UN weapon inspections

[rgoper 0]

Quote

I personally retain the right to personally attack anybody who attack the country I live in.

you really should go read the "Forum Rules" before getting just too carried away. i was just trying to help keep you out of trouble. and if your paranoid about daragatory remarks about your country, and you going to attack everybody that makes a remark that you don't agree with about your country, your going to be a busy man. what if americans got all bent out of shape every time foreigners attacked our country, verbally, terroistcally, or by burning our flag, or caricatures of our president(s) in the streets of their countries? lighten up bro. everythings kewel.

Please Visit Forum Rules Here

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[chickenhawk420 0]

you reckon, personally bush is as shiesty as saddam, in fact i think deep down they just wanna be good friends (yeah lying in each others beds)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

If the answer is: "We are the most powerful nation in the face of the earth and this grants us special privileges!" - Don't even bother to answer...

...Oh, and Happy Thanks Giving!

Thanks, and happy Thanksgiving to you too.

Fortunately for you, Jaaska and the rest of the world, being the most powerful country on earth requires, and does grant us special privileges.

Instead of citing ad infinitum these accomplishments, I'm going to suggest you conduct a search on a man named Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian who passed in 1984. He wrote and aired on Canadian radio in the early 70s (1973 I think) a perspective which caps the spirit of what we, as Americans, do...day-in and day-out...despite our obvious flaws (which we're well aware of, but are easily irritated by arrogant pokes from across the pond).

Actually, I will find the transcript, and post it here, saving you the time.

In terms of your original post about UN Weapons Inspections. The UN doesn't need to inspect what we've already declared: Yes, we have nukes. Yes, we have chemical weapons (a huge depot in central Oregon). Yes, we have biological agents. We even have a separate division of our Army dedicated to research on these agents.

Now, what the f*ck do you need to inspect?

As for the international court, I don't remember the specific issue about why we didn't sign, but it was pretty cut and dry to me and naturally we have more important things to worry about.

Is it about oil: again I say yes! Just bear in mind that less than 15% of US oil imports come from Saudi Arabia. I don't know the figure on Iraq, but it can't be much outside of the Oil for Food program. So, we have a foothold there...just come out and say your afraid.

Wouldn't you rather have a generally benevolent influence there, rather than see that civilization decline further (as it has now for over 400 years)?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Jimbo 0]

I think you're talking about this:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/sinclair.htm

It's a good read and really does put some things in perspective.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

Quote

Fortunately for you, Jaaska and the rest of the world, being the most powerful country on earth requires, and does grant us special privileges.

With attitudes like this, is it any wonder that a large portion of the planet is aligned against the U.S.?

No. I disagree with your statment there. We do -not- have special privileges. We -do- have special responsibilities.

The U.S. is simply the most powerful country on the planet, but that does not mean we have the privilege to use that power any way we see fit.

The U.S. has the responsibility by virtue of its' power to see that much less powerful countries and peoples are not taken advantage of by dictators and despots.

The U.S. did not really seek to be the most powerful country in the world, it simply is. The U.S. survived WWII in a much more powerful position than all of the other countries involved for few reasons other than geography.

I believe the U.S. has done a lot of good in the world.

No. We have no special rights over the world, but by virtue of the power we do possess, we -must- have special responsibilities.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

No. We have no special rights over the world, but by virtue of the power we do possess, we -must- have special responsibilities.

You cite a very valid point, and I concur. You communicated the true intent of what I meant.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kmcguffee 0]

Whew, yeah! Let's hear it for the great state of Finland! They are such a world leader. Doing so much good for the downtroden. I'm sure they have jumped on the bandwagon for everything "good" in the world.

Get off your high horse. It is very easy to sit back and criticize.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I'm sure they have jumped on the bandwagon for everything "good" in the world.

They make some decent vodka....

[jraf 0]

Yes, I heard of it, Absolut right?

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Now, what the f*ck do you need to inspect?

Well, my point exactly - have you ever tried to convince a child to not to smoke while you keep on smoking yourself? Ok, really bad simile .

If you want all the crook countries to open up their facilities to UN inspections you really want to show them that there is no problem of letting the same inspection team to search through your own laundry. Then again - as far as I know - US has signed some treaties concerning the development and above all, production in stock chemical and bio warware. It is totally different thing to research and even develop such substances for research purposes - totally different thing to produce them in mass quantities. Why not let the UN team to prove that this is not the case.

Quote

As for the international court, I don't remember the specific issue about why we didn't sign, but it was pretty cut and dry to me and naturally we have more important things to worry about.

Well, I don't want to get to details in this, but the bottom line is that US is afraid that there could be a court case agains a US citizen. Well, I'm quite sure none of the sovereign countries in the world would want that to happen. BUT how do you convince any "less democratic state" to surrender their war criminals etc. if they can always say: "Oh, well US hasn't signed that pact either - so go to hell - we don't need to do it!"

The point is - most of the western civilized countries have singed it for reasons mentioned above. EVEN when there is a danger that you could see your own citizen end up in trial in the Hague. If the so called civilized countries won't sign - the treaty is just another piece of toilet paper!

Well, I hear telling me that you have the best court and justice system in the world (and I don't want to start to argue about that) - we can deal with these things ourselves. Again, another country with less sophisticated justice system will claim the same in similar event.

Quote

Is it about oil: again I say yes! Just bear in mind that less than 15% of US oil imports come from Saudi Arabia. I don't know the figure on Iraq, but it can't be much outside of the Oil for Food program. So, we have a foothold there...just come out and say your afraid.

A rough estimate is that Saudi Arabia and Iraq alone sits on 1/3 of the total production of oil in near future. Of course there is the 2/3 drilled from somewhere else but still...

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure they have jumped on the bandwagon for everything "good" in the world.

They make some decent vodka....

I hear you! It still gives a killer hangover though

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Yes, I heard of it, Absolut right?

OUTS! Man, that was below the belt!
Sweden vs. Finland - an eternal competition on any given subject!

[Faber 0]

Quade you are so rigth...
Dont look at your self as the police of the world,it will give you more trubel than good are.

Keep up the good woork around the world.

and rember..evry time there is one bad thing,there will go aprox 10 things to make it better.Whith all pepole in the world its pretty hard to make all happy rigth...

Peace!!!
Stefan Faber

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Is it about oil: again I say yes! Just bear in mind that less than 15% of US oil imports come from Saudi Arabia. I don't know the figure on Iraq, but it can't be much outside of the Oil for Food program. So, we have a foothold there...just come out and say your afraid.

not to take away from the original topic, but i must once again vehemently dissagree with this statement. and by the way, it's 60% of the U.S.A.'s oil that is imported from third world countries. this is ridiculous in my opinion. (*side bar* we have enough oil, and natural gas stored in underground salt domes along the coastline of texas, and the atlantic seaboard to last us for over 30 years right now) i have 29 years of experience in the petroleum industry and i'm one of the thousands of men and women that put gas in your tanks, jet fuel in your jump ship, heating oil in your homes, etc...the U.S.A. as i've stated before has the reserves, and the acreage to drill untapped reserves onshore, and offshore. enough to where we could be energy independent indefinitely, let's remember this before making statements like this. we have the resources, the machinery, the technology, the skills and the personal to make this happen, but due to politicians, "the enron's" and other companies like them in the states, it will never happen. sad, but true. we don't need foriegn energy, we want/covet it versus ours simply for the fact we don't want to destroy our own invironment(s). do some research if you don't believe me, put on offshore oilrig off the west coast and see how quick green peace or some other political fanatic attacks it, by the way, how many that live in the U.S. would like to see a drilling operation in your backyard? off of your coastline? inside your city limits? ol' wyubya's brother, the govenor of the great state of florida renigged on his promise to open up florida's offshore coastline, and deep waters to drilling and production. all of the aforementioned, coupled with the fact that "we the people" would rather destoy 3rd world countries environments (look at the waste we deposit in mexico every day...NAFTA..."what a joke") and the dependence of these 3rd world countries who have no choice but to sacrifice their environment(s) for the financial income, "we're sliding down a greasy rope" so, is it about oil? it's way deeper than that. making that statement just simplifies the matter. but as i've said before, it will culminate with an attack regardles of "why" it's all politics, not "about oil" i've mentioned this in the past, one more time won't hurt, there are hundreds of men and women who were working in the states drilling for oil and natural gas that are now overseas because of the dramatic rig count drop. it's not about oil at all......todays price of oil per bbl: $26.50 USD natural gas per mcf: $4.60 USD, with prices like these we should not have to depend on 3rd world energy, in fact we're actually "shooting our economy in the foot" by not drilling our own reserves in the states.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Whew, yeah! Let's hear it for the great state of Finland! They are such a world leader. Doing so much good for the downtroden. I'm sure they have jumped on the bandwagon for everything "good" in the world.

Get off your high horse. It is very easy to sit back and criticize.

(a) At what point exactly did I say Finland is a world leader or a very great country?

(b) I just believe that if any instance (whether it is business monopoly etc.) is given too much power w/o any critique things tend develop to something not so favorable.

Couple of examples:

NSA (or another US agency) ear-dropped or by some other means found out about an offer a company from an EU-state was about give on a contract in Far-East. This agency past this information to a company from US and this company won that contract. Well, that's nice except this is against all the nice things US is telling about free market economy...

US is one of the biggest defenders of WTO - except when this free market deal is about to put unhealthy US industry out of business (last spring US put a 30 toll on steel - nice detail is that steel industry was a big contributer on president Bush's campaign... )

[jaaska 0]

Quote

I believe the U.S. has done a lot of good in the world.

No. We have no special rights over the world, but by virtue of the power we do possess, we -must- have special responsibilities.

I agree! Like I said, there is no perfect nation but one can always try to reach such position...

[billvon 3,110]

>can you imigine a major collision in one? just yesterday i was
> watching cnbc in the morning, and they were showing electric
> technology, i don't believe i'd want battery acid all over any open
> wound(s) . . .

Better than burning to death in a pool of flaming gasoline, I'd think. And most modern battery technology has no free acid (or base) in the battery.

[billvon 3,110]

>Why don't you check the real progress on electric vehicles.

My friend has an EV1 - it can beat any car out there off the line. You can't beat the torque on electric motors. Toyota is selling their RAV4 EV, an electric SUV that gets 125 miles to a charge.

> The auto industry is ready to abandon the idea.

Because they make more on gas vehicles.

>Higher voltage would do the trick, but then you risk pulling arcs
>through the air. Imagine having a broken seat heater cooking your
> *ss. Battery power is not the answer.

They are going to higher voltages. My car uses a 144 volt system; all gas cars will transition to a 42 volt system within about 15 years. Do a web search on 'automotive 42 volt.'


>Despite that, the highest performance SUVs are made in Europe, the
> BMW X5, M-Series Mercedes, and the new Porsche Cheyenne. VW
>owns Rolls Royce, one of the most fuel inefficient vehicles on the
>planet. Time to put the soap-box away.

The ones sold in Europe are the highest efficiency cars in the world. 70mpg vehicles are common. In the US they sell what the US market wants, which is inefficient vehicles.

>Bottom line, 90% of auto emissions are created by 1% of the cars on
> the road. These are older cars, and that statistic includes that
> vintage VW Bug driving around Helsinki.

Agreed. We have the technology to make efficient and clean cars; we just have to implement it.

[Gawain 0]

>My friend has an EV1 - it can beat any car out there off the line. You can't beat the torque on electric motors. Toyota is selling their RAV4 EV, an electric SUV that gets 125 miles to a charge.

If we match real dollar to dollars in terms of what I spend for gas, and what they spend on electricity, maintenance, TCO, purchase price/lease, etc. You will find that your friends spent more (i.e. a gas RAV4 vs the ZEV RAV4).

>Because they make more on gas vehicles.

That and they cannot get more long-range performance from the cell technology and unless you can generate in excess of 400 miles range, no one is going to be interested.

>They are going to higher voltages. My car uses a 144 volt system; all gas cars will transition to a 42 volt system within about 15 years. Do a web search on 'automotive 42 volt.'

Your cars alternator has the ability to generate that much power, but the systems (windows, radio, power/lighter, airbags, all operate off the current 14 watt standard (this I cited from your suggested search and reviewed on DuPont's web-site). The 42 Volt cars are rolling out, but mostly in Hybrid vehicles in Japan right now. There are still significant risks to arcing and just wait till the cell-phone-brain-tumor folks get a hold of having all that extra electical gear...dual voltage cars, etc. Even then, an all electric car, with enhanced systems to draw the power is a low probability (every one is gonna want to plug in their cell-phone, PC, game boy, DVD, gadget-expo...etc.)

>The ones sold in Europe are the highest efficiency cars in the world. 70mpg vehicles are common. In the US they sell what the US market wants, which is inefficient vehicles.

Comparing US vs UK models of the BMW X5, the gasoline specs are virtually the same (though Euro standards for Gas engines vs. pollution are more lenient). The diesel engines they sell there add about 25% to mileage in some cases, but I could find no example of a 70MPG SUV. 70MPG cars, etc. sure...remember, the Europeans pay 4 times what we pay for gas.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,110]

>If we match real dollar to dollars in terms of what I spend for gas,
> and what they spend on electricity, maintenance, TCO, purchase
>price/lease, etc. You will find that your friends spent more (i.e. a gas
> RAV4 vs the ZEV RAV4).

I agree; gas is cheap. But the reason is not that electric vehicles have any remaining insurmountable technological hurdles - it is because gas is cheap and thus gas cars are cheap to run. If we did not subsidize oil as much as we do (to the tune of billions a year) gas would be more expensive, and EV's would be a lot more popular.

>That and they cannot get more long-range performance from the
>cell technology and unless you can generate in excess of 400 miles
> range, no one is going to be interested.

As many gas SUV's do not have a range of 400 miles, and are quite popular, your statement is incorrect.

>The 42 Volt cars are rolling out, but mostly in Hybrid vehicles in
> Japan right now.

42 volt is to replace 12 volt systems, not to drive hybrids. Hybrid systems are higher voltage (144-300 volt.)

>There are still significant risks to arcing and just wait till the cell-
>phone-brain-tumor folks get a hold of having all that extra electical
> gear...

Higher voltage = lower currents = lower ELF.

>Even then, an all electric car, with enhanced systems to draw the
> power is a low probability (every one is gonna want to plug in their
>cell-phone, PC, game boy, DVD, gadget-expo...etc.)

That's not what it's for. The 42v system will replace the drive belts that currently power A/C, power steering, the vacuum that powers the brakes etc. This will increase performance and lower price, which is why car companies will do it. Plug-in accessories have little to do with it.

[lagerhead 0]

from your original statement it really sounded like you were kicking the U.S. in the balls. No we are not perfect and no we don't have special rights. but when countries keep taking shots at us over b.s. we need to tell them to go to hell. maybe if we stopped giving international assistance for awhile this would stop. how would people feel about the U.S. if we stopped sending food, meds, or protection?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I agree; gas is cheap. But the reason is not that electric vehicles have any remaining insurmountable technological hurdles - it is because gas is cheap and thus gas cars are cheap to run. If we did not subsidize oil as much as we do (to the tune of billions a year) gas would be more expensive, and EV's would be a lot more popular.

We'll just agree to disagree on this issue because there are other factors at work too (especially in California).

Quote

As many gas SUV's do not have a range of 400 miles, and are quite popular, your statement is incorrect.

My point is that the majority of autos/SUVs sold in the US will get around 270 - 350 miles to a tank of gas. If an alternate power source is going to be offered, it needs to outperform in more than simple off-the-line performance like the EV1.

Quote

42 volt is to replace 12 volt systems, not to drive hybrids. Hybrid systems are higher voltage (144-300 volt.)

Higher voltage = lower currents = lower ELF.

That's not what it's for. The 42v system will replace the drive belts that currently power A/C, power steering, the vacuum that powers the brakes etc. This will increase performance and lower price, which is why car companies will do it. Plug-in accessories have little to do with it.

Volts x Amps = Watts

If you lower current (amps) you must raise voltage. Great in concept, but the 42-volt world is still more difficult than that originally thought.

Add the power of the basics we all have (widows, seats, defroster, etc.) and you have a power consumption of about 2 kilowatts. A 14volt alternator needs to crank out 140 amps to run the show. Now, add what the automakers have planned for us, whether we want them or not (FYI there's only one on the market in the world today: Toyota Crown THS), and it's estimated that 3 kilowatts of power will be required.

The plan for a larger alternator (i.e. 42volts) is fine, (for the items you mentioned) but it's not a clean switch. There are isolation issues, and basic durability issues. Microchips are, by design low voltage devices, easily cooked. Lights, same story. Then don't forget the idiot factor (when I try to jump start somebody's 14 volt car with my new 42 volt machine). Then there's the safety issue...what about grandpa and his pacemaker? Doesn't a lower current and higher volts pose a risk (I don't know)? To be honest, I'm not an expert and am using automotive journal information as a reference on this issue.

Anyway, what I really want to know is if they can make a car that actually burns hydrogen (like an internal combustion engine burns gas, etc.). As much as the spacy wir that I saw on the Jetson's seemed cool...I really like the sound my car's engine makes as it revs crazy, while I peel through the Ortega Highway to get to Elsinore...gadgets...phooey...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[seedy 0]

Quote

My point is that the majority of autos/SUVs sold in the US will get around 270 - 350 miles to a tank of gas. If an alternate power source is going to be offered, it needs to outperform in more than simple off-the-line performance like the EV1.

In my opinion, range is one of the biggest drawbacks to electrics. Currently in my career I travel a great deal with a SUV loaded with spare parts, tools, etc. I may drive (at 75mph) for 10-12 hours. An electric will have to perform comparably for me to consider. That includes quick recharges (I now stop for no more than 15 minutes for a refill). So, logistically, we have a long way to go before those in careers like mine will realistically look at EVs.

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[jaaska 0]

Quote

from your original statement it really sounded like you were kicking the U.S. in the balls. No we are not perfect and no we don't have special rights. but when countries keep taking shots at us over b.s. we need to tell them to go to hell. maybe if we stopped giving international assistance for awhile this would stop. how would people feel about the U.S. if we stopped sending food, meds, or protection?

Well, I did criticize quite a bit...

I do believe lot's of stuff going on is good - I mean if the other choice would be that USSR would be the only superpower in the world, the choice is pretty clear. Compared to that US is doing a fairly good job. HOWEVER, there are a lot of things that are quite **cked up. My intention was not to throw a flamer, I just wanted to hear opinions, good counter criticism etc... (I don't count "ohh... Finland must be then just a perfect place - howcome you're not a superpower. I'm sure you'd do a great job!" as being neither productive nor even even real counter criticism )

If a country proclaims to be pro-WTO, pro-UN etc., but plays the game only when it suits it best it's plain arrogancy (is this a word? )and does only harm to the issues mentioned above. As Guade put it so well: "No. We have no special rights over the world, but by virtue of the power we do possess, we -must- have special responsibilities."

As I've said it before - if the most powerful nation wipes it's ass with international issues, it really waters down the whole effort!

Soo... If there is an agreement on something world wide, or is about to be one - US should be in the front line adapting these new pacts etc. rather than just spoil the whole thing.

Good examples:

Kioto - no, we do not let anything jeopardize the American way of living (in English: we are still going to keep on polluting as hell)

International court - we have a perfectly good justice system of our own (in English: come on, this court is only for the baddies!)

And a nice number of other "it's not in our own special interest" -type of GRAB!

One of the best teaching and training methods (used e.g. in the army) is to do it and let the others learn from it... As US has so much power, they should set the example!!

That was pretty much my point in this thread...

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

At what point exactly did I say Finland is a world leader or a very great country?

Exactly my point. It is very easy to do absolutely nothing and not make any mistakes or be criticized. We have as much a right to protect our interests as any country in the world. If your country doesn't agree with what we propose then don't assist us. Hell, you might could even grow a set and try to stop us. But, at least quit whining about everything.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin