News Stories

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You could ask our older forum members, especially those who lived through the Red Scare, Cuban Missile Crisis and Ping Pong Diplomacy, if anybody actually cared about that point.

Well, actually, I am going to argue that the fact that we still live today without a nuclear war in last 60 years is evidence that people actually care.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

If I am not wrong, China still pays them for oil. And they have lots of dosh.

Both statement can be used to describe Japan.

Edit: let's me do a bit of google work. According to this page, Iran accounts for 11.4% of total Chinese foreign oil import in 2010. This wikipage shows that in 2008 Japan imports much more oil than China. I don't know any seismic shift in oil importing patterns in the past three years. So a logically conclusion is that Iran is as much important oil supplier to China as it is to Japan.
Edit2: just found that the 2009 data has China exceed japan by a very small margin.
3 China 4,753,000 2009 est.
4 Japan 4,394,000 2009 est.

Edit3: In my search for data, I come across this article from Financial Times, which talks about a Chinese ban on Diesel export to satisfy domestic demand.

China’s ban on diesel exports could prompt importers across the region to hoard energy commodities. “When you get export bans ... you get a stockpiling reaction among importers,” said Amrita Sen, oil analyst at Barclays Capital in London.

China is the biggest consumer of energy and relies on imports for about half its crude oil supply. Primary destinations for its diesel are Vietnam, Hong Kong and Singapore, the region’s main energy trading hub.

Spoiler for applaud:

Nicely played, FT. Can one get more sly than this? Clearly, majority of Chinese energy consumption, which is in coal burning power plants, is of great relevance to the oil flow. Standard example of replacing one thing with a closed one to achieve one's goal(偷梁換柱). FT is such a strategist. In case you want to know the real story, here is the link to ranking of global oil consumption.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Well, actually, I am going to argue that the fact that we still live today without a nuclear war in last 60 years is evidence that people actually care.

Both statement can be used to describe Japan.

But it's really hard for Japan to gain energy securities now, especially after recent incident with their nuclear reactors. It won't be easy to simply cut tie with Iran now

[Paranoid Android]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Well, actually, I am going to argue that the fact that we still live today without a nuclear war in last 60 years is evidence that people actually care.

Until some day a Chinese nuclear silo gets hijacked by terrorists and then used against the Americans. Two birds with one stone. Both have egos big enough to hurt each other without even having a reason.

I doubt any nation would openly admit to using nuclear weapons. The world will turn against you and thankfully, neither China or the US has the power to stand alone. So I believe the world is safe until terrorist groups become larger and smarter. With pure destructive intentions, there's no fear for being alone since they have always been. There's nothing to lose either.

I don't see China even wanting any form of full-scale war. They're trying so hard to fit in with everyone else without letting go of their government.
----------------

As for the oil between Iran and Japan, that's a rather pointless request. Japan can't just cut down its oil import even if it wants to. That's like asking the Japanese to stop breathing oxygen.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Android

Until some day a Chinese nuclear silo gets hijacked by terrorists and then used against the Americans. Two birds with one stone. Both have egos big enough to hurt each other without even having a reason.

A Pakistan-India senario , especialy the hijaking of a pakistany nuke, seem more likely, no ?

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You could ask our older forum members, especially those who lived through the Red Scare, Cuban Missile Crisis and Ping Pong Diplomacy, if anybody actually cared about that point.

Many, many people in my lifetime were concerned about the consequences for the world if a nuclear exchange had taken place. Not everyone is as cynical as you, Saintess. You have the advantage of living in a time when global thermonuclear war is no longer a daily concern. Enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Well, actually, I am going to argue that the fact that we still live today without a nuclear war in last 60 years is evidence that people actually care.

I believe it was the result of mutual agreed destruction. One of Kennedy's more brilliant diplomatic moves during the Cuban Missile Crisis was to announce in his speech that any attack by a missile based in Cuba would be interpreted as an attack by the USSR and that the Soviet Union would be the target of retaliation. MAD was a horrible, scary policy to live under, but in retrospect it seems to have worked. However MAD only works when both sides have a lot to lose. India and China fall into that category today; I'm not so sure whether it applies to Pakistan or North Korea. Terrorists with nuclear weapons is a whole other problem.

I'm surprised that after all the efforts of criminals like A. Q. Khan we have yet to see another nuclear device exploded. Tel Aviv remains high on my list of likely targets.

As for the size of the US military, I'm fully convinced we could halve our military expenditures over the next five to ten years and see no serious reduction in our security. This very persuasive article by two US military analysts argues that we could scale down the nuclear arsenal to just 311 strategic weapons. They list the ones they'd keep and those they'd demolish.

[Paranoid Android]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

A Pakistan-India senario , especialy the hijaking of a pakistany nuke, seem more likely, no ?

It would start a war but not on the scale involving majority of the world and much nuclear attacks aside from the first.

If Pakistan was the source of a nuclear attack, it's likely that China wouldn't even budge. Or any eastern countries or Russia. It's probably just going to be NATO.

It has to come from a country with overwhelming power that makes everyone panic and take drastic measures. Of course none of the super powers would do such a thing, so it has to be a framed attack from some anonymous terrorist group.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Many, many people in my lifetime were concerned about the consequences for the world if a nuclear exchange had taken place. Not everyone is as cynical as you, Saintess. You have the advantage of living in a time when global thermonuclear war is no longer a daily concern. Enjoy it.

With Iran, India and Pakistan around, that concern returned 20 years after the Soviet Union collapsed - the hands on the buttons are attached to people of doubtful trust, and we can't lob off those limbs.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

As for the size of the US military, I'm fully convinced we could halve our military expenditures over the next five to ten years and see no serious reduction in our security. This very persuasive article by two US military analysts argues that we could scale down the nuclear arsenal to just 311 strategic weapons. They list the ones they'd keep and those they'd demolish.

US is based on a highly offensive/power-projection doctrine, unlike other nations who are covert-offensive/overt-defensive when it comes to military. Also, US depends on its military to retain diplomatic ties (attack my ally and I'll send daisycutters down your backyard), and its military industrial complex generate many jobs and exports.

It isn't just about security for US as a debt-run nation - it is about the economy too.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

With Iran, India and Pakistan around, that concern returned 20 years after the Soviet Union collapsed - the hands on the buttons are attached to people of doubtful trust, and we can't lob off those limbs.

There's a vast difference in scale between what would happen if India and Pakistan engaged in a nuclear exchange and what would have happened if the US and the USSR had done so. An Indo-Pak exchange would clearly be horrendous and pose a major threat to countries like yours because of fallout, but it would not destroy most of the world for decades or centuries. A thermonuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union would almost certainly have done so.

It isn't just about security for US as a debt-run nation - it is about the economy too.

Of course it is. That's why it would take a decade or more to revamp the economy and substantially reduce the role of the US military-industrial complex. There's also the issue of what to do about employing the servicemen and servicewomen who would no longer be need to staff bases in Japan or Germany.

One of the reasons we're a "debt-run nation" as you put it is that the US spends about $1 trillion a year on "security." Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will help bring that figure down, but it won't bring real long-term savings. Only a substantial retrenchment in what the US defines as its security responsibilities can bring about the changes we need.

Just imagine the fiscal problems Europe would be facing today if those countries had to maintain their own defenses rather than relying on the US to spend money it doesn't have to defend them. The world has changed remarkably since 1990, but the US defense posture has yet to catch up.

[Xellos-_^]

Israel is warning expatriates not to marry Jewish Americans amid claims its government thinks U.S. Jews are not religious enough.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sponsoring adverts that warn his people that they can 'lose their national identities' if they tie the knot with foreigners with the same faith.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ican-Jews.html

someone want to explain how Israel is friend of the US?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

someone want to explain how Israel is friend of the US?

If you call that a friend...

[Vexx]

I lost count of the times they'd have "exchange visits" to our facility and every time we looked the Israeli pilots and engineers were "poking around and o gosh, sorry, we weren't supposed to be in here?".

"Friend" is a term that really shouldn't be used in international politics --- all countries are still sociopathic 2 year olds to a large extent.

[Xacual]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7B9E.DTL&tsp=1

A big shakeup is coming to KGO radio: Many of its most recognizable voices are being let go as the station, which can be heard up and down the West Coast, switches to "all-news" format from 2 p.m. to midnight starting Monday.

"What we are doing is adding a tremendous amount of news content to KGO," Paul Hosley, the station's news and program director, told us late Thursday shortly after the staff was notified of the changes.

Among those who will leave the station are talk-show veterans Gene Burns, Gil Gross, Ray Taliaferro and John Rothmann.

Ronn Owens, who reportedly has one of the highest-paying contracts in radio, will continue his popular show from 9 a.m. to noon. Brian Copeland will also keep his weekend show.

The switches come amid major turbulence in the Bay Area media market. KGO's one-time dominance in the a.m. Arbitron ratings has taken a big dive in recent years as increasing numbers of listeners have switched to satellite and Internet radio. Just two months ago, Citadel Broadcasting sold both KGO (810 AM) and its sister station, KSFO (560 AM), to rival Cumulus Media, which already owned four other stations in the market, including all-sports KNBR (680 AM).

One station insider told us KGO had simply lost its way and hopes to reinvigorate itself with a news-driven format.

Incidentally, it's longtime moniker "Newstalk 810" will also be replaced. The new slug: "KGO-810 - the Bay Area news and information station."

Not big news for the rest of the country but I'll probably stop listening to the station now. I'll be curious to see where they end up.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

someone want to explain how Israel is friend of the US?

for the record, this stupid move is drawing considerable hate in Israel just as it is in the U.S.
its viewed as a boneheaded move by a boneheaded person, and most of the people i've talked to about it (if they even know about it, since its not getting much press attention here) generally facepalm over it.

[Ithekro]

How do your people (Israelis) deal with changing their goverment's political leaning? There are elections, but isn't the top position elected by parlimentary procedured based on who controls the majority party or something like that? (President or Prime Minister...don't remember which).

The US tries with congressional, and presidential elections....but we seem to have a hard time swinging it around no matter who is in office.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

How do your people (Israelis) deal with changing their goverment's political leaning? There are elections, but isn't the top position elected by parlimentary procedured based on who controls the majority party or something like that? (President or Prime Minister...don't remember which).

The US tries with congressional, and presidential elections....but we seem to have a hard time swinging it around no matter who is in office.

It's a parliament, whoever wins the most seats, or can organise a majority coalition(if they don't win an outright majority) wins it all. That's how the governing ideology is chosen.

Israel is particularly known for it's overly large and unweildy coalitions. For instance Likud is quite moderate, but the parties it's in coalition with... not so much. Likud's hold is quite tenuous as it only got 25% of the seats, it's in coalition with 4 other parties, 3 of which are ultra Orthodox, and their views would make even the staunch American religious right blush...

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

How do your people (Israelis) deal with changing their goverment's political leaning? There are elections, but isn't the top position elected by parlimentary procedured based on who controls the majority party or something like that? (President or Prime Minister...don't remember which).

its all about elections when you get down to it.
the more one side of the political spectrum fucks up, the more votes go to parties that represent the other side.
though admittedly, we have WAY too many parties.

and the P.M isn't so much elected, as nominated by the president (who is a mostly a symbolic character, like the queen of england) to try and form a coalition.
its usually (but not always) the guy who heads the party with the most votes.

it really says something about the "2 jews, 3 opinions" nature of Israel that the creation of a colaition is considered an obvious thing, since its obvious no one part would get majority votes.

[Ithekro]

Question then. Why elect a President that it seems is like a figure head, when the person running the country (the P.M.) is not picked by the people?

[ganbaru]

U.S. Congress, Communists and God
http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusm...nists-and-god/
Congress wasting time and money.
Just as always.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Question then. Why elect a President that it seems is like a figure head, when the person running the country (the P.M.) is not picked by the people?

the president is appointed, not elected.
the prime minister is chosen as the guy most likely to succeed in assambling a coalition, which is usually the guy at the head of the biggest party.

we tried the direct approach during the 90's but it didn't work nearly as well as we hoped, as the elected P.M still had to assamble a coalition.
and he ended up as a lame duck as a result.

[Kyuu]

Speaking of Communism...

http://tenml.com/entertainment/chart...ongress-today/

Originally Posted by Reuters

MORE SUPPORT FOR COMMUNISM THAN CONGRESS?

There are, it should be noted, some legislators who are worried about the apparent disconnect between ordinary Americans and their representatives and leaders inside the beltway that surrounds Washington. One of those worried is Michael Bennet, a Democratic Senator who voiced his concerns on the floor of the Senate in mid-November, carrying a number of astonishing charts illustrating the precipitous decline of Congress in the eyes of Americans.

According to one of the charts based on polls taken in different years, more people support the United States going Communist (11 percent) than approve the job Congress is doing. Congress‘s approval rating among Americans ties with that of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president and anti-American firebrand.

http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusm...nists-and-god/

Communism more favored that the current Congress. Now, that is pathetically bad.