Jump to content

Cacti

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cacti

  1. 3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    What I still don’t get is why we haven’t turned to Central America for the cheap shit... We could turn to them now, and reduce our dependence on China. But we don’t. All it takes is some bribes to the right people, and we get it done.

    Agree 100%. It would be a win for us and for our neighbors to the South. And a minor defeat for China.

    Now, which of our elected officials can be bribed to make this happen?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

    Being a Native American is a hook on another level.

    So you’re saying that my granddaughter would stand a good chance of getting into U.T. if she legally changed her name to Fatima Gomez Thunderhawk?

  3. 30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Has Ukraine always been a shitshow?

    I’ll defer to other, better informed posters to answer this question, but if corruption or incompetence doesn’t cripple Ukraine; or if civil war doesn’t tear them apart; then it appears that in the longer term, demographics will be their downfall.  

    Quote

    (Ukarine) has more citizens over 65 years of age than working-age people between 20 and 65.

    NM. I see @956 Worldwide replied.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 8 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

    But what the German government DOES see...is that whether a Russian attack comes or not, the state of Ukraine OUTSIDE of the breakaways is primed to descend into civil war with one another. In fact, its foundation is shaking right now without so much as a shot being fired and I would put this likelihood at a probability, not just a possibility

    You—and other posters—paint a dire picture concerning the future of Ukraine, even if Russia doesn’t invade. This article supports the pessimism.

    Ukraine is the hollow man of Europe

    Quote

    Ukraine is disappearing, for two reasons. It has one of the world's lowest birth rates at just 1.23 children per female, and one of the world's highest rates of out-migration. No other country has willed itself out of existence so decisively.

    Ukraine in a few decades won't be a sovereign nation, let alone a democracy; it will be a geriatric ward supported by a dwindling flow of remittances.

     

  5. 2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I know it's mostly been a Trumpian thing of late, but those bastards have been freeloading on us for security for far too long.  

    ... I'm kind of thinking that NATO needs a re-think, big time bro.

    Trump’s efforts in trying to prod NATO members to spend more money gained attention mainly because of his typical and undiplomatic heavy-handed approach. The reality is that most administrations and many influential political leaders from both parties have, over the years, sought to persuade our allies to contribute more to their own defense—with little success.

    This unequal sharing was even recognized by Eisenhower in the 1950’s:

    Quote

    The broader problem for the Eisenhower administration, however, remained: how could Washington induce its NATO partners to accept a much larger share of the collective security burden, thus reducing the enormous costs being borne by the Americans?

    The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 only exacerbated the unequal burden sharing. As the threat from Russia subsided, NATO members were able to cut defense spending; grow social programs; and make other domestic investments—and let us assume yet more of the burden.

    Yeah, NATO needs a big re-think.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  6. The Biden administration is considering sending as many as 5,000 U.S. troops to Eastern Europe, a U.S. official confirmed to NPR

    Quote

    The New York Times, which first reported the news of planned troop movements, said senior Pentagon officials laid out a number of options for President Biden on Saturday.

    Among them, sending 1,000 to 5,000 troops to Eastern European countries and the Baltics, "with the potential to increase that number tenfold if things deteriorate," according to the Times.

    Are we to care more about the threat to Europe than do the Europeans? The U.S. ought to consider telling them to take the lead by sending their own troops to East Europe and quit depending on 'daddy' to take the initiative. 

    Macron is always ranting about the need for Europeans to be quasi-independent of the U.S.; now is a perfect time for him to turn words into action and send French troops to, you know, show the Russians that Europe won't put up with their nonsense. Of course, France is not going to confront Russia over Ukraine, and neither should we.

    • Like 1
  7. Germany Helped Prep Russia for War, U.S. Sources Say

    Quote

    “Everyone was looking for a way to cooperate with the Russian military and rushed to find ways to do it, including us,” said Hill. “Whatever we do now, we have to be mindful that the Russians have been preparing for something else.”

    The title is clickbait but the gist of the article is that we and our European allies have not only ignored/underestimated Russia’s military modernization, but perhaps facilitated it.  

  8. On 1/13/2022 at 12:04 PM, gmr548 said:


    She’s a bad politician. 

    She’s good enough of a politician to be elected twice by her Massachusetts constituents. It’s just that her ultra-progressive message doesn’t sell nationwide.

    • Like 1
  9. 36 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    But Evelyn N. Farkas, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia in the Obama administration, when Russia invaded Crimea, recalled a debate at the time about how tough the United States could be with Russia without provoking further action. Eight years later, she noted that Mr. Putin is still threatening the country’s sovereignty.

    In an interview, she said that this time around, “I think the gloves should come off.”

    Ms. Farkas also recently authored: The US Must Prepare for War Against Russia Over Ukraine

  10. I’m interested in Shady Ray's and 956 Worldwide's reaction to this article: What does the Russian ultimatum to the West mean?

    Quote

     

    On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry unveiled two draft texts — a “Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” and an “Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]”….

    After the publication of the draft treaty, the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against NATO targets (similar to those that Israel inflicted on Iran), was confirmed by former Deputy Minister of Defense Andrei Kartapolov (Duma Defense Committee): “Our partners must understand that the longer they drag out the examination of our proposals and the adoption of real measures to create these guarantees, the greater the likelihood that they will suffer a pre-emptive strike.”

     

     

  11. 6 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

    The French and Germans and Italians etc. would support military involvement against Russia in response to any aggression towards EXISTING NATO members in two seconds flat.

    You are in a better position than I am to judge whether or not the referenced countries would defend a NATO ally, but a 2020 Pew poll suggests otherwise.

    Quote

    ...there is widespread reluctance to fulfill the collective defense commitment outlined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty. When asked if their country should defend a fellow NATO ally against a potential attack from Russia, a median of 50% across 16 NATO member states say their country should not defend an ally, compared with 38% who say their country should defend an ally against a Russian attack.

     

  12. 54 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    It is amazing that Europe remains weak in relation to this country. Germany, France, and Poland alone should easily outclass Russia on a conventional battlefield and Europe should be the neighborhood bully pushing Russia around. Europe is weak because it chooses to be.

    A united Europe—or even a semi-united Europe—could indeed bully Russia. But that’s like saying that UT would be an annual football powerhouse if only they could build a consensus among the majority of Texas high school talent to play for the Horns.

    The latter is more likely to happen than the former.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  13. 1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

    But his legacy is being a visible Republican face, who stood by while they trashed democracy in America.

    Again, I question the fairness of judging Dole on one criteria (voting for Trump), when his accomplishments while in office more than offset that, imo.

    He, along with Moynihan, led the effort to save Social Security from collapsing. Due to their efforts, laws were passes, S.S. was reformed and is solvent for years to come. I don’t think the importance of shoring up a pillar of our society can be overstated.

    He was also instrumental in revamping the food stamp program. Along with McGovern, he helped shape legislation which resulted in additional millions of people being eligible for assistance.

    And he was a key figure in getting the Americans with Disabilities act passed.

    Fortunately, most people will choose to remember Dole for the good he accomplished, not for his Trump vote.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 16 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

    He was the only modern GOP presidential nominee/former president who was not a Never Trumper

    On 12/5/2021 at 2:45 PM, Bama Chick said:

    Eh. He admitted he voted for Trump twice and called himself a Trumper in July of this year.

    For those few who are willing to dismiss or minimize positive, lifelong accomplishments of a man because of occasional bad or perceived bad judgments, I’d ask you to reconsider.

    Voting for Trump—by itself—should not be the reason used to diminish Dole’s legacy as a respected lawmaker. If one is going to use a single criteria (a flaw, or perceived flaw) for judging, and consequently minimizing the overall accomplishments of a man, then it’s only logical to critique other men in other professions by the same standard.

    For example, are we to minimize the profound scientific contributions of Darwin and Einstein because of bad/flawed/erroneous personal judgements? After all, the former was a sexist while the latter was a racist.

    Isn't that enough to trivialize their contributions with an ‘eh’?

     

  15. 1 hour ago, bolverk said:

    Do you not think having Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and us in a trade pact would've been a great start and also would've gone a long way in eventually getting our European partners, along with India, to divert trade from China?

    We fucked ourselves in trashing that trade pact, and I don't know how you go about rebuilding it after losing our credibility. We can't be seen as a good faith negotiator when one of our two parties is seen by the rest of the world as being so unsupportive of our allies as evidenced by continued support for MAGA, which is essentially a nationalistic and isolationist movement.

    Sure, it would have been a great start but it doesn’t follow that our European partners could be convinced to join us. Unfortunately they don’t view China as either an imminent economic or military threat.

    As you pointed out, Trump was viewed as untrustworthy by the Europeans—and with good reason. But it doesn’t appear that Biden has done much to reestablish that trust (if there was any to begin with).  In fact, several of our NATO allies complained about the lack of communication from the administration concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Australian/American/British submarine deal has set back relations with the EU.  

    So, no, the Europeans didn’t trust Trump, but they don’t trust Biden, either. But that’s o.k., our European allies are also untrustworthy.

  16. 5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Well he did try to actually do some stuff.  Dumb stuff....Trade war with China using tariffs.....

    To say that China is engaging in unfair trade practices is an understatement, and is mostly recognized by both parties. However, it seems that neither party has a solution, nor do our allies. Whatever the solution is, it’s clear that we can’t bully China, at least not by ourselves.

    And it’s equally clear Trump’s bull-in-the-china-shop approach (pun intended) has done more harm to our economy than to the economy of our adversary. But if Trump’s China tariffs were a fiasco, then the fiasco continues under Biden. And that’s because he has—for all practical purposes—left Trump’s tariffs in place.

    It’s fair to criticize Trump for his actions; it’s also fair to criticize Biden for his inactions.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 2
  17. 9 hours ago, Captainant said:

    The increased emphasis on renewals will only exacerbate this problem, since only certain areas are capable of renewable energy generation. And those areas aren't usually close to population centers, so it's going to be even more power flowing over longer distances

    Quote

    Converting the domestic electric grid to run primarily on renewables will require mind-boggling amounts of new transmission capacity to be built. In 2012, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated that if the U.S. were to attempt to derive 90 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, it would have to roughly double its high-voltage transmission capacity…Put another way, to convert the electric grid to renewables would require adding enough high-voltage transmission to circle the Earth about 10 times.

    Link

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. 8 hours ago, synoptic said:

    Is nuclear over/outdated, or will it play a substantial role in the energy transition? 

    Quote

    China’s planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35. The effort could cost as much as $440 billion; as early as the middle of this decade, the country will surpass the US as the world’s largest generator of nuclear power…

    It would be the kind of wholesale energy transformation that Western democracies — with budget constraints, political will and public opinion to consider — can only dream of…

    China keeps the exact costs a state secret, but analysts including BloombergNEF and the World Nuclear Association estimate China can build plants for about $2,500 to $3,000 per kilowatt, about one-third of the cost of recent projects in the US and France.

    It’s evidently going to play a substantial role in the energy transition in China—us, not so much.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  19. 9 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

    You mean adapt, dumbass. Mitigate literally means to make less severe.  To mitigate you must cut emissions.  You can’t even get your climate change minimization/cynicism right.

    You’re right, of course. Mitigate was a poor choice of words, but substituting adapt for mitigate doesn’t quite work either. So let me rephrase: While it’s inevitable that we must adapt to a warmer Earth (we already are), it doesn’t follow that we must adapt to some of the negative consequences associated with a warming planet. There are steps we can take to lessen, or mitigate, those consequences.

    Take water, for example. A warmer U.S. will certainly exacerbate current and expected future water shortages. But if a certain temperature rise is already baked in (I believe it is), then we will have to adapt to the new normal, but we don’t necessarily have to adapt to the logical and expected drought-like consequences. Maybe there’s a way to mitigate those consequences.

    To state the obvious, the U.S. needs to find additional water sources in the coming years. And that’s true even if the temperature stabilizes at the current rate. If temperatures rise by 1.5, 2, or even 3 degrees, then obviously our water situation—especially in the west and southwest—goes from bad to worse to critical.

    This is where Canada comes in. They have more than 20% of the world’s fresh water and 7% of the planet’s renewable water supply - all to satisfy the needs of just 0.5 per cent of the world's population. In other words, they have vast amounts of surplus water that can be routed south to the U.S.

    This is not a novel idea; it’s been considered before. Naturally, most Canadians are against it, but public opinion and government cooperation can be influenced by money. And rest assured, it would cost a lot of money: tens of billions for the water and an enormous amount of money to get it where it is needed.

    So what does this have to do with lowering emissions? Nothing at all. But it does have to do with mitigating some of the consequences of an inevitable warming. And if there is a finite amount of money to spend on environmental issues (and there is), then assuring critical regions of our nation of an adequate water supply should take priority over measures that have little chance of success (reread Kerry’s quote).

  20. In July, US climate envoy John Kerry said:  

    Quote

    "If China sticks with its current plan(s) and does not peak its emissions until 2030, then the entire rest of the world must go to zero by 2040 or even 2035," … “without sufficient reduction by China, the goal of 1.5C is essentially impossible.”

    China isn’t going to cut its emissions anytime soon and the rest of the world combined isn’t going to zero in 15 or 20 years. In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, worldwide consumption (measured in quadrillion British thermal units) for liquid fuels, natural gas, and coal, will increase in the next 30 years from 182 to 248, 147 to 193, and 155 to 176, respectively.

    So, Instead of us and some European countries spending trillions trying to prevent what seems to be inevitable, maybe we should instead concentrate on how best to mitigate the inevitable.   

×
×
  • Create New...