Days after US pulls 1,000 troops away from allies in Syria, 3,000 are deployed to protect Saudi oil

[billapong]

short term, nuclear is certainly the solution, if we'd finally figure out fusion reaction, we'd be golden mid-term as that has a much better power to waste ratio.

and if we're lucky, we can find something beyond that. just, we're not gonna do any of it without putting money towards it. and before that, money towards education.

Yeah, that's nice and all, but until we build a system that's not dependent on oil out of oil itself we're still dependent on oil, thus we still have interests in middle eastern oil. If environmentalists would allow us to use the oil on our own lands we could cut out the middle man and speed up the process of making a fossil fuel less society, but the environmentalists are fine with the result, which is us meddling in other countries affairs. The oil has to come from somewhere and you can't magically build a system that powers the country without oil when oil is required to build said system.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

It seems from the article you posted, this is just another case of the US being called on to "police" the middle East for the rest of the world, while the UK, Canada, Germany, etc sit on their hands doing nothing to very little to protect their own interests while we send our soldiers to battle.
I would say we should be frustrated at the European nation's for allowing these things to happen. Don't forget that these countries suffer from terrorist attacks as well, but they also suffer when oil prices go skyhigh.

It's not in our interest to constantly provoke and put sanctions on Iran. Compared to the US, Iran is a spotless white dove. Even if it's true that Iran supports Hamas, it only affects Israel, not the US. And even then, Saudis (who you are allied with) create far more destruction in the region (plus around the world).
So basically your soldiers aren't soldiers but paid mercenaries protecting Israel and Saudi Arabia.

 

[morvoran]

Yeah, that's nice and all, but until we build a system that's not dependent on oil out of oil itself we're still dependent on oil, thus we still have interests in middle eastern oil.

Yeah, it's going to be hard to get some of the more vocal people here to understand this since they think "good intentions" can make the world a better place where reality doesn't quite work that way.
To everyone else thinking green energy is going to save the day, we would have to burn up all the world's fossil fuels and have thousands of nuclear reactors to power the facilities that would make enough wind turbines and solar cells to cover the entire world's need for electricity while destroying countless forests to make enough room for all of them.
While it is a shame that people are being killed by other nations, we need soldiers in places that contain the fossil fuels the first world countries use today to keep the world from becoming a "Mad Max" style apocalyptic world.
While it seemed that the US could protect the Kurds with only 1000 troops, Turkey was still going to attack Syria regardless if the US was there or not. We need more troops in Saudi Arabia because that is what people a lot more knowledgeable about battle than all of us decided what was best.

 

[Clydefrosch]

Yeah, that's nice and all, but until we build a system that's not dependent on oil out of oil itself we're still dependent on oil, thus we still have interests in middle eastern oil. If environmentalists would allow us to use the oil on our own lands we could cut out the middle man and speed up the process of making a fossil fuel less society, but the environmentalists are fine with the result, which is us meddling in other countries affairs. The oil has to come from somewhere and you can't magically build a system that powers the country without oil when oil is required to build said system.

you make it sound like we haven't been using oil for the last dozens of decades.

the point is, as long as oil is the cheapest solution, no one is 'wasting' money on developing the long term solution we'd need.

and as long as oil has as much money and influence as they have, they're going to swoop in and fuck with all research and development for such solutions that could hurt their bottom line. wether thats through buying off politicians trying to add co2 or other types of environment taxes (or even so much as regulations meant to prevent people from being poisoned from running water) or by buying patents or researchers. it's not going to happen.

and by the time you're out of oil, you still won't have that alternative, not to mention, all of that really long term environmental damage, extreme weather and souring oceans fucking up our food supplies, desertification because we've used up most of the groundwater and poisoned the rest while fracking for another couple gallons of oil. in addition to rising sea levels and all that other tipping point crap we're only just realizing we're also approaching steadily.

While it seemed that the US could protect the Kurds with only 1000 troops, Turkey was still going to attack Syria regardless if the US was there or not. We need more troops in Saudi Arabia because that is what people a lot more knowledgeable about battle than all of us decided what was best.

yeah, that decision came from one single person who did not even take advise from any of his knowledgeable advisers. then he sold it as bringing the soldiers back when no one comes back and more are being sent. stop bullshitting people.

the us could have protected the kurds with even 100 people because any of those 100 people killed could've caused an actual war with the us which the turks would've never risked.

you need more soldiers in saudi arabia because they've bought your spineless little president and got the rest of the whole spineless nation for free.

 

[morvoran]

you make it sound like we haven't been using oil for the last dozens of decades.

the point is, as long as oil is the cheapest solution, no one is 'wasting' money on developing the long term solution we'd need.

and as long as oil has as much money and influence as they have, they're going to swoop in and fuck with all research and development for such solutions that could hurt their bottom line. wether thats through buying off politicians trying to add co2 or other types of environment taxes (or even so much as regulations meant to prevent people from being poisoned from running water) or by buying patents or researchers. it's not going to happen.

and by the time you're out of oil, you still won't have that alternative, not to mention, all of that really long term environmental damage, extreme weather and souring oceans fucking up our food supplies, desertification because we've used up most of the groundwater and poisoned the rest while fracking for another couple gallons of oil. in addition to rising sea levels and all that other tipping point crap we're only just realizing we're also approaching steadily.

This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense with no actual proof of a "deep state" trying to hold back research. I can say all day that wind turbines kill countless numbers of defenseless birds and solar cells eat babies (one of those is true). That doesn't make people stop researching them.
The reason we don't invest more into these "green energies" is that they are extremely inefficient and expensive while requiring a lot of land to build them on. Obama tried investing in several green companies (look up Solyndra) during his presidency and every one of them went bankrupt. I bet you could say that somebody may have posted a blog saying they were forced out by the big oil industry, but that doesn't take away from the fact that green companies cannot sustain long term profits.

If we need to destroy the Amazon rainforest and convert countless acres into solar fields, how is this going to help our "greenhouse gas" issue? Where will we live, plant our crops, build these factories to make solar cells and wind turbines when all our land is being used to produce enough electricity to power our world?

yeah, that decision came from one single person who did not even take advise from any of his knowledgeable advisers. then he sold it as bringing the soldiers back when no one comes back and more are being sent. stop bullshitting people.

the us could have protected the kurds with even 100 people because any of those 100 people killed could've caused an actual war with the us which the turks would've never risked.

you need more soldiers in saudi arabia because they've bought your spineless little president and got the rest of the whole spineless nation for free.

Bringing our soldiers home from a pointless situation is never a bad thing. Sure, we sent more to Saudi Arabia, but that was a much better use of our soldiers. I believe protecting the world's economy from being destroyed because Iran destroyed the oil fields is a very good reason to send more troops there.

If we took our troops out of Syria, why didn't any other country offer to send their soldiers in if they were so needed? There is no reason for Americans to be the only ones dying to protect others that won't protect themselves. You may like our soldiers dying for pointless reasons, but I do not and think Trump made a good call.

 

[billapong]

you make it sound like we haven't been using oil for the last dozens of decades.

the point is, as long as oil is the cheapest solution, no one is 'wasting' money on developing the long term solution we'd need.

and as long as oil has as much money and influence as they have, they're going to swoop in and fuck with all research and development for such solutions that could hurt their bottom line. wether thats through buying off politicians trying to add co2 or other types of environment taxes (or even so much as regulations meant to prevent people from being poisoned from running water) or by buying patents or researchers. it's not going to happen.

and by the time you're out of oil, you still won't have that alternative, not to mention, all of that really long term environmental damage, extreme weather and souring oceans fucking up our food supplies, desertification because we've used up most of the groundwater and poisoned the rest while fracking for another couple gallons of oil. in addition to rising sea levels and all that other tipping point crap we're only just realizing we're also approaching steadily.

When did I ever state we haven't been using oil since the dawn of the industrial revolution? I stated that it takes oil to produce the energy required to create the wind turbines, solar panels and other various tech that produces green energy. In the USA at least a lot of our power comes from non-fossil fuel sources, but until we produce enough technology to completely replace oil we're dependent on said oil.

At least in our country even with the relaxing of laws around coal most of the population wants renewable energy. The free market has spoken and it's for getting rid of oil, but we just can't do it over night. So understand that even with removing laws surrounding fossil fuels (we don't need a law on every single thing in existence, we're not all Liberal) that the USA wants renewable energy, maybe that's different around the globe, but not here.

So, running out of oil? When exactly is that going to happen this time? Back in the 1970's when I first heard the dire predictions I was scared, but then it never happened. People keep saying it's going to happen and every time it never happens they simply change the date. I got tired of being lied to and stopped paying attention, but just like how Miami, Florida is supposed to be under water in 5 years can you provide me with an estimated date when we'll run out of oil? Humor me, because that's all you'l get out of me (a laugh).

 

[Xzi]

Current solar energy technology has the potential to create an environmental disaster in the coming decades. It's green only in the sense of the duration of the panels operational lifespan. Construction produces considerable emissions, but the real problem will become disposal and recycling of the old panels which produces considerably more waste than nuclear.

That certainly makes sense, a single nuclear plant can supply energy to at least half a state, whereas solar panels are sized to supply power to individual houses/businesses. The easiest solution is to rely on hydro and wind power as much as possible, with solar and nuclear energy to fill in the gaps where the first two aren't viable for whatever reason.

If we took our troops out of Syria, why didn't any other country offer to send their soldiers in if they were so needed? There is no reason for Americans to be the only ones dying to protect others that won't protect themselves. You may like our soldiers dying for pointless reasons, but I do not and think Trump made a good call.

Nobody was dying with a US presence among the Kurds, our forces were serving as a deterrent. People are dying and ISIS militants are being freed specifically because of the decision to withdraw. There is no way to justify that as a "good call." It's only going to extend the seemingly endless "war on terror" further.

 

[notimp]

Current solar energy technology has the potential to create an environmental disaster in the coming decades. It's green only in the sense of the duration of the panels operational lifespan. Construction produces considerable emissions, but the real problem will become disposal and recycling of the old panels which produces considerably more waste than nuclear.

Issue - atomic waste is highly toxic for a few billion years, we havent found a real 'final storage site' yet, and if one plant breaks, its more than broken glass. Scaling up on nucular is kind of problematic. (Just put all the reactors at the border to your neighboring countries? )

Also can you educate me what kinds of waste products we are talking about here? Because the Silicium gets recycled, and the rest is glass and... what?

Is this a smartphones produce 3000x the waste of nuclear, while even costing power!!11!!1! kind of 'issue'?