• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we go into Syria

Should we go into Syria

  • Yes, the red line has been crossed

    Votes: 23 13.9%

  • No way Jose, not our problem

    Votes: 143 86.1%
  • Total voters
    166
AngryOldGuy said:
I'm just sad that Ohbammer hasn't managed to set the whole place alight yet, anything to distract from the train wreck that's just down the tracks?
Click to expand...

The whole place will be lit up soon enough, but it won't be Obama who strikes the first match; after all, he leads from his behind. It's just taking the rest of the world a little while to get used to the idea that Obama aspires to have the US assume the same level of world leadership as Belize, or Nauru, or Fiji.

On the world stage, we have a Klown Kar of Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Rice and a handful of others making fools of themselves and of us. Even now, Klown Kerry is in front of a Congressional committee claiming that Obama doesn't want to go to war, he just wants approval to commit an act of war. And he is simultaneously comforting the target of this act of war by claiming it won't last long or do much damage.

How much longer do you think anyone else in the world will take this buffoon seriously?
 
Another post worthy of multi-likes
Well done sir!

qpf861.jpg
 
cpwill said:
eh, I would more suspect that China has about zero willingness to take any action that would be seen as countenancing the governments do not rightfully exercise total sovereignty within their borders - so long as they continue to be ruled by the CCP they cannot ideologically afford to become involved in actions like this.
Click to expand...

That's always in play with China. They know they don't treat their own citizens well, and hence why they rarely criticize anyone else who treats their citizens badly too.

However, China still suffers from an inferiority complex (kind of the same way that India and Pakistan just can't settle their problems and why Germany despite having a very powerful military is always so chicken**** because of WWII). That can be used to tie their hands.
 
ChrisL said:
It's not "fine." We NEED to have alternative energy if we ever want energy independence.
Click to expand...
Nuclear is viable and proven. Let's offer three prizes, one for the best large scale nuclear reactor design, one for a medium alternative and one for a small capability. Then let's build ten thousand of them. Problem solved. Give one to every coal company put out of business by Obama's henchmen.
 
Misterveritis said:
Nuclear is viable and proven. Let's offer three prizes, one for the best large scale nuclear reactor design, one for a medium alternative and one for a small capability. Then let's build ten thousand of them. Problem solved. Give one to every coal company put out of business by Obama's henchmen.
Click to expand...

I don't think the environmentalists would go along with that, or most liberals. They'll say, look what happened in Japan. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think the environmentalists would go along with that, or most liberals. They'll say, look what happened in Japan. :lol:
Click to expand...
Kick them out. My preference is round up the identifiable liberals and drive them into Mexico, or the sea. You choose.

What happened in Japan? Do you actually know?
 
Misterveritis said:
Kick them out. My preference is round up the identifiable liberals and drive them into Mexico, or the sea. You choose.

What happened in Japan? Do you actually know?
Click to expand...

They had a Tsunami and the nuclear cylinders were damaged. You don't remember that? It was a pretty big deal.
 
yes DO look what happened in Japan (Fukushima Prefecture)
What a bloody freakin' testament to the absolute saftey of nuclear power
a tsunami that killed 20,000 people, the plant took a direct hit I'd think 'bout the only
thing worse would be if a plant got slammed by a 8.9 scale earthquake?

Not one person died as a result of the hit on the plant not one.

All the people who still falsely believe nuke plants are dangerous and evil, they should be

2d9w9c2.jpg


Funny thing 'bout them enviro-mental wackos coal makes tons of CO2 and spews mercury n cadmium
Nukes are zero emission and if it weren't for them idiots holding up Yucca Mountain we could stash
all the trash there.

every pound of coal that isn't burned to keep the lights on could be made into petroleum products
and as Misterveritis mentioned we can build mini-nukes with ease

Where I disagree with him, don't deport them to Mexico put them in Yucca Mountain too ;)

2rrw0h2.jpg
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Tsunami nuclear damage big deal.
Click to expand...
It was a total non-event I'm being serious
remember 3 mile Island? three teeny tiny puffs of radioactive gas were released, such a miniscule amount it was hard to measure
with the detectors of the day. It shut down the whole dad blamed industry but guess what? We've had them ~ 103 nukers
cookin' along 34 years since and no one has died and they never will
drill baby drill
and build the nukes let em glow baby glow
 
ChrisL said:
They had a Tsunami and the nuclear cylinders were damaged. You don't remember that? It was a pretty big deal.
Click to expand...
Well, that was not my point. How many people died in that "pretty big deal". From memory less than 20. How many died in the disaster that surrounded the plant's destruction by natural causes? One thousand times that number?

Nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest means of providing energy for anything that stays put.

I speak as one who loves nuclear weapons. But nukes have a gentle side as well. In the end it is just science.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
It was a total non-event I'm being serious
remember 3 mile Island? three teeny tiny puffs of radioactive gas were released, such a miniscule amount it was hard to measure
with the detectors of the day. It shut down the whole dad blamed industry but guess what? We've had them ~ 103 nukers
cookin' along 34 years since and no one has died and they never will
drill baby drill
and build the nukes let em glow baby glow
Click to expand...

No big deal? I disagree. People who were exposed to the radiation have a higher risk of developing cancer. It probably polluted the soil and ground water too.

I don't have a problem with nuclear, but I still don't want to live near one. As it is now, I live like 40-50 miles from one that's here in MA.
 
ChrisL said:
No big deal? I disagree. People who were exposed to the radiation have a higher risk of developing cancer. It probably polluted the soil and ground water too.

I don't have a problem with nuclear, but I still don't want to live near one. As it is now, I live like 40-50 miles from one that's here in MA.
Click to expand...
I am delighted to live near one. I wish we had a second as an emergency back up. :)
 
Misterveritis said:
They are safe, quiet, non-polluting and efficient. Of course I would love to have two wives as well.
Click to expand...

Unless you get a really bad hurricane or something and they leak. Not the wives, the nuclear plants. :mrgreen:
 
ChrisL said:
People who were exposed to the radiation have a higher risk of developing cancer. It probably polluted the soil and ground water too.
Click to expand...
but what if that isn't even the least bit true? Would you look at the situation differently?
 
AngryOldGuy said:
but what if that isn't even the least bit true? Would you look at the situation differently?
Click to expand...

Lol! If what isn't true? That the plants leaked or that people can get cancer from exposure to radiation? It depends upon the amount you're exposed to of course, but I'm quite sure it's true. :)
 
ChrisL said:
Unless you get a really bad hurricane or something and they leak. Not the wives, the nuclear plants. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Which of course, they almost never do. The nuclear power plants, not the wives. Wives leak like crazy.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Which of course, they almost never do. The nuclear power plants, not the wives. They leak like crazy.
Click to expand...

:rofl

True, it doesn't happen often, but when it does it's pretty dangerous. They should just make them stronger somehow. After the incident in Japan, I heard we were supposed to have our's looked at, but I don't know what happened with that.
 
ChrisL said:
Lol! If what isn't true? That the plants leaked or that people can get cancer from exposure to radiation? It depends upon the amount you're exposed to of course, but I'm quite sure it's true. :)
Click to expand...

Let's see, live in poverty and die much younger or live with energy abundance and die of cancer at age 90. False choice. Tough choice too. Cancer probably has more to do with what you smoke, drink and eat than with nuclear power plants.
 
ChrisL said:
:rofl

True, it doesn't happen often, but when it does it's pretty dangerous. They should just make them stronger somehow. After the incident in Japan, I heard we were supposed to have our's looked at, but I don't know what happened with that.
Click to expand...

There is more danger from bee stings....
 
I'm serious what if you've been lied to by the lame stream media
What if the radiation exposure by the people in Japan was ridiculous miniscule?
Would you could you be swayed to start lovin' the wonderful clean endless power of the atom?
 
ChrisL said:
Lol! If what isn't true? That the plants leaked or that people can get cancer from exposure to radiation? It depends upon the amount you're exposed to of course, but I'm quite sure it's true. :)
Click to expand...

1. The plants were hit with an earthquake larger than had ever been believed they would face. They took it and were fine.
2. Then the plants were hit by a Tsunami that wiped out that whole section of Japan. They still haven't recovered. The plants took it and were fine.
3. The plants lost power. They shifted automatically to the secondary, took it, and were fine.
4. The backup ran beautifully, just as it was supposed to
5. Then the recovery wasn't able to re-link the plants back to the grid fast enough and that is what caused excess build-up. No "meltdown" event, no massive spewage, the numbers that everyone freaked out were silly. At one point (I was in Japan supporting the recovery effort at the time) everyone started freaking out about the water having certain portions of radioactive material, so I had to do the math - you would have had to drink 15 gallons of the water a day every day for something like two years before it became actually dangerous.

The Fukushima Daichi plants, contra the easy bumper stickers and the wavetop view of "nuclear, bad thing happened, stuff went bad" are actually a powerful testament to the safety of this energy source.
 
WCH said:
I think Putin is calling Obama's bluff and it's working.

They see the US as weak and vulnerable.
Click to expand...

So Assad is turning over all his chemical weapons that he never even admitted having before because the U.S is weak? Good thinking Sherlock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom