Syria
 

I challenge anyone to find mention of this pipeline in the US news cycle. Just as the war in Iraq was really about oil, the situation in Syria is about natural gas.

The world needs more Wind and Solar



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

I'll add a bit more.

Just as weapons of mass distraction were used to justify the war in Iraq and justify what we did (oil grab)

The migrant issue is being used to distract the people of this world from the real agenda.
The war going on in Syria is happening because of this pipeline. Russia is in there to protect its ruling party because they oppose the pipeline.

Who's to say That Isis was not let to grow and spread like it did just so enough destabilization could occur to topple Assad and let this pipeline happen ?

Think about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thinking...thinking


probably all orchestrated behind the scenes in yet another example of Obama's hidden brilliance and masterful foreign policy command...right Spence?

Eben...you should also add that the little mishap in Paris was actually the result of a disagreement over a souffle

Think harder scott !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I had previously stated that Lybia ( Another safe haven for ISIS now ) was all about oil but was told it was strictly for humanitarian reasons . That's the only reason this administration wants regime change and the only reason we are gun running through Turkey to arm "rebels " . Please don't dash my faith in our dear leader .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i dont believe i ever disagreed with you on that. Pretty much everything we do as far as foreign policy has to do with oil these days.

I'm outta weed

That explains the irritability.


Do you really believe everything on the news and what we are told are 100% true? DO you know what propaganda is ? :rolleyes:

I did a search for "syria, conflict, gas pipeline"


"So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources."

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ergy-pipelines

You're preaching to the choir here . Most of us agree with you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys didn't when we were going to invade Iraq :smokin::cheers2:

yes, I read Spence's posts

And who is best globally with propaganda?

And did that entity support propaganda in other countries?

And did that propaganda in the US emanate from a particular party?

Where is that party today?

/tfhat

You tell me...
As far as parties go.. When the shift of power changes in the white house, the same people keep working at the Pentagon ;)

It was a combination of the O admin's R2P doctrine and Western Europe's please to prevent a wave of mass immigration into Europe (how that working out?)

Nope - nor do I believe the Academia of the Obama Admin. You can argue that the foreign policy of the R/D presidential admins were somewhat closer in appearance up and in through some of the Clinton years. Partially because the core of the State Departments were professionals and not political hacks. Sure, many senior execs were political favors but they had a better core to lean on. Last 20 years, and particularly under Obama, the departments have been increasingly politicized.
The current admin is SO FAR over their heads it is going to costs us dearly. The Bush incompetents were leagues more qualified than this bleep show.

Now it is time to drink.

At lower levels yes, and surprise surprise, a lot of them are moderate to conservative in the ranks. Pentagon is not the problem nor are the lower to mid tiers of other key departments, it is the political gerrymandering of internal policies. We have branch secretaries that are sacrificing warfighting, training, and competency for social engineering and biofuels.

Time for that beer (Allagash BTW)

Says Buck as he hoists his "no blood for oil" sign over his head...

[URL="http://www.ridgeblade.com/"]http://www.ridgeblade.com/[/UR]
:musc: i think this is a good idea

And Nuclear.

I would just like Obama's wars properly labeled but I guess you have to earn that Nobel Peace Prize some how . I haven't had time to keep up with the news, how is the regime change in Libya working out ? I get the feeling that section of the world has really appreciated Obama's humanitarian approach . You can add that to his resume of accomplishments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great; I'm on board in theory..
where do we site them? Want one in Warwick?

Plymouth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Enlightening perspective on the Syrian immigration debate:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...im-immigration

Also:

http://humanevents.com/2015/12/02/ca...tm_campaign=nl

Thank quantums and big bang we're not Europe . . . yet . . .

Sounds like a lot of bull#^&#^&#^&#^& if you ask me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Takes one to know one.

Around here?

Coastal, desolate Maine, Little Compton or Charlestown (hell they already had one criticality incident), Gould Island, Prudence. I would put one at Groton, CT, though they have one nearby, Nomans. And in a very rare instance I would put the Navy/Gubmint in charge - they do have a good record and they can sell the power to the grid. Sell me some nearby waterfront land cheap and I'll setup near a nuke.

I would even consider offshore Nuke plants.

Other ideal places, more desolate and off the beaten path though I would think a more sensible way is to put Nuclear in more desolate regions and offshore and some local land based wind farms.

I am really into nonrenewable energy / nuclear. As opposed to a lot of people that want it but NIMBY.

So... offshore nukes and onshore wind?

The one thing I agree is we need more nukes online. Maine, I agree. I'd love to see the Canadians get involved and sell some power back. I think the reality of NIMBY is that while you want be willing to live next door most aren't. The site in Charlestown I know well; I use some of the data they collected offshore in the 1970's. I think a good compromise is utilize Gould and other state/fed properties is wind/solar farms. I think the siting of a nuke would not happen in the Bay, at least not with current mindsets on Nukes.

The one thing I will add, something I am 'really into' is that we have a dubious record globally and domestically of underestimating both coastal flood risks, both the actual water levels/waves/sea level rise AND our ability to 'hold the line'. Coastal areas need to be selected carefully; we need to think centuries and beyond when planning these; especially since most of the material will stay on site until we find a better long-term plan.

Ultimately, the future of energy policy will have to be a combination of technologies and solutions, with more and more local, on-site production; coupled with efficiency, we actually have a lot of the tools already. Nukes + other technologies + efficiency is a big chunk of the 'wedge' strategy proposed by the CMI group at Princeton 5 or 6 years ago....


p.s. Little Compton :rotf3::rotf3::rotf3::rotf3::rotf3:

There's some open land at Warren's Point.

Onshore / Offshore nuke, Onshore / Offshore Wind, I would add tide too as long as it does not crush fishing / boating access (like the proposed canal turbines). I am for this kind of power generation where efficient and practical.

Yes, we do need some sensible locating, particularly in remote locations, and there are some. While I do not think one should happen in the bay for various reasons, I might not be against it, but it should be discussed.

You have done some research on CTown?? Cool (not the event, but your having used data). Surprised how few Rhode Islander's have even heard of it. Any published references that compare then and now?

Agree

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;1087743]
Ultimately, the future of energy policy will have to be a combination of technologies and solutions, with more and more local, on-site production; coupled with efficiency, we actually have a lot of the tools already. Nukes + other technologies + efficiency is a big chunk of the 'wedge' strategy proposed by the CMI group at Princeton 5 or 6 years ago....

:uhuh:

Yeh, that was for fun - as little chance of that happening as something off the Vineyard - over Kennedy's Dead Body

On the whole state shoreline-wise at times...the Charlestown work had current meters at the proposed outfall site, so I have used the numbers they got from that study in the late 70's.

What do you mean compare then and now?