![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 28. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 16:48:14
... but why can't iran have nuclear power?
oh. because they might try and make a nuclear weapon.
... but why can't iran have nuclear weapons?
i mean... the us was very keen for nz to go with nuclear power / allow nuclear weapons on our territory. in fact... our refusal on both counts was a fairly significant factor in our losing our free trade agreement with the us and our being demoted from 'friendly' to 'neutral' military wise.
the us has nuclear weapons.
the uk has nuclear weapons.
why on earth shouldn't iran have them?i think the stance is a little hypocritical
(and even more so given that they are wanting POWER not NUKES)do you think it is possible for their to be a free election where the ruling class are freely chosen by the people... AND where the people and ruling class simply don't want to be on friendly terms with the us?
seems to me...
that that is what is going on here.
hmm.
but maybe i'm missing something.
pleased to note that bush has been considering the 'unhealthy dependency' on middle eastern oil. by 2025. interesting. i do believe... that is when antartica comes up for grabs. thats not in the middle east ;-)
ps. it isn't 'our' environment it is 'the' environment. not just for us but for our future generations too. and for years now... the us has been f*cking it up for the other present citizens of the world too... still. it would be good to see a shift away from dinosaur fuels. but... ethanol sounds expensive to me...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 16:49:43
In reply to okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 16:48:14
don't get me wrong i don't think ANYBODY should have either nuclear power or nuclear weapons.
i just think that 'it is okay for us but it is not okay for you' is a little (okay more than a little) hypocritical...
maybe if the us and the uk etc disarmed then they could model appropriate behaviour to the rest of the world ;-)
Posted by James K on February 1, 2006, at 17:23:50
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 16:49:43
Maybe the us should have patented nuclear weapons, then we could go after violaters in World Trade Court or something. I think Pakistan, Isreal, India, China, and whatever is left of USSR already have them. The cat is kind of out of the bag. I remember years ago some college kid wrote how to build one for a paper or something and caused a big stir. I don't know. The world seems to be moving on without the USA but we haven't noticed yet.
Stopping nuclear arms proliferation is an admirable goal, but USA always seems to have an everyone else first attitude.
Energy and how to get it and who gets it is going to be one of the biggest problems in coming years. Many of our drilling platforms in the Gulf are going to be underwater or blown away. Venezuala and Bolivia are talking about keeping their own resources. China and India are developing needs that current production wont be able to keep up with. Nuclear power creates waste. Sometimes we go to a lot of trouble to try and store that waste on top of fault lines. Wind power decimates migratory birds which control the insects which destroy the crops causing increased pesticide use which washes into the gulf where it mixes with the petroleum production waste and creates dead zones where fish can't live forcing the fishermen to overfish the healthy areas and putting more toxins into the human food supply.
The solution, if we find one will be about money. Convincing governments, businessmen, and individuals that life can be more prosperous with greener power usage, safer production techniques, living citizens etc.
Where was I again?
James K
Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 22:24:12
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » alexandra_k, posted by James K on February 1, 2006, at 17:23:50
> Maybe the us should have patented nuclear weapons, then we could go after violaters in World Trade Court or something.
hmm. so only the us is allowed to destroy the world? i really don't think the americans gave other countries the information to build them. i would guess that scientists in other countries figured it out for themselves. i mean... the german scientists who were working on developing the atom bomb... were offered top jobs in the us developing weapons over there after the war...
no charges of war crimes for them...
> I think Pakistan, Isreal, India, China, and whatever is left of USSR already have them.
yeah. i'm not too sure on the details but a few countries have them, yes.
> I remember years ago some college kid wrote how to build one for a paper or something and caused a big stir.
knowing how to build one isn't so hard. you could probably get that information off the internet. the hardest part would be getting the ingredients to build them. that is where nuclear power comes in handy because one of the waste products is plutonium which comes in handy for building nuclear weapons and it is one of the hardest ingredients to get...
> Stopping nuclear arms proliferation is an admirable goal, but USA always seems to have an everyone else first attitude.
i don't think 'proliferation' should be stopped. i think nobody should be allowed to have them. period. not 'everyone else' and not the us either.
but there is another ideal and it goes like this... if the us has enough nukes to destroy the world then nobody will piss the us off. and everyone else will have to do as we say. and the only way to achieve world peace is for everyone to have nuclear weapons so everyone will be too terrified to use them.
mmm hmm
anybody ever hear of human error?
malfunction?
paranoia?
> Energy and how to get it and who gets it is going to be one of the biggest problems in coming years.yeah. and conservation of energy (and rising prices to assist with that) doesn't seem to be on the agenda so very much... think of all the office buildings with lights on 24 / 7 when people are only in the offices 9-5 as just one eg.
> Nuclear power creates waste. Sometimes we go to a lot of trouble to try and store that waste on top of fault lines.
yes. waste that stays radioactive for hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of years.
> Wind power decimates migratory birds...
depends on where you put them.
solar power is interesting. i think there should be building restrictions on adequate insulation and solar power and stuff like that... we can do a lot regarding reducing our energy consumption too.
> The solution, if we find one will be about money. Convincing governments, businessmen, and individuals that life can be more prosperous with greener power usage, safer production techniques, living citizens etc.
ah yes. the mighty dollar. that is of course the only rational consideration at the end of the day... i mean who cares how many starving people there are in the world so long as i have my holiday home and my two motor vehicles and so on and so forth...
never mind that our decendents... in two generations... in four generations... in six generations... will be forced to live in our sh*t.
sigh.
renewable resources... thats what we need.
in nz... we have worked out that with strategic placement of wind power we could provide enough to power wellington (the capital) and canterbury (a south island region with a fairly big (by nz standards) city) if we conserved a little more on consumption.
that is impressive. costs a bit to set it up, of course... but once it is set up...
they are also talking about hydro dams. new technology and you can spend NZ$1,500 on a hydro dam on your property if you have a stream half a meter (i think) deep. with that... you can provide power to keep your household going... and you can sell excess back to the main grid. they reckon it would pay for itself in one year.
there are alternatives. same with cars. the biggest cause of car crashes is excess speed. did you know you could reduce accidents by 80% or something like that if we reduced the speed limit to 50k's per hour? that is quite a number of lives saved every single year. of course... the people would never have that. it would take too long to get anywhere... but my point is that there are alternatives to fossil fuels with respect to running cars. the technology is already there. it doesn't need to be developed IT IS ALREADY THERE. but yeah, it probably means we will have to put up with less powerful cars.
but really... the people will never have it. i mean who cares about two generation, four generations, six generations when i want my grunty car RIGHT NOW!
sigh.
Posted by caraher on February 2, 2006, at 7:20:27
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 22:24:12
I mostly agree with Alexandra about the double standard... a little-known feature of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is that in exchange for the "non-nuclear" nations pledging not to develop nuclear weapons the ones in possession of nuclear weapons promised to work toward eliminating them from their own arsenals. Article VI:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
Since the treaty was first signed in 1968, how much of this has actually happened? At present, the US is one of the few nations working to develop new types of nuclear weapons ("bunker busters"), and with an emphasis on having weapons whose use might be "acceptable" rather than strictly for deterrence.
But as Iraq showed, the ability to actually create a nuclear mushroom cloud is at best weakly linked to the amount of noise "the West" makes about a nation's possible nuclear ambitions.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 2, 2006, at 9:32:43
In reply to okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 16:48:14
"... but why can't iran have nuclear weapons?"
My opinion - you *are* missing something.
In general I think the goal is to stop anyone who doesn't already have atomic weapons from getting them.
But in this particular case, the new Pres of Iran has sworn to obliterate Israel, is teaching in the schools that the holocaust never happened, etc,
It's a bit more urgent to stop countries that have sworn to blow up other ones, don't you think?
There are multiple grades of uranium. Iran wants what is called "weapons grade" - which *can* be refined into nuclear weapons. Other grades will produce power just as well, but they don't want them.
If they only wanted power grade uranium nobody would be saying anything.
-----------
"ps. it isn't 'our' environment it is 'the' environment. not just for us but for our future generations too. and for years now... the us has been f*cking it up for the other present citizens of the world too... still. it would be good to see a shift away from dinosaur fuels. but... ethanol sounds expensive to me..."
Granted the environment isn't the highest priority for the current administration, but I wouldn't go quite that far.
When the iron curtain fell and the eastern bloc countries got their freedom one of their biggest problems was pollution. A large (very large) part of the aid given by the US was for the specific purpose of cleaning that up.
On my first trip to Poland, in 1993, the soot in the air was amazing. The snow was black, everything needed dusting twice a day, the buildings were covered with layers of it, the sky was brown.
I go back there now and see cleaned buildings, white snow and blue skies. US money at work.
But I guess that kind of stuff doesn't make the news, does it.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 2, 2006, at 12:14:42
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 22:24:12
"yeah. and conservation of energy (and rising prices to assist with that) doesn't seem to be on the agenda so very much... think of all the office buildings with lights on 24 / 7 when people are only in the offices 9-5 as just one eg."
The lights in my office go out automatically at about 6:30PM. If I'm working late I have to get up and turn them back on. About an hour later they turn themselves off again.
It's pretty common over here.
------------------------
"renewable resources... thats what we need.
in nz... we have worked out that with strategic placement of wind power we could provide enough to power wellington (the capital) and canterbury (a south island region with a fairly big (by nz standards) city) if we conserved a little more on consumption.
that is impressive. costs a bit to set it up, of course... but once it is set up..."
But NZ isn't near as populated. Don't the sheep outnumber the people?
Solar and wind aren't practical over here - at least until the cost of fossil fuels gets higher.
Experiments with burning garbage - an infinitely renuable source - were promising. I have no idea where that stands now, though.
---------------
Now - about sources. I'd be happy as a clam if we would tell the rest of the world to keep your oil thank you very much. It would sure help my bottom line.
Ethanol, I've read, takes more energy to produce than it provides. Go figure on that one! But farmers get subsidies.
Let the bottom fall out of the price of oil and there won't be a nickle of help to oil workers.
Fine, if that's the way people want it.
But don't get so upset when the prices get high enough that the return on investment is finally on the level of other companies.
but i digress.....
Posted by James K on February 2, 2006, at 12:22:42
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 22:24:12
> > The solution, if we find one will be about money. Convincing governments, businessmen, and individuals that life can be more prosperous with greener power usage, safer production techniques, living citizens etc.
>
> ah yes. the mighty dollar. that is of course the only rational consideration at the end of the day... i mean who cares how many starving people there are in the world so long as i have my holiday home and my two motor vehicles and so on and so forth...
>
---I want to expand a little bit about what I meant about the solution being about money. Some of my thoughts about this come from a female lecturer I read about and can't remember the name of. I wish I'd write this stuff down. Anyway, I've stolen some of her ideas and expanded them into my mind.First off, many people who have much are not going to change what seems to be working just out of the goodness of their heart, or because it is right. That isn't just cynical on my part, I believe it's been proven time and time again.
So the idea I alluded to in passing (I was in a rush of babbling at the moment) is that we can demonstrate that their is an economic reason to change. Some examples I think could work.
USA spends money subsidising farmers and farm corporations. We also spend money studying effects of pollution in Mississippi River and Gulf Coast. Pollution from farms and pigs and lawns runs into the river into the gulf creating economic problems for fishers and raising cost and safety of fish. - If we used to money we already spend on subsidies and pollution control, and instead induce the farmers to prevent run-off and use more oranic control methods. If we help them replant the tree lines that used to line farms, their soil wouldn't run away in floods, birds would be around to control insects, some wildflowers, bees around to pollinate crops, currently bee farmers rent out their hives in California for that purpose. - If we teach and give incentives to go to natural lawnscapes with mulching lawnmowers, better looking healthier subdivisions without spending money on chemicals. All saving money we are spending elsewhere to clean up the mess. That's a very local problem and solution to the world wide problems but it's an example of the kind of change of economic thinking that would work.
A more global example would be something like pandemics. The money spent on local prevention and cures, some of it could go to education on better bird farming techniques in Far East. And easing the economic pressures and extreme poverty they live in. In the long run, that will be less expensive than martial law (that was proposed), isolation, quarantine, mass deaths etc.
None of this has anything to do with Iran possibly gaining nuclear weapons which was your original post, except that maybe policies of impovrishment instead of legitimate economic incentive haven't worked well.
We'll never eliminate hate or greed. I don't believe capitalism is the answer to everything, but selective thought out capitalism can help with the greed part of the equation. And well fed and secure people are harder to scare into hateful extremism.
This is part of my naive and underdeveloped theory about how our species can/might last several more generations. I also believe humans are like weeds, hard to get rid off, and that some form of our species will exist far into the future, so it is really about how pleasant it will be for our descendants.
James K
Posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 16:07:52
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by caraher on February 2, 2006, at 7:20:27
> a little-known feature of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty...
hmm. i didn't even know that there was one...
> ...in exchange for the "non-nuclear" nations pledging not to develop nuclear weapons the ones in possession of nuclear weapons promised to work toward eliminating them from their own arsenals. Article VI:
> "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."interesting. thanks for that.
> Since the treaty was first signed in 1968, how much of this has actually happened? At present, the US is one of the few nations working to develop new types of nuclear weapons ("bunker busters"), and with an emphasis on having weapons whose use might be "acceptable" rather than strictly for deterrence.hmm. and who will be held accountable?
> But as Iraq showed, the ability to actually create a nuclear mushroom cloud is at best weakly linked to the amount of noise "the West" makes about a nation's possible nuclear ambitions.
yes. easier said than done. but that being said... try telling it to Japan...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 16:39:00
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 2, 2006, at 12:14:42
> My opinion - you *are* missing something.
good :-)
> In general I think the goal is to stop anyone who doesn't already have atomic weapons from getting them.
oh. then why was the us so very keen to have nuclear power / weapons on nz soil? because... the us thought they would be able to tell us where to point them, that is why. i'm sorry but that really is the most significant factor that led to our losing our free trade agreement with the us (which is a blessing in disguise IMO) and being classified 'neutral' rather than 'friendly' military wise (again, another blessing IMO). to me... that shows me... that the us isn't against other countries having nuclear power / weapons. the us is against other countries controlling their own nuclear power / weapons. IMO the us is scared that another country will decide to bomb them (how much money has been poured into the 'starwars' project?). well... i'm sure the us will feel better knowing more alies than foes have nuclear weapons but i assure you that countries who are not on friendly terms with the us don't like the us having nukes anymore than the us likes the idea of iran having nukes. or russia. etc etc.
> But in this particular case, the new Pres of Iran has sworn to obliterate Israel, is teaching in the schools that the holocaust never happened, etc
oh. sorry - but how is this any of america's business?
> It's a bit more urgent to stop countries that have sworn to blow up other ones, don't you think?
no. i think the world should disarm. period. when the us and the uk etc have nukes some other countries feel scared and think the only thing stopping the us / uk deciding to nuke them will be... if they have nukes too. world disarmament. period. that means everyone. and if the us really wants to be a world leader then IMO it should lead by example. the present hypocracy... doesn't do a lot for 'popular opinion' of the us... or of the us government...
> There are multiple grades of uranium. Iran wants what is called "weapons grade" - which *can* be refined into nuclear weapons. Other grades will produce power just as well, but they don't want them.
why not? cleaner power? more power? i'm thinking we are probably only getting a fraction of the story here... i wonder if you can get iranian papers in translation... i might have a bit of a look online...
> ethanol sounds expensive to me...
my concern here is that i read somewhere that around 5 or maybe more of the major us businesses in the top 10 rely on oil for their success. what that means... well i'm sure they don't want to change the status quo too much. ethanol sounds like an expensive 'solution' to me. get the economy dependent on that the way it was dependent on fossil fuels... good way to preserve the status quo of the top businesses. sounds like bush is thinking money needs to be poured into developing some high tech industry. those companies can rely on that instead of oil... yeah it is a change but i think the change is going to be ultra slow because of the business interest.
anybody hear of peanut oil? did you know you can run a diesel / peanut oil hybrid car... mostly peanut oil. at around 14c (nz) per litre. used oil too. can cook food with it first then strain it or something. could you get peanut plantations going in the us? dunno.
> When the iron curtain fell and the eastern bloc countries got their freedom one of their biggest problems was pollution. A large (very large) part of the aid given by the US was for the specific purpose of cleaning that up.
so shift the burden on another segment of the world... never mind that you are looking at poor eastern countries compared with the very wealthy us of a. never mind that a lot of that pollution was a result of war (was the us giving a hand in creating that by any chance?). the us is the highest producer of waste and environmental pollution. it doesn't suffer from the majority of the effects - people in third world countries do as the seas rise etc etc. i know the us does do some things to help... but IMO it is a mere token gesture when you consider the amount of pollution it creates. more should be done. a hell of a lot more. signing the Kyoto (i think that is what it is called) protocol or treaty or whatever would be a good start...
> I go back there now and see cleaned buildings, white snow and blue skies. US money at work.
and the bombed buildings and pollution in iraq? us money at work again? and the clean up... more us money at work helping the rich get richer (the big companies) and the poor get poorer (the iraq economy being made dependent on the us)?
> But I guess that kind of stuff doesn't make the news, does it.
makes the american news persistently. our news tends to focus on the things that the us could be doing but isn't. but then our news tends to focus on things nz could be doing but isn't too (like the wind power) etc. i think that is good. it helps us not feel complacent.
> The lights in my office go out automatically at about 6:30PM. If I'm working late I have to get up and turn them back on. About an hour later they turn themselves off again.
that is good :-)
we don't have that. but that is what we need. timers. i was chatting to a guy from germany the other day. he was telling us about their recycling system. that is good too :-)
but i'm sure you can think of some things that could be done to reduce energy consumption?
some things that are practical.> But NZ isn't near as populated.
sorry - i wasn't trying to advocate that for the us. i wasn't trying to say you could power NYC on wind. i just meant that it was an impressive solution to a problem that we have over here in NZ. i think there are natural solutions. it would be nice to see some money being poured into renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly energy alternatives.
> Don't the sheep outnumber the people?
i think so. but there are more sheep per person over in australia, so there :-P
> Solar and wind aren't practical over here - at least until the cost of fossil fuels gets higher.
ah yes. best not forget the mighty dollar... does the us govt. subsidise fuel by any chance? does it subsidise environmentally friendly alternatives? the guy from germany was saying that they have an emissions tax on their motor vehicles when they get a warrent of fitness. they test the emissions and charge more for higher polluting cars. he said we have cars on our roads that would not pass the emissions test in germany. so an emissions tax is one alternative. another is... fuel tax. apparantly you have that in germany. we have it here too. fuel is polluting so the govt taxes it and the tax money goes on researching non polluting alternatives.
> Experiments with burning garbage - an infinitely renuable source - were promising. I have no idea where that stands now, though.
interesting. i think if you have a very high heat sourse then there aren't many harmful emissions.
> Now - about sources. I'd be happy as a clam if we would tell the rest of the world to keep your oil thank you very much. It would sure help my bottom line.
i don't think the us would be happy if we told you guys where to stick your oil. i think that is why alternatives aren't taking off. the more the govt. taxes oil the more unhappy nz-us relations become... it is a bit tricky... we actually need the us to be happy with our not wanting to import as much of it (need it for airplanes currently i think)
> Let the bottom fall out of the price of oil and there won't be a nickle of help to oil workers.
> Fine, if that's the way people want it.and there isn't anything the govt can do regarding alternative jobs. i think that is an excuse to preserve the status quo. like saying 'free the slaves and they will starve to death'. i don't think that is acceptable.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 17:26:13
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 16:39:00
Posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 17:47:02
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » alexandra_k, posted by James K on February 2, 2006, at 12:22:42
> ---I want to expand a little bit about what I meant about the solution being about money...
okay
> First off, many people who have much are not going to change what seems to be working just out of the goodness of their heart, or because it is right. That isn't just cynical on my part, I believe it's been proven time and time again.
yes. because... there is no accountability. i think i understand the rationale around the kinds of arguments you are thinking of. if we want people to work on not f*cking up the environment then we need to show them how it is in their own (fairly immediate) best interests. because otherwise... they simply won't do it.
i do have some degree of sympathy for this approach.
but i guess i also take something of a fairly hard line. IMO it is 'working around' a ego-centric world view. where it is considered perfectly acceptable to put oneself ahead of other people around the globe. where it is considered perfectly acceptable to put oneself ahead of future generations (including ones own decendents). if you really unpack the latter view... we are talking about how our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren and our great great grandchildren will be placed in the world. i personally think that if we can work towards expanding peoples minds and circle of care so that people appreciate that they are merely one person amongst millions and billions and trillions of others then this would have significant consequences for current business and also for the way in which we view ourselves as being related to the earth.
i think we need to change from an ego-centric world view to an eco-centric world view. human beings have a symbiotic relationship with plants (for example) and we need to maintain a healthy balance of that ultimately for ourselves, yes. because we have a symbiotic relationship with out environment. and our future generations will too. and to exploit the world. to bomb the world. to hunt species into extinction. to cut down the rainforests. to pollute the waters. we don't own the world. IMO we have a duty of care to it. we are best to think of it that way for the long term healthy survival of our species.
but really, who cares about any of that when it comes to my personal wealth and assets. people think that passing on money to future generations is the best thing you can do. but money... doesn't buy you happiness. you can have all the money in the world but be really rather unhappy being part of the rat race (i can be in that top 10% if only i work hard enough!) and the 'conspicuous consumption' that has so much waste associated with it and the money that buys you what? none of that matters when you have cancer because of the pollution. when you live in a city filled with smog.
how much money goes to the starwars project?
more than enough to provide a decent severance pay to each oil worker?
priorities...
> Pollution from farms and pigs and lawns runs into the river into the gulf creating economic problems for fishers and raising cost and safety of fish.
we have a similar issue with dairy farming. nitrogen fertaliser helps the grass grow. but the cow crap is full of nitrogen and that gets into the waterways and leads to 'dead' rivers and lakes. currently... they are going to tax the fertaliser. farmers pay more for it. they can get a cash back on the tax if they have some verification of fencing... 10 meters from waterways i do believe. but... that is a lot of land. and moving fences (and losing grazing land) is expensive.
> policies of impovrishment instead of legitimate economic incentive haven't worked well.
yes. because there is no accountability.
IMO... the UN needs control of troops so they can enforce UN policies. If the US really wanted to help... They should turn the troops over to the control of the UN when the troops are fighting on foreign soil. Ditto for allies. That way... It is about the UN stepping in and helping. That way... US economic takeover won't be seen as teh main motivation behind their involvement...
> We'll never eliminate hate or greed.there need to be consequences. maybe you can't eliminate it... but if there are consequences we can prevent the repetition of hateful and greedy acts from people in power. but there need to be consequences and accountability yes.
> I don't believe capitalism is the answer to everything, but selective thought out capitalism can help with the greed part of the equation.
by giving the message that greed is perfectly acceptable?
i think i hear what you are saying. my ideas are too radical... i just don't want to condone greed :-(
Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:52:54
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 2, 2006, at 9:32:43
> "... but why can't iran have nuclear weapons?"
>
> My opinion - you *are* missing something.
>
> In general I think the goal is to stop anyone who doesn't already have atomic weapons from getting them.
>Except Israel which isnt even a signatory of the NNPT, not has it ever allowed IAEA inspectors into its country or has even admitted having nuclear arms.
> But in this particular case, the new Pres of Iran has sworn to obliterate Israel, is teaching in the schools that the holocaust never happened, etc,
>No he hasnt, he said Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, not that he'd do it, in fact when questioned on the issue he said he had no plans to attack Israel. Its an ideological standpoint, not a real one....a subtle but VERY important difference.
> It's a bit more urgent to stop countries that have sworn to blow up other ones, don't you think?
>Countries do that allthe time.....have you noticed how nicely pakistan and India "play" since they both became nuclear capable? If MAD (mutually assured destruction) is good enough for the USA and the USSR and now India and Pakistan, then why is it not good enough for "an arab nation" and Israel?
> There are multiple grades of uranium. Iran wants what is called "weapons grade" - which *can* be refined into nuclear weapons. Other grades will produce power just as well, but they don't want them.
>No Iran has not said that at all (I'd like you to show us the evidence that they have if you believe this to be the case).......there are many grades of enrichment, but low grade enrichment is good for nuclear poser generation. The crus of the argument is that the west believes they intend to enrich their uranium much further.
> If they only wanted power grade uranium nobody would be saying anything.
>Thats it was they keep saying, but the USA claims they are lying........as it stands, Iran has broken *NO* international laws and its only "crime" is that the US does not believe them.
> -----------
>
> "ps. it isn't 'our' environment it is 'the' environment. not just for us but for our future generations too. and for years now... the us has been f*cking it up for the other present citizens of the world too... still. it would be good to see a shift away from dinosaur fuels. but... ethanol sounds expensive to me..."
>
> Granted the environment isn't the highest priority for the current administration, but I wouldn't go quite that far.
>
> When the iron curtain fell and the eastern bloc countries got their freedom one of their biggest problems was pollution. A large (very large) part of the aid given by the US was for the specific purpose of cleaning that up.
>
> On my first trip to Poland, in 1993, the soot in the air was amazing. The snow was black, everything needed dusting twice a day, the buildings were covered with layers of it, the sky was brown.
>
> I go back there now and see cleaned buildings, white snow and blue skies. US money at work.
>
> But I guess that kind of stuff doesn't make the news, does it.
Posted by zeugma on February 4, 2006, at 6:08:39
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:52:54
This poem was written immediately after the USSR commenced work on the development of WMD's, which would take away the U.S.' brief monopoly on the A--bomb:
U.S. 1946 KING'S X
Having invented a new Holocaust,
And been the first with it to win a war,
How they make haste to cry with fingers crossed,
King's X- no fairs to use it anymore!-z
Posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 13:46:41
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:52:54
> > But in this particular case, the new Pres of Iran has sworn to obliterate Israel, is teaching in the schools that the holocaust never happened, etc,
> >
>
> No he hasnt, he said Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, not that he'd do it, in fact when questioned on the issue he said he had no plans to attack Israel. Its an ideological standpoint, not a real one....a subtle but VERY important difference.
>From Arab News:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=77280&d=4&m=2&y=2006
"The second specific threat made by Tehran was the launching of a new “expanded intifada” led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad against Israel. But with Hamas now trying to form the Palestinian government it is unlikely that it would wish to become involved in an Iranian strategy. As for Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian group closest to Tehran, it is not strong enough to take both Israel and Hamas, simply to please the Iranians."
>>
> > There are multiple grades of uranium. Iran wants what is called "weapons grade" - which *can* be refined into nuclear weapons. Other grades will produce power just as well, but they don't want them.
> >
>
> No Iran has not said that at all (I'd like you to show us the evidence that they have if you believe this to be the case).......there are many grades of enrichment, but low grade enrichment is good for nuclear poser generation. The crus of the argument is that the west believes they intend to enrich their uranium much further.
>I'll look for it. I do remember seeing it though.
Either way - they are enriching uranium, which is only useful for weapons.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 14:02:38
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 16:39:00
> > My opinion - you *are* missing something.
>
> good :-)
>
> > In general I think the goal is to stop anyone who doesn't already have atomic weapons from getting them.
>
> oh. then why was the us so very keen to have nuclear power / weapons on nz soil?I have no idea there... but that wasn't the original topic - Iran was.
>i assure you that countries who are not on friendly terms with the us don't like the us having nukes anymore than the us likes the idea of iran having nukes. or russia. etc etc.
>I don't disagree. And I would be happy if there were no nukes anywhere. But it's hard to figure out how to put the cat back in the bag.
> > But in this particular case, the new Pres of Iran has sworn to obliterate Israel, is teaching in the schools that the holocaust never happened, etc
>
> oh. sorry - but how is this any of america's business?
>Actually, It's the United Nation's business. The US isn't the only country worried about this.
> > It's a bit more urgent to stop countries that have sworn to blow up other ones, don't you think?
>
> no. i think the world should disarm. period. when the us and the uk etc have nukes some other countries feel scared and think the only thing stopping the us / uk deciding to nuke them will be... if they have nukes too. world disarmament. period. that means everyone. and if the us really wants to be a world leader then IMO it should lead by example. the present hypocracy... doesn't do a lot for 'popular opinion' of the us... or of the us government...
>I think the world should disarm, too. But no one will ever go first. So we need to think or another way.
In the meanwhile it does no one any good to have other countries join the group, does it?
Can we stop them all? Not alone. It's a world issue.
> > There are multiple grades of uranium. Iran wants what is called "weapons grade" - which *can* be refined into nuclear weapons. Other grades will produce power just as well, but they don't want them.
>
> why not? cleaner power? more power? i'm thinking we are probably only getting a fraction of the story here... i wonder if you can get iranian papers in translation... i might have a bit of a look online...
>Start here. Remember that the only reason for uranium enrichment is weapons:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5629
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20060204&hn=29404
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/04/content_4135719.htmand about the new president:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5621
> > ethanol sounds expensive to me...
>
> my concern here is that i read somewhere that around 5 or maybe more of the major us businesses in the top 10 rely on oil for their success. what that means... well i'm sure they don't want to change the status quo too much.I would like to see that. I find it hard to believe.
ethanol sounds like an expensive 'solution' to me. get the economy dependent on that the way it was dependent on fossil fuels... good way to preserve the status quo of the top businesses. sounds like bush is thinking money needs to be poured into developing some high tech industry. those companies can rely on that instead of oil... yeah it is a change but i think the change is going to be ultra slow because of the business interest.
>Most busines benefits from cheap oil - something the US population thinks of as a birthright.
> anybody hear of peanut oil? did you know you can run a diesel / peanut oil hybrid car... mostly peanut oil. at around 14c (nz) per litre. used oil too. can cook food with it first then strain it or something. could you get peanut plantations going in the us? dunno.
>Who needs plantations? We've got several places (things start small) using recycled restaraunt oil to make diesel. It doesn't require a hybrid car, either. Any diesel car can use it.
> > When the iron curtain fell and the eastern bloc countries got their freedom one of their biggest problems was pollution. A large (very large) part of the aid given by the US was for the specific purpose of cleaning that up.
>
> so shift the burden on another segment of the world... never mind that you are looking at poor eastern countries compared with the very wealthy us of a. never mind that a lot of that pollution was a result of war (was the us giving a hand in creating that by any chance?).How so? The pollution was created by cheaply made communist era steel mills factories.
the us is the highest producer of waste and environmental pollution. it doesn't suffer from the majority of the effects - people in third world countries do as the seas rise etc etc. i know the us does do some things to help... but IMO it is a mere token gesture when you consider the amount of pollution it creates. more should be done. a hell of a lot more. signing the Kyoto (i think that is what it is called) protocol or treaty or whatever would be a good start...
>I think we should sign Kyoto, too, but it doesn't do anything about the pollution from rising populous countries. You should see the air in China. It's very visible.
> > I go back there now and see cleaned buildings, white snow and blue skies. US money at work.
>
> and the bombed buildings and pollution in iraq? us money at work again? and the clean up... more us money at work helping the rich get richer (the big companies) and the poor get poorer (the iraq economy being made dependent on the us)?
>Got anything to back that up?
> > But I guess that kind of stuff doesn't make the news, does it.
>
> makes the american news persistently. our news tends to focus on the things that the us could be doing but isn't. but then our news tends to focus on things nz could be doing but isn't too (like the wind power) etc. i think that is good. it helps us not feel complacent.
>Actually it didn't make the US news either. If I hadn't been there I wouldn't have known about it. We're not too good at promoting ourselves...
> we don't have that. but that is what we need. timers. i was chatting to a guy from germany the other day. he was telling us about their recycling system. that is good too :-)
> but i'm sure you can think of some things that could be done to reduce energy consumption?
> some things that are practical.
>We do recycling where I live, too. With curbside pickup so it doesn't take much effort at all.
> ah yes. best not forget the mighty dollar... does the us govt. subsidise fuel by any chance?No it doesn't. And when the price goes up the govt. starts talking about "extra" taxes for the oil companies. Even though right now what sounds like obscene profits are smaller rates of return (on investment) than most companies - Proctor & Gamble, Microsort, .....
>does it subsidise environmentally friendly alternatives?There are usually tax credits of some sort for those who use alternatives. They come and go, depending on the mood at the time.
>the guy from germany was saying that they have an emissions tax on their motor vehicles when they get a warrent of fitness. they test the emissions and charge more for higher polluting cars.Where I live we have annual inspections that include emissions tests - for gasoline users, anyway.
No higher taxes if they don't pass. They just aren't allowed on the road.
>>he said we have cars on our roads that would not pass the emissions test in germany. so an emissions tax is one alternative. another is... fuel tax. apparantly you have that in germany. we have it here too. fuel is polluting so the govt taxes it and the tax money goes on researching non polluting alternatives.
We have fuel taxes, just not as high.
>
> > Experiments with burning garbage - an infinitely renuable source - were promising. I have no idea where that stands now, though.
>
> interesting. i think if you have a very high heat sourse then there aren't many harmful emissions.
>
> > Now - about sources. I'd be happy as a clam if we would tell the rest of the world to keep your oil thank you very much. It would sure help my bottom line.
>
> i don't think the us would be happy if we told you guys where to stick your oil. i think that is why alternatives aren't taking off. the more the govt. taxes oil the more unhappy nz-us relations become... it is a bit tricky... we actually need the us to be happy with our not wanting to import as much of it (need it for airplanes currently i think)
>
> > Let the bottom fall out of the price of oil and there won't be a nickle of help to oil workers.
>
> > Fine, if that's the way people want it.
>
> and there isn't anything the govt can do regarding alternative jobs. i think that is an excuse to preserve the status quo. like saying 'free the slaves and they will starve to death'. i don't think that is acceptable.
>Well, actually most of us in the oil biz would be thrilled with *stable* prices more than high prices.
It's difficult to do the economics of drilling (the investment for just one well is huge) when you have no clue what it will sell for.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 15:10:07
In reply to okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2006, at 16:48:14
> the us has been f*cking it up for the other present citizens of the world too...
Keeping in mind that the idea here is to be sensitive to the feelings of others, could you please rephrase that?
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 4, 2006, at 17:20:20
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 15:10:07
yep. sorry about that...
er...
the us has been a major contributor to pollution / global warming etc. the effects of that are not limited to the present (and future) citizens of the us either; they are felt worse on other points on the globe:
the us is a major contributer (see for eg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutionand on the global nature of the effects:
Sinking islands and deltas
A 1-metre rise in sea level could make 200 million people homeless.
At particular risk are islands. Many of the people of Polynesia face a real threat of rising oceans because they are island nations with many low-lying coasts already ravaged by tropical cyclones. Global warming is likely to both raise the oceans and increase the severity of storms. "Almost all the 1,196 islands of the Maldives are less than 3 meters high, and most people there live less than 2 meters above the waves. Six other coral atoll countries - the Cocos Islands, Tuvalu, Tokelau, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands and the Line Islands - face a similar crisis. In all, 300 Pacific atolls are expected to disappear, but will become uninhabitable long before as storms wash over them more frequently and freshwater supplies become salt: (Lean 93).
[and these islands are in the southern hemisphere]
Many more people are at risk from the flooding of deltas and other low-lying coastal areas. Some areas are already subsiding, making them doubly vulnerable to the rising sea. "Four fifths of Bangladesh is made up of the delta of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers: half is less than 4.5 meters above sea level. The land is already sinking, partly because some 120,000 wells have been drilled to extract drinking water. Studies suggest that up to 18 per cent of Bangladesh could be under water by the year 2050: by 2100 this could rise to 34 per cent and affect 35 per cent of the population.
more people outside the us suffer...
Posted by teejay on February 4, 2006, at 17:38:29
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » teejay, posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 13:46:41
> >"The second specific threat made by Tehran was the launching of a new “expanded intifada” led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad against Israel. But with Hamas now trying to form the Palestinian government it is unlikely that it would wish to become involved in an Iranian strategy. As for Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian group closest to Tehran, it is not strong enough to take both Israel and Hamas, simply to please the Iranians."This is nothing new. The intifada deals with the armed resistence to Israeli occupation and isnt a threat to wipe anyone off the map. I can see why the Bush administration would wish to try and twist it to mean something else as Tehran has always been the US administrations "bogeyman", but I think its only fair to deal with facts rather than political propoganda.
> I'll look for it. I do remember seeing it though.
> Either way - they are enriching uranium, which is only useful for weapons.More government propoganda I'm afraid. Uranium is a better fuel when enriched. To make fuel its enriched a bit, and for weapons its enriched further.
Just out of interest, and in the interests of clarity, Iran has broken NO international laws and is fully entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful means under the terms of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. It had seals placed on its activities as a gesture of good faith not because it had to, and when the west continued to press for complete scrapping of its nuclear programs it turned around and removed the seals as it saw no progress being mde with the seals left in tact.
Just for further reference.......the US thinks that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program (which Iran denys), but its happy to support Israel even though ISrael has its own covert nuclear weapons programme and has an estimated 400 nuclear weapons (even though its never admitted to having any). Its also NOT a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and has NEVER allowed the IAEA into its country to check its nuclear plants.
TJ
Posted by alexandra_k on February 4, 2006, at 17:40:56
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 14:02:38
> I have no idea there... but that wasn't the original topic - Iran was.
yes. but you said that the us didn't want anybody to have them who didn't have them presently - and i gave that as a counter-example to show that the us isn't opposed to (some) other countries having nuclear weapons. in fact... nz was faced with trade sanctions precisely because we refused to have nuclear power / weapons on our territory.
> And I would be happy if there were no nukes anywhere. But it's hard to figure out how to put the cat back in the bag.well... first the us needs to worry about itself and get rid of theirs. and the same goes for the uk etc. get rid of them. and there it is.
> > oh. sorry - but how is this any of america's business?
> Actually, It's the United Nation's business. The US isn't the only country worried about this.
okay. i just thought things might be leading up to the us going in to 'help' like what happened with iraq...
> I think the world should disarm, too. But no one will ever go first.
accountability. i really do despair for humanity sometimes. i really really do.
> So we need to think or another way.
:-( i think people shouldn't be allowed to have them. period. they should be destroyed. i really don't understand the world sometimes.
> In the meanwhile it does no one any good to have other countries join the group, does it?
depends who's 'side' you are on. nukes. if a country has nukes then that is seen as a sign of power / authority. thats why the arms race etc. like the race to beat the jonses and have the biggest suv or whatever. i think the people with nukes are being hypocritical in saying another country can't have them. i think they should destroy their own and then people might start taking what they have to say a little more seriously...
> Start here. Remember that the only reason for uranium enrichment is weapons:
hmm...
>http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5629
> http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20060204&hn=29404
> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/04/content_4135719.htmokay. i will have a look... i am concerned about who is sponsoring these papers... i am concerned about why their should be an english speaking newspaper over there (kind of like how the iraq newssource was controlled by... was it fox?). i would think the news the people would be reading wouldn't be in english...
but i shall have a look...
> and about the new president:
>http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5621he got voted in democratically eh?
i do worry about democracy sometimes.
lets say (solely for arguments sake) that the majority want to annihilate another nation or whatever. who is to say that the masses know what is best... sigh. but then i worry about that (to a slightly lesser extent admittedly) regarding us, canadian, australian, british, kiwi etc elections too...
> > my concern here is that i read somewhere that around 5 or maybe more of the major us businesses in the top 10 rely on oil for their success. what that means... well i'm sure they don't want to change the status quo too much.
> I would like to see that. I find it hard to believe.i'll find the link. no problem.. i've posted it before.
> Who needs plantations? We've got several places (things start small) using recycled restaraunt oil to make diesel. It doesn't require a hybrid car, either. Any diesel car can use it.woo hoo. :-) is it cheaper than diesel?
> How so? The pollution was created by cheaply made communist era steel mills factories.
okay - that specific instance.
> I think we should sign Kyoto, too, but it doesn't do anything about the pollution from rising populous countries.
because they haven't signed?
currently the suprising exceptions are australia and the us.> Got anything to back that up?
(sorry - lost that bit...)
> We do recycling where I live, too. With curbside pickup so it doesn't take much effort at all.
yep. in germany they have curbside pickup (i think it is curbside) of: paper, plastic (a couple different grades), green glass, brown glass, white glass. each is a different thing and gets recycled with its own type. we have paper and a bin for plastic / glass. i think maybe the quality of the recycled product isn't as high for mixing the different glasses... but could be wrong... i might check actually...
> It's difficult to do the economics of drilling (the investment for just one well is huge) when you have no clue what it will sell for.
money...
er... what about the environment again?sigh.
Posted by teejay on February 4, 2006, at 17:44:12
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 14:02:38
Auntiemel, obviously putting the genie back in t the bottle is what we'd all like, but unfortunately that can't happen.
Do you think MAD (mutually assured destruction) prevented the US and USSR from going to war? If yes, then why would an arab nation in the middle east not be a sensible counter balance to the Israeli weapons?
Before you say its different, let me point you to the example of India and PAkistan who spent all their time war mongering until they both became nuclear capable, and now all of a sudden they seem to be able to play cricket together ;-)
Its not an ideal solution but I think Clinton has a point when he says that kind of power actually has a calming effect.
TJ
Posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2006, at 2:00:25
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 4, 2006, at 17:40:56
((((auntiemel))))
i've missed babbling with you.
just wanted to say that.we disagree a lot...
but you do help me question some of my sillier assumptions. and really... i don't know very much about politics at all... so i thank you for that :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2006, at 22:11:35
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 4, 2006, at 17:40:56
> i think the people with nukes are being hypocritical in saying another country can't have them.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by teejay on February 5, 2006, at 22:22:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2006, at 22:11:35
> > i think the people with nukes are being hypocritical in saying another country can't have them.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
Oh come on Dr Bob, that's a perfectly reasonable stance to take and it wasn't uncivil to anybody (unless you class a whole coutry as "somebody").The US knows full well that Israel has nukes (in fact it probably supplied them the technology to produce them) and acknowledges that Israel won't allow inspectors into its country to monitor its nuclear activities either, yet expects other countries in the region to play by a completely different set of rules. Whichever way you try to dress it up, thats hypocritical and alexandra shouldnt really be punished IMO for stating fact.
I can't see how you can possibly attain a productive politics forum if you continue to censor it in such a strict way.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 6, 2006, at 8:08:31
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2006, at 22:11:35
Really? Didn't the "I think" part of that statement make it about her and not everyone else?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.