making friends", and of course he is not a confused person going through a phase. Interrogation works on normal people, who planned things through. The way you talk make it sounds like you have no idea what the purpose of the interrogation is.

Anyway, I never said abusing a person won't work, only that its normally not as effective. He may very well have given up the same information, even without abusing him(and as some say, his children).

And no, water boarding isn't the threat of torture. It is actual torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Talk about understanding your enemy. *applause*

---

I would like to say that your last two comments in here added up to much, but it just wouldn't be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Yes seriously. Though its not about "making friends", and of course he is not a confused person going through a phase. Interrogation works on normal people, who planned things through. The way you talk make it sounds like you have no idea what the purpose of the interrogation is.

Anyway, I never said abusing a person won't work, only that its normally not as effective. He may very well have given up the same information, even without abusing him(and as some say, his children).

---

In other words, regular interrogation would work on megafanatics like Khallid Sheik Muhammad and Usama Bin Laden as well as torture would. I think that is extremely naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

And no, water boarding isn't the threat of torture. It is actual torture.

---

I disagree, but if it is, then there we have a case of where torture did work on one of the most extreme Islamofascists in the world. Poor little thing. I hope they are giving him massages before his milk and cookies at Guantanamo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enough electric power for the entire country could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada with solar power systems. This is a plot of land roughly 92 miles by 92 miles.

---

I'm definitely not opposed to alternative fuel sources, but there are other things to consider. If it was true that a 8,464 square-mile stretch of land could provide electric power for the entire country, what makes you think that Nevada would give up that amount of land for solar panels? That's 7.5% of their states total area of just over 110,000 square miles. I'd assume that the state would get a tax credit for it, but if that's so, would it be right for them to have such exclusive rights as opposed to other states?

I was also looking up some 2009 hybrid car models, and so far the average miles-per-gallon (highway) was 28-34. If I wanted anything more than that, I'd be paying no less than $22,000. I wouldn't pay 20K for any car unless that thing drove me to work, made me coffee, and played a movie while I waited to get there. If I had such a car for ten years, that would be (not counting in taxes or fees in the purchase price itself) $2,200 per year to just have the car, $x to insure it each year , $x for repairs and routine maintenance, $x for gasoline (depending on the price at any given time), and $x for any parts or accessories that may be purchased over said 10 years. I could save at least $7000 by purchasing a simple 2009 model sedan that gets 35 mpg. That's $700 per year that could go towards the aforementioned costs. With the downturn in the US right now, being able to save money is more of a priority than fuel efficiency.

I'm sure that there are newer hybrids I haven't had a chance to research, but I'll take a $12K regular car over a $19K. When a cheap electric car that can go 300+ miles on a single charge and then can rapidly recharge comes out, let me know. My knowledge of cars is limited so seriously, let me know.


I also find the torture discussion interesting. I can't help but think of how often people threaten violence to someone who steals $100 out of their wallet or off of their dresser or stabs someone for taking their drugs, but when it comes to torturing a terrorist who knows when and where a bomb is going to go off along a military caravan route, there's mass hysteria. Do I advocate torture in every situation? Absolute not! I hate the idea of torture! But if you have 10 minutes to get a guy you found on the street to spill his guts before a bomb goes off, then so be it. You don't have time to find out about his family, his friends, his past, etc. It's not about revenge, it's about results. At least, it should be.

Even torture has it's limits, though. It should never cause permanent damage (amputation, maiming, irreparable organ damage) and should only be carried out by trained interrogators and even then under careful supervision. Yes, detainees can produce false information, but they can lie as well using psychological tactics. If I have a life-long friend and I don't want to tell her something, I can lie to her 'till I'm blue in the face and even if she knows I'm not being truthful, I still don't have to talk. If the luxury of time presents itself, then by all means, please proceed through other methods with my blessing, but with mass-murdering zealots still alive on this earth, I couldn't justify eliminating the practice of using torture altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

I'm definitely not opposed to alternative fuel sources, but there are other things to consider. If it was true that a 8,464 square-mile stretch of land could provide electric power for the entire country, what makes you think that Nevada would give up that amount of land for solar panels? That's 7.5% of their states total area of just over 110,000 square miles. I'd assume that the state would get a tax credit for it, but if that's so, would it be right for them to have such exclusive rights as opposed to other states?

---

I think you're taking this too literally. An actual attempt at solar power would be more distributed, with plants all over the country, plus solar panels on rooftops and in backyards, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I think you're taking this too literally. An actual attempt at solar power would be more distributed, with plants all over the country, plus solar panels on rooftops and in backyards, etc.

---

I know. I was simply going from the example given of a 92x92 mile area in Nevada. Oregon had been putting in a TON of new windmills as well. There are a number of areas around here and in the gorge by the Columbia River that frequently get high winds, and the one of the biggest concerns is too much output. :)

I live in nevada and I can say without a doubt most people would rather have 8% of the land taken up by solar panels, than having the nuclear waste dump they want to put in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I live in nevada and I can say without a doubt most people would rather have 8% of the land taken up by solar panels, than having the nuclear waste dump they want to put in.

---

Yeah, because clearly the nuclear waste dump will be poorly designed and irradiate the countryside. And because clearly nuclear power is a horrible idea. 1 kilogram of uranium containing 1,000,000 kilograms' worth of fossil fuel energy? Why would we ever want to tap that virtually unlimited power source? That's stupid.

It actually is a poor design. There are so many problems its not even funny. And like everything the government does the studies they did to find a location was half assed.

They want to put nuclear waste in a mountain area that used to be a volcano, and is near a fault line. Nevada is one of the biggest areas in the country for earthquakes and stuff. It doesn't rain very often but when it does it can really flood and there all kinds of problems with water table fluctuations. Oh yea and did we forget the most moronic thing? Nearly all the nuclear power plants are on the east coast, and nevada is on the west. They want to ship toxic waste through nearly the entire country to get it here.

The entire thing is so riddled with delays, and people suing them for unsafe practices that its insane. I am all for it if they do it in a safe way, but trying to put it in questionable and unstable areas is stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

They want to put nuclear waste in a mountain area that used to be a volcano, and is near a fault line.

---

Nuclear waste cannot self-detonate. Even if you subject it to million degree temperatures, it will not detonate. It takes a high energy neutron beam to release the latent energy in nuclear waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Nevada is one of the biggest areas in the country for earthquakes and stuff. It doesn't rain very often but when it does it can really flood and there all kinds of problems with water table fluctuations.

---

Suppose they decide to encase the waste in cement or steel. Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Oh yea and did we forget the most moronic thing? Nearly all the nuclear power plants are on the east coast, and nevada is on the west. They want to ship toxic waste through nearly the entire country to get it here.

---

Would you rather they dumped it in Central Park? A location has to be decided upon, and they could do much worse than the desert state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It actually is a poor design. There are so many problems its not even funny. And like everything the government does the studies they did to find a location was half assed.

They want to put nuclear waste in a mountain area that used to be a volcano, and is near a fault line. Nevada is one of the biggest areas in the country for earthquakes and stuff. It doesn't rain very often but when it does it can really flood and there all kinds of problems with water table fluctuations. Oh yea and did we forget the most moronic thing? Nearly all the nuclear power plants are on the east coast, and nevada is on the west. They want to ship toxic waste through nearly the entire country to get it here.

The entire thing is so riddled with delays, and people suing them for unsafe practices that its insane. I am all for it if they do it in a safe way, but trying to put it in questionable and unstable areas is stupid.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkl5fu7koGk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB5ZB...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTp14...eature=related

Obama has just come into office.
Politicians give promises all the time.
I hope he does what he says.
Look out for "Albanian Crisis" type excuses.

Lets give him time to show his stuff.

I am not talking about it blowing up. The problem is with earthquakes and the unstable area causing cracks and stuff in the ground which would allow the waste to leak out. The fact that it is near a fault line in an area with a lot of earthquakes means there is a lot of danger. Especially with the amount of time it will take before its safe.

A lot of studies have been done showing how unsafe it was, and they been sued and stuff for rushing studies which say its safe, and leaving out information on other ones.

Just an intresting link I found, Bump.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_has_P...ma_done_so_far

Has Obama called off the war yet?

Quote:

---

Asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.

---

Sloooowly, yeah.