|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2013 11:02 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. Oh we get it. You'd make a fine Minister in 18th Century England. I get it..you like Imperialism and Mercantilism. What you don't get are how outrageously destructive those views are to not only foreign populaces, but domestic as well. As Randolph Bourne said 'War is the Health of the State'. Higher taxes, more restrictions on liberties at home, atrocities committed afar, hatred sewn, and avarice and pursuit of and warping of power amongst the political class. To lie, deceive, obfuscate in to wars for the MIC on notions of scaring the population. It's thousands and thousands year old tactics of every totalitarian. You're nothing new.
Yeah, you don't get it either.
|
On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will.
You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy.
Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2?
|
On November 30 2013 11:18 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy. Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2?
There is no way to get morality out of the way, there'll always be some form of valuation inherent in action. If he says something like "you simply must have a military to survive" he has already made a moral commitment.
|
On November 30 2013 11:02 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. Oh we get it. You'd make a fine Minister in 18th Century England. I get it..you like Imperialism and Mercantilism. What you don't get are how outrageously destructive those views are to not only foreign populaces, but domestic as well. As Randolph Bourne said 'War is the Health of the State'. Higher taxes, more restrictions on liberties at home, atrocities committed afar, hatred sewn, and avarice and pursuit of and warping of power amongst the political class. To lie, deceive, obfuscate in to wars for the MIC on notions of scaring the population. It's thousands and thousands year old tactics of every totalitarian. You're nothing new.
You don't have to go past 1990 to find a PM of Britain with the balls (pun intended) to stand erect before the bullies of the world. Your kind was present then too, advocating everything but acting in your own best interests with the cards you're holding. Appease the USSR, they're far too powerful and advanced to win. You've gotta give up the nuclear deterrent, treat them nice. Anything else would be to invite disaster.
How quickly we forget.
|
On November 30 2013 10:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 07:38 HunterX11 wrote:On November 30 2013 01:25 Danglars wrote:When a fundamental Islamic state like Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons to add to their threats of force, there is very little agreement possible. They know that. At what point will international action, including sanctions, force off this dream of nuclear weapons, if it ever happens? Who knows. I don't think a pause in one part of its uranium enrichment is worth the price we payed in the cards we hold. Iran still does not recognize Israel. It's stated several times in the past its desire to see it wiped off the map. There is no reason here to pretend its aims are changed and its going to play nicely if we just extend more bribes.
The deal, Netanyahu argued, leaves Iran "taking only cosmetic steps which it could reverse easily within a few weeks, and in return, sanctions that took years to put in place are going to be eased."
"This first step could very well be the last step," he said.
"Without continued pressure, what incentive does the Iranian regime have to take serious steps that actually dismantle its nuclear weapons capability?"
Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, said easing pressure will remove any motivation for Iran's leaders to make difficult decisions.
"It's like having a small hole in your tire, a small hole in the sanctions regime," he said. "In the end, like with your tire, you'll get a flat."
source:cnnI'm with Netanyahu. Bad foreign policy from the US, gaining cosmetic changes, costing too much in negotiating power. So is Iran a fundamentalist Islamic state or not? Because the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa stating that nuclear weapons are unequivoically haram. But if that's just for show, and they aren't actually crazy, then of course there's no chance they're going to nuke Israel for shits and giggles. It can't be both ways. And more importantly, there's no actual indication that Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons at all: if they were, why would they comply with IAEA safeguards? I'm sure the Ayatollah's recent remarks came as soothing consolation to American liberals wishing everybody would play nice in the diplomatic sandbox. He didn't really mean all those terrible things. He's new. He's reformed. We're wiping out 50 years of history. And man, you're REALLY grasping at straws with that last sentence. This is full peace-in-our-time mode.
Are you sure quoted the right post? I'm not sure what you're responding to here. My point is that Iran itself asserts it has no right to nuclear weapons--it's worth pointing out that even North Korea under Kim Jong Il gave their 90 days notice of withdrawal from the NPT instead of just conducting nuclear tests out of the blue. If Iran were to begin diverting its HEU, we would know, because all of it is being monitored and is accounted for by the IAEA. Now, diversion of plutonium byproducts from their research reactor at Arak is another issue that requires more stringent safeguards than ensuring HEU non-diversion, and that's one of the very reasons why engaging with Iran is necessary. Let's not forget that earlier on, Iran had even voluntarily acceded to the Additional Protocol to the NPT without having ratified as a sign of goodwill. If we could convince them to do that again (or even better, ratify the Additional Protocol) that would do a lot to genuinely ensure that Iran's nuclear program could not be used for weapons.
|
On November 30 2013 10:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 07:38 HunterX11 wrote:On November 30 2013 01:25 Danglars wrote:When a fundamental Islamic state like Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons to add to their threats of force, there is very little agreement possible. They know that. At what point will international action, including sanctions, force off this dream of nuclear weapons, if it ever happens? Who knows. I don't think a pause in one part of its uranium enrichment is worth the price we payed in the cards we hold. Iran still does not recognize Israel. It's stated several times in the past its desire to see it wiped off the map. There is no reason here to pretend its aims are changed and its going to play nicely if we just extend more bribes.
The deal, Netanyahu argued, leaves Iran "taking only cosmetic steps which it could reverse easily within a few weeks, and in return, sanctions that took years to put in place are going to be eased."
"This first step could very well be the last step," he said.
"Without continued pressure, what incentive does the Iranian regime have to take serious steps that actually dismantle its nuclear weapons capability?"
Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, said easing pressure will remove any motivation for Iran's leaders to make difficult decisions.
"It's like having a small hole in your tire, a small hole in the sanctions regime," he said. "In the end, like with your tire, you'll get a flat."
source:cnnI'm with Netanyahu. Bad foreign policy from the US, gaining cosmetic changes, costing too much in negotiating power. So is Iran a fundamentalist Islamic state or not? Because the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa stating that nuclear weapons are unequivoically haram. But if that's just for show, and they aren't actually crazy, then of course there's no chance they're going to nuke Israel for shits and giggles. It can't be both ways. And more importantly, there's no actual indication that Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons at all: if they were, why would they comply with IAEA safeguards? I'm sure the Ayatollah's recent remarks came as soothing consolation to American liberals wishing everybody would play nice in the diplomatic sandbox. He didn't really mean all those terrible things. He's new. He's reformed. We're wiping out 50 years of history. And man, you're REALLY grasping at straws with that last sentence. This is full peace-in-our-time mode.
50 years ago Iran was an ally because we were supporting a brutal dictator because at the time the US wanted stability and not any chance of any regions being able to support the communist regimes which would have undermined the US strategy of starving them out thru there lack of ability to garner proper resources to continue to function which in the long run did work but had the unintended consequence of having certain nations such as Iran have it citizens hate us and when they overthrew said leader they became hostile to America.
It seems like an irrelevant point to bring up but to the older Iranians a lot of them still view America as the country who supported the dictator who made there lives miserable so there mistrust and dislike is understandable. Fortunately though most of Iranian population are young and therefore instead of actually living thru it they merely hear about it which is far less incendiary.
It doesn't really matter in the long run though either they play nice now or 1 year from now they are forced to play nice so either way the US will get what it wants.
|
On November 30 2013 11:20 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 11:18 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy. Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2? There is no way to get morality out of the way, there'll always be some form of valuation inherent in action. If he says something like "you simply must have a military to survive" he has already made a moral commitment.
That is what I mean. It's intended to be a cynical question, because from a moral viewpoint it would be impossible for the US and the rest of the Western world to just say that Israel should go to hell. However, there is no non moral gain from keeping Israel on the map.
Its mere existence annoys every Arabian country and with almost all of those countries being oil producers, having good trading relationships would mean that you would a) get better access to oil and b) that all that money from the oil would flow right back to the West in the form of trade, be it luxury goods or weapon deals or whatever.
So if you actually think about that, then the logical conclusion of "morality should not dictate foreign policy" would be, to relocate Israel to Utah and let's all trade happily.
This entire scenario will quite obviously not happen, because some moral decisions are big enough to stand in the way of US/Western foreign relations.
|
On November 30 2013 21:07 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 11:20 Roe wrote:On November 30 2013 11:18 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy. Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2? There is no way to get morality out of the way, there'll always be some form of valuation inherent in action. If he says something like "you simply must have a military to survive" he has already made a moral commitment. That is what I mean. It's intended to be a cynical question, because from a moral viewpoint it would be impossible for the US and the rest of the Western world to just say that Israel should go to hell. However, there is no non moral gain from keeping Israel on the map.Its mere existence annoys every Arabian country and with almost all of those countries being oil producers, having good trading relationships would mean that you would a) get better access to oil and b) that all that money from the oil would flow right back to the West in the form of trade, be it luxury goods or weapon deals or whatever. So if you actually think about that, then the logical conclusion of "morality should not dictate foreign policy" would be, to relocate Israel to Utah and let's all trade happily. This entire scenario will quite obviously not happen, because some moral decisions are big enough to stand in the way of US/Western foreign relations.
What the hell are you talking about?
It has nothing to do with moral or gain or losses, it's just an absolutely ludicrous hypothesis; do you think you could just tell Israelis: hey folks pack your stuff, we relocate you to Utah? That doesn't make an atom of sense. And you think you wouldn't have a problem with American opinion if you were to decide to wipe out the whole country?
Have discussions in this forum always been of such bad quality or is it new? I remember having had sometimes heated but interesting conversations, now it seems we are discussing bad science-fiction with kids that mix up geopolitics and Sid Meyer's Civilization. No offense.
|
On December 01 2013 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 21:07 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 11:20 Roe wrote:On November 30 2013 11:18 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy. Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2? There is no way to get morality out of the way, there'll always be some form of valuation inherent in action. If he says something like "you simply must have a military to survive" he has already made a moral commitment. That is what I mean. It's intended to be a cynical question, because from a moral viewpoint it would be impossible for the US and the rest of the Western world to just say that Israel should go to hell. However, there is no non moral gain from keeping Israel on the map.Its mere existence annoys every Arabian country and with almost all of those countries being oil producers, having good trading relationships would mean that you would a) get better access to oil and b) that all that money from the oil would flow right back to the West in the form of trade, be it luxury goods or weapon deals or whatever. So if you actually think about that, then the logical conclusion of "morality should not dictate foreign policy" would be, to relocate Israel to Utah and let's all trade happily. This entire scenario will quite obviously not happen, because some moral decisions are big enough to stand in the way of US/Western foreign relations. What the hell are you talking about? It has nothing to do with moral or gain or losses, it's just an absolutely ludicrous hypothesis; do you think you could just tell Israelis: hey folks pack your stuff, we relocate you to Utah? That doesn't make an atom of sense. And you think you wouldn't have a problem with American opinion if you were to decide to wipe out the whole country? Have discussions in this forum always been of such bad quality or is it new? I remember having had sometimes heated but interesting conversations, now it seems we are discussing bad science-fiction with kids that mix up geopolitics and Sid Meyer's Civilization. No offense.
I think his point is that if morality does not play a part in foreign policy, then why support Israel, pretty much through everything? It's almost exclusively because the US and Europe feel a moral obligation towards them.
|
On December 01 2013 00:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 30 2013 21:07 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 11:20 Roe wrote:On November 30 2013 11:18 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy. Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2? There is no way to get morality out of the way, there'll always be some form of valuation inherent in action. If he says something like "you simply must have a military to survive" he has already made a moral commitment. That is what I mean. It's intended to be a cynical question, because from a moral viewpoint it would be impossible for the US and the rest of the Western world to just say that Israel should go to hell. However, there is no non moral gain from keeping Israel on the map.Its mere existence annoys every Arabian country and with almost all of those countries being oil producers, having good trading relationships would mean that you would a) get better access to oil and b) that all that money from the oil would flow right back to the West in the form of trade, be it luxury goods or weapon deals or whatever. So if you actually think about that, then the logical conclusion of "morality should not dictate foreign policy" would be, to relocate Israel to Utah and let's all trade happily. This entire scenario will quite obviously not happen, because some moral decisions are big enough to stand in the way of US/Western foreign relations. What the hell are you talking about? It has nothing to do with moral or gain or losses, it's just an absolutely ludicrous hypothesis; do you think you could just tell Israelis: hey folks pack your stuff, we relocate you to Utah? That doesn't make an atom of sense. And you think you wouldn't have a problem with American opinion if you were to decide to wipe out the whole country? Have discussions in this forum always been of such bad quality or is it new? I remember having had sometimes heated but interesting conversations, now it seems we are discussing bad science-fiction with kids that mix up geopolitics and Sid Meyer's Civilization. No offense. I think his point is that if morality does not play a part in foreign policy, then why support Israel, pretty much through everything? It's almost exclusively because the US and Europe feel a moral obligation towards them.
Yes, that is my point.
It also returns to where this argument started. Iran is a threat because its nuclear weapons endanger the existence of Israel. So if Israel did not exist, there would be no threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and better trade relations. So why should the US not try to become allies with Iran regardless of Israel, if the only thing that matters is what is best for the US?
Edit:
Or to summarize it more:
Supporting Israel at all is a contradiction to xDaunt's opinion that morality should not be more important than foreign policy gains.
Oh and yes its an absurd example, trying to point out where this opinion is wrong.
|
On November 30 2013 21:07 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2013 11:20 Roe wrote:On November 30 2013 11:18 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy. Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2? There is no way to get morality out of the way, there'll always be some form of valuation inherent in action. If he says something like "you simply must have a military to survive" he has already made a moral commitment. That is what I mean. It's intended to be a cynical question, because from a moral viewpoint it would be impossible for the US and the rest of the Western world to just say that Israel should go to hell. However, there is no non moral gain from keeping Israel on the map. Its mere existence annoys every Arabian country and with almost all of those countries being oil producers, having good trading relationships would mean that you would a) get better access to oil and b) that all that money from the oil would flow right back to the West in the form of trade, be it luxury goods or weapon deals or whatever. So if you actually think about that, then the logical conclusion of "morality should not dictate foreign policy" would be, to relocate Israel to Utah and let's all trade happily. This entire scenario will quite obviously not happen, because some moral decisions are big enough to stand in the way of US/Western foreign relations.
Actually, if morality was the defining way we did foreign policy, we probably wouldn't be such close allies with Israel (they are hardly free of blame in their conflict, and they antagonize Middle Eastern countries in a lot of ways). Our alliance with Israel (at the point) is most definitely forced by the fact that everyone else in the Middle East really doesn't like us right now, so if we aren't really close with them, we don't have much leverage in the area at all.
Morality is absolutely intertwined with foreign policy. If you dictated foreign policy contrary to the public's moral compass, then you'd be in for a bad day as a politician. But it definitely isn't the primary driving factor, either. It's more like a variable that you have to account for.
|
How Fracking In Pennsylvania Helps Clear The Air In New York
...For decades, oil has been the fuel of choice for thousands of residential buildings in New York City. But now there are fewer chimneys spewing black smoke. That's because the city has a program encouraging owners to convert to cleaner-burning natural gas.
The switch is happening all over the city, including in a 100-unit building on the Upper East Side that Burt Wallack's company manages. The owners are spending nearly $300,000 to make the switch.
"In this particular building, it was a no-brainer — the payback will be in about three years," Wallack says. "The day we switch over, we'll start saving approximately 50 percent of our energy costs." ...
Despite consistent opposition to fracking, it appears many New Yorkers have not made a direct connection between fracking and the increasing availability of natural gas in their region. Talk to people on the street and they focus more on the benefits here than the environmental consequences over in Pennsylvania.
"The oil, when it burns, it discolors my house — it's terrible. You get the smell," says Kevin Leonard of Pleasantville, N.Y. "Natural gas is much better. ... And it's much cheaper at this point in time."
Leonard says he's heard about the potential water quality and pollution problems associated with fracking. But he says as with most things in life, there are trade-offs. ...
Link
|
On December 01 2013 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +How Fracking In Pennsylvania Helps Clear The Air In New York
...For decades, oil has been the fuel of choice for thousands of residential buildings in New York City. But now there are fewer chimneys spewing black smoke. That's because the city has a program encouraging owners to convert to cleaner-burning natural gas.
The switch is happening all over the city, including in a 100-unit building on the Upper East Side that Burt Wallack's company manages. The owners are spending nearly $300,000 to make the switch.
"In this particular building, it was a no-brainer — the payback will be in about three years," Wallack says. "The day we switch over, we'll start saving approximately 50 percent of our energy costs." ...
Despite consistent opposition to fracking, it appears many New Yorkers have not made a direct connection between fracking and the increasing availability of natural gas in their region. Talk to people on the street and they focus more on the benefits here than the environmental consequences over in Pennsylvania.
"The oil, when it burns, it discolors my house — it's terrible. You get the smell," says Kevin Leonard of Pleasantville, N.Y. "Natural gas is much better. ... And it's much cheaper at this point in time."
Leonard says he's heard about the potential water quality and pollution problems associated with fracking. But he says as with most things in life, there are trade-offs. ... Link
Of course, you support fracking, Johnny. No matter what, conservative will always find a way to be on the evil side of the argument.
Ok, jokes asides, could you find something else than twisted propaganda if you believe that shitting your country and all its water resources for the profit of some big fat ass corporation is a good idea?
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/7179:public-media-joins-gang-greens-in-colluding-with-frackers
|
On December 01 2013 01:26 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 00:51 Acrofales wrote:On December 01 2013 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 30 2013 21:07 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 11:20 Roe wrote:On November 30 2013 11:18 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy. Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2? There is no way to get morality out of the way, there'll always be some form of valuation inherent in action. If he says something like "you simply must have a military to survive" he has already made a moral commitment. That is what I mean. It's intended to be a cynical question, because from a moral viewpoint it would be impossible for the US and the rest of the Western world to just say that Israel should go to hell. However, there is no non moral gain from keeping Israel on the map.Its mere existence annoys every Arabian country and with almost all of those countries being oil producers, having good trading relationships would mean that you would a) get better access to oil and b) that all that money from the oil would flow right back to the West in the form of trade, be it luxury goods or weapon deals or whatever. So if you actually think about that, then the logical conclusion of "morality should not dictate foreign policy" would be, to relocate Israel to Utah and let's all trade happily. This entire scenario will quite obviously not happen, because some moral decisions are big enough to stand in the way of US/Western foreign relations. What the hell are you talking about? It has nothing to do with moral or gain or losses, it's just an absolutely ludicrous hypothesis; do you think you could just tell Israelis: hey folks pack your stuff, we relocate you to Utah? That doesn't make an atom of sense. And you think you wouldn't have a problem with American opinion if you were to decide to wipe out the whole country? Have discussions in this forum always been of such bad quality or is it new? I remember having had sometimes heated but interesting conversations, now it seems we are discussing bad science-fiction with kids that mix up geopolitics and Sid Meyer's Civilization. No offense. I think his point is that if morality does not play a part in foreign policy, then why support Israel, pretty much through everything? It's almost exclusively because the US and Europe feel a moral obligation towards them. Yes, that is my point. It also returns to where this argument started. Iran is a threat because its nuclear weapons endanger the existence of Israel. So if Israel did not exist, there would be no threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and better trade relations. So why should the US not try to become allies with Iran regardless of Israel, if the only thing that matters is what is best for the US? Edit: Or to summarize it more: Supporting Israel at all is a contradiction to xDaunt's opinion that morality should not be more important than foreign policy gains. Oh and yes its an absurd example, trying to point out where this opinion is wrong.
First, the US gains many strategic benefits from having a proxy like Israel in the Middle East. Supporting Israel is no where near just a altruistic affair.
Second, what I described is a model of how nations should act -- not how they always do act. Don't forget that this discussion came up because of the Geneva deal with Iran. My suspicion is that it is a bad idea for the US.
|
On December 01 2013 03:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:How Fracking In Pennsylvania Helps Clear The Air In New York
...For decades, oil has been the fuel of choice for thousands of residential buildings in New York City. But now there are fewer chimneys spewing black smoke. That's because the city has a program encouraging owners to convert to cleaner-burning natural gas.
The switch is happening all over the city, including in a 100-unit building on the Upper East Side that Burt Wallack's company manages. The owners are spending nearly $300,000 to make the switch.
"In this particular building, it was a no-brainer — the payback will be in about three years," Wallack says. "The day we switch over, we'll start saving approximately 50 percent of our energy costs." ...
Despite consistent opposition to fracking, it appears many New Yorkers have not made a direct connection between fracking and the increasing availability of natural gas in their region. Talk to people on the street and they focus more on the benefits here than the environmental consequences over in Pennsylvania.
"The oil, when it burns, it discolors my house — it's terrible. You get the smell," says Kevin Leonard of Pleasantville, N.Y. "Natural gas is much better. ... And it's much cheaper at this point in time."
Leonard says he's heard about the potential water quality and pollution problems associated with fracking. But he says as with most things in life, there are trade-offs. ... Link Of course, you support fracking, Johnny. No matter what, conservative will always find a way to be on the evil side of the argument. Ok, jokes asides, could you find something else than twisted propaganda if you believe that shitting your country and all its water resources for the profit of some big fat ass corporation is a good idea? http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/7179:public-media-joins-gang-greens-in-colluding-with-frackers
Both the EPA and IEA think that fracking is safe enough with reasonable regulations in place. Do you have anything other than Luddite propaganda that says otherwise?
And thanks for the NPR conspiracy theory story from truth-out. I always appreciate a good laugh 
|
On December 01 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Both the EPA and IEA think that fracking is safe enough with reasonable regulations in place.
Yes and it's so incredibly regulated that fracking-companies don't even have to tell which chemicals they're using! It's pretty hard to prove that fracking is dangerous if you can't even establish a baseline because no company will tell you what crap they're pumping into the ground.
|
On December 01 2013 04:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Both the EPA and IEA think that fracking is safe enough with reasonable regulations in place. Yes and it's so incredibly regulated that fracking-companies don't even have to tell which chemicals they're using! It's pretty hard to prove that fracking is dangerous if you can't even establish a baseline because no company will tell you what crap they're pumping into the ground.
It would do you well to have a better understanding of fracking before posting stuff like this. What's pumped into the wells is benign compared to the hydrocarbons that are extracted, which is why oil CEOs chug the fracking fluid as a publicity stunt.
|
On December 01 2013 04:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:33 Nyxisto wrote:On December 01 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Both the EPA and IEA think that fracking is safe enough with reasonable regulations in place. Yes and it's so incredibly regulated that fracking-companies don't even have to tell which chemicals they're using! It's pretty hard to prove that fracking is dangerous if you can't even establish a baseline because no company will tell you what crap they're pumping into the ground. It would do you well to have a better understanding of fracking before posting stuff like this. What's pumped into the wells is benign compared to the hydrocarbons that are extracted, which is why oil CEOs chug the fracking fluid as a publicity stunt.
You proved that you are biased and unimformed yourself, so... Please stop.
|
On December 01 2013 04:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:33 Nyxisto wrote:On December 01 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Both the EPA and IEA think that fracking is safe enough with reasonable regulations in place. Yes and it's so incredibly regulated that fracking-companies don't even have to tell which chemicals they're using! It's pretty hard to prove that fracking is dangerous if you can't even establish a baseline because no company will tell you what crap they're pumping into the ground. It would do you well to have a better understanding of fracking before posting stuff like this. What's pumped into the wells is benign compared to the hydrocarbons that are extracted, which is why oil CEOs chug the fracking fluid as a publicity stunt.
So you take water, you add chemicals in it, call it benign so that you don't have to make an argument and call it a day.
Nice.
|
On December 01 2013 03:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 01:26 sneirac wrote:On December 01 2013 00:51 Acrofales wrote:On December 01 2013 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 30 2013 21:07 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 11:20 Roe wrote:On November 30 2013 11:18 sneirac wrote:On November 30 2013 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, I'm done explaining myself on this theory of foreign policy business. If you guys don't get it after the last page of comments, then you never will. You are saying that morality should never stand in the way of gaining an advantage in foreign policy. Doesn't that mean that the US-Israel relations make no sense whatsoever? Isn't US support of Israel based on moral lessons from WW2? There is no way to get morality out of the way, there'll always be some form of valuation inherent in action. If he says something like "you simply must have a military to survive" he has already made a moral commitment. That is what I mean. It's intended to be a cynical question, because from a moral viewpoint it would be impossible for the US and the rest of the Western world to just say that Israel should go to hell. However, there is no non moral gain from keeping Israel on the map.Its mere existence annoys every Arabian country and with almost all of those countries being oil producers, having good trading relationships would mean that you would a) get better access to oil and b) that all that money from the oil would flow right back to the West in the form of trade, be it luxury goods or weapon deals or whatever. So if you actually think about that, then the logical conclusion of "morality should not dictate foreign policy" would be, to relocate Israel to Utah and let's all trade happily. This entire scenario will quite obviously not happen, because some moral decisions are big enough to stand in the way of US/Western foreign relations. What the hell are you talking about? It has nothing to do with moral or gain or losses, it's just an absolutely ludicrous hypothesis; do you think you could just tell Israelis: hey folks pack your stuff, we relocate you to Utah? That doesn't make an atom of sense. And you think you wouldn't have a problem with American opinion if you were to decide to wipe out the whole country? Have discussions in this forum always been of such bad quality or is it new? I remember having had sometimes heated but interesting conversations, now it seems we are discussing bad science-fiction with kids that mix up geopolitics and Sid Meyer's Civilization. No offense. I think his point is that if morality does not play a part in foreign policy, then why support Israel, pretty much through everything? It's almost exclusively because the US and Europe feel a moral obligation towards them. Yes, that is my point. It also returns to where this argument started. Iran is a threat because its nuclear weapons endanger the existence of Israel. So if Israel did not exist, there would be no threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and better trade relations. So why should the US not try to become allies with Iran regardless of Israel, if the only thing that matters is what is best for the US? Edit: Or to summarize it more: Supporting Israel at all is a contradiction to xDaunt's opinion that morality should not be more important than foreign policy gains. Oh and yes its an absurd example, trying to point out where this opinion is wrong. First, the US gains many strategic benefits from having a proxy like Israel in the Middle East. Supporting Israel is no where near just a altruistic affair. Second, what I described is a model of how nations should act -- not how they always do act. Don't forget that this discussion came up because of the Geneva deal with Iran. My suspicion is that it is a bad idea for the US.
Well, nowadays that's true, but a large part of the US's bad name in the middle east is DUE to the US's unconditional support of Israel.
But this conversation is really going nowhere. I'm just glad you're not in charge of the US's foreign policy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
