I Fear For the US of A

[Strong Eagle]

[PNGMK]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line

This worries me more.

[JR8]

https://www.google.com/maps/@9.5482338, ... a=!3m1!1e3
(Fiery Cross Reef, Spratly Islands)

You can see the ships hoovering up sand to build on top of the reef, so decimating the ecosystem...

See also... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_wall_of_sand

[mayrolllate]

This quote is referring to hallmark behavior of the Republican party (I do not to use the word extreme because many republicans do not believe in global warming or in evolution). The republicans justify their anti-global warming rhetoric by claiming it isn't scientifically proven and even if it were, that it would kill jobs. I haven't heard what standard of proof they seek before they will accept it as scientifically proven, so if anyone has, that would be helpful to know. I am also curious to know how they speak of countries that have expanded clean energy use without seeing a reduction in jobs, or do those countries not exist?

But I think there's another point to discuss, which is the problems now facing the Republican party. Half of their base is so extremely right-wing now that it is becoming more and more difficult for them to win a general election (or in some cases have a popular candidate win a primary, just as Eric Kantor). Since 1992, the Republican presidential candidate has only gotten a majority of the vote once (when George W. Bush was reelected), and at that point the US was at war (which proved to be groundless), home 'ownership' had gone up (which proved to be the cause of an enormous bubble), and the economy hadn't tanked yet. Carson and Trump are leading the polls now, but whether they can win a general election against either Hillary or Bernie Sanders remains to be seen. (It's also interesting to see that Bush's brother, Jeb, isn't having any success so far using a similar campaign strategy as his brother.)

In short, it seems that while many Americans still strongly support the Republican party, its influence on a national level appears to be called more and more into doubt by a majority of Americans.

[ecureilx]

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/ ... AC20151026

The United States on Monday sent a guided-missile destroyer to challenge 12-nautical-mile territorial limits that China claims around artificial islands it built in the South China Sea.

A U.S. defense official said the USS Lassen was nearing Subi and Mischief reefs in the Spratly archipelago, features that were submerged at high tide before China began a massive dredging project to turn them into islands in 2014.

The Lassen would be in the area for several hours in what would be the start of a series of challenges to China's territorial claims in one of the world's busiest sea lanes, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Earlier, the official said the ship would likely be accompanied by a U.S. Navy P-8A surveillance plane and possibly P-3 surveillance plane, which have been conducting regular surveillance missions in the region.

The patrols represent the most serious U.S. challenge yet to the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit China claims around the islands and are certain to anger Beijing, which said last month it would "never allow any country" to violate its territorial waters and airspace in the Spratlys.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington said the concept of freedom of navigation should not be used as an excuse for muscle flexing and the United States should "refrain from saying or doing anything provocative and act responsibly in maintaining regional peace and stability."

Additional patrols would follow in coming weeks and could also be conducted around features that Vietnam and the Philippines have built up in the Spratlys, the U.S. official said.

“This is something that will be a regular occurrence, not a one-off event,” said the official. “It’s not something that’s unique to China.”

White House spokesman Josh Earnest referred questions on any specific operations to the Pentagon but said the United States had made clear to China the importance of free flow of commerce in the South China Sea.

"There are billions of dollars of commerce that float through that region of the world," Earnest told a news briefing. "Ensuring that free flow of commerce ... is critical to the global economy," he said.

The patrols would be the first within 12 miles of the features since China began building the reefs up in 2014. The United States last went within 12 miles of Chinese-claimed territory in the Spratlys in 2012.

The decision to go ahead with the patrols follows months of deliberation and risks significantly upsetting already strained ties with China, the world's second-biggest economy, with which U.S. business and economic interests are deeply intertwined.

[mayrolllate]

I wish I could claim territory using an old map with dotted lines

[nakatago]

I'm getting tired of the hypocrisy and double standards of China. They're just throwing their weight around now.

[ecureilx]

I'm getting tired of the hypocrisy and double standards of China. They're just throwing their weight around now.

Thank your politicians for throwing the US out

The moment US packed up from Subic, China started flexing their muscles !!!

I wish I could claim territory using an old map with dotted lines

Likewise, Russia can claim Alaska, India can claim Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Philippines can claim Sabah (Oh, there are people in PH who are claiming Sabah - even went to war recently over Sabah)

[mayrolllate]

US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 after Russia offered $7m (google Alaskan Purchase). I wonder what China would offer to sell "its" islands in the South China Sea for. More importantly, how many territorial disputes does China have ongoing now?

[nakatago]

I'm getting tired of the hypocrisy and double standards of China. They're just throwing their weight around now.

Thank your politicians for throwing the US out

Erap did it.

Also Manuel Roxas, otherwise, we'd still be a US commonwealth and we'd be second class citizens like Puerto Ricans and Guam instead of first class citizens who can't get their shit together because everyone's too busy slinging mud or embezzling money.

[nakatago]

US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 after Russia offered $7m (google Alaskan Purchase). I wonder what China would offer to sell "its" islands in the South China Sea for. More importantly, how many territorial disputes does China have ongoing now?

Everything in South China Sea
Kashmir
Tibet
Taiwan
Those islands just off of Japan
The Arctic as well, apparently

[ecureilx]

US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 after Russia offered $7m (google Alaskan Purchase). I wonder what China would offer to sell "its" islands in the South China Sea for. More importantly, how many territorial disputes does China have ongoing now?

Everything in South China Sea
Kashmir
Tibet
Taiwan
Those islands just off of Japan
The Arctic as well, apparently

Add, Arunachal Pradesh ( sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly .. ) claiming the citizens there have Chinese DNA ...

And other parts of NE India - where the 'revolutionaries' are being sponsored by PRC !

[JR8]

This quote is referring to hallmark behavior of the Republican party (I do not to use the word extreme because many republicans do not believe in global warming or in evolution). The republicans justify their anti-global warming rhetoric by claiming it isn't scientifically proven and even if it were, that it would kill jobs. I haven't heard what standard of proof they seek before they will accept it as scientifically proven, so if anyone has, that would be helpful to know.

You cloud the issue by referring to it is 'global warming'. Well I don't think anyone disputes that the world goes through warming and cooling cycles. The Romans grew vines and produced wines as far north as Scotland in the 1st-4th centuries AD. And despite seismic advances in viticulture including GM you can't grow vines that far north today.

So the question is not is the world is warming or cooling, as it will be doing one or the other at any point in time; it always has. But rather is there proof that man is causing it i.e. 'AGW' = anthropogenic global warming. And on that there isn't proof, and per the 'scientific method' that means the answer is 'it's not'. So IMO you'd have to think illogically, and/or have a vested interest to suggest it is otherwise.

[maneo]

This quote is referring to hallmark behavior of the Republican party (I do not to use the word extreme because many republicans do not believe in global warming or in evolution). The republicans justify their anti-global warming rhetoric by claiming it isn't scientifically proven and even if it were, that it would kill jobs. I haven't heard what standard of proof they seek before they will accept it as scientifically proven, so if anyone has, that would be helpful to know.

You cloud the issue by referring to it is 'global warming'. Well I don't think anyone disputes that the world goes through warming and cooling cycles. The Romans grew vines and produced wines as far north as Scotland in the 1st-4th centuries AD. And despite seismic advances in viticulture including GM you can't grow vines that far north today.

So the question is not is the world is warming or cooling, as it will be doing one or the other at any point in time; it always has. But rather is there proof that man is causing it i.e. 'AGW' = anthropogenic global warming. And on that there isn't proof, and per the 'scientific method' that means the answer is 'it's not'. So IMO you'd have to think illogically, and/or have a vested interest to suggest it is otherwise.

To expect absolute proof of something this significant is ludicrous.
There may be no individual piece of evidence that proves that man is the cause of the increasing temperature trend. However, the vast collection of varied observations provide the evidence supporting the explanation that man, through an increasing population burning a variety of fuels, has increased the atmospheric CO2 levels significantly (e.g. FTIR studies show that 33% of what's up there came from such non-natural sources).

While increased volcanic activity can also lead to increasing global temperatures, man's presence has added a new contributing source. The economic impact of sea levels rising will likely be far worse than the few jobs in the oil and related energy industries lost.

Inaction is inexcusable.
The risk of being wrong for not doing something to reverse or at least restrain man's contribution is far worse than the risk of being "wrong" about man contributing to global warming (i.e. the supposed job killing).

In fact, doing something should provide an opportunity for new jobs in what should be a vibrant new industry of sustainability.

Perhaps those jobs that global warming deniers fear losing should be lost, just as the jobs of buggy whip makers, etc., were lost in their time.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I remember the 1950s. I'm still waiting on the Ice Age that was coming. We were constantly bombarded with all the 'proof' and we all listened to all the scientists predictions that assured us that we were on the cusp of the next Ice Age. Now, 65 years later, I'm still waiting for it.