Hair Picture Short Style

Dodge Truck

Fastener Roof Top

Body Building Program

Ouch, that was ‘moral deed’

Now here we have two scenarios
1) U.S. invests big into ‘Nucular energy’
2) U.S. fucks up the whole planet with ‘nucular’ waste
3) we all die

Scenario B.
1) U.S. dethrones a genocidal dictator who deployed chemical weapons on his own populance.
2) U.S. really invests to rebuild the country and manages to establish a democratic Arab country.
3) Other Arab nations start to ask questions about the nature of their regimes.

now which one makes more sense from a global perspective.

For the request for 65B$ changed my little picture of the War. Wow, instead of just leaving a mess, the U.S. is actually trying to rebuild a country for a change. If Iraq is really rebuild, then the whole thing was worth it.
Kicking out a fascist dictator and giving the nation of Iraq a new start is a moral dead.

If the U.S. were to cease all oil imports today, would that end the flow of oil out of and of money into the Middle East? Almost all of the consumer goods sold in the U.S. are made in underdeveloped oil-dependent countries. How long would it take too bring nukes or some other alternative energy source to those parts of the world? If we were to spend the $100 billion on research into cheaper safer nucular power, how long would it take for that technology to make it into the hands of those who hate us? $100 billion later: Middle Eastern rulers – still rich, and repressing their people, fostering hatred of Israel and the U.S. (indistinguishable in their eyes); Middle Eastern terrorists – still hate us and trying to kill us, except now they have new and improved nukes.
Wind & Solar baby… except take a look at who’s trying to stop progress in that arena: http://greennature.com/article1031.html

Joe, you don’t have to discuss these issues in the abstract. Both France and the UK (but especially France) have a significantly more ambitious nuclear energy program. They have roughly what we would have if the proto-religious anti-nuclear forces had not prevailed. If there is something egregious in either of those two countries please feel free to point it out.

America seems to be better at winning wars than winning the peace. Perhaps the solution is to invade Saudi Arabia. This would certainly help cut off the funds to terrorists. It will keep the troops busy and moral high.

Interesting that Colin Powell said that he would ask the Iraqis to set the timetable for the progression to a democratic government. Obviously he has not dealt with Arabs much before. Getting a straight answer from a group of Arabs is challenging to say the least.

I think that one would be well served by taking the Uranium Information Centre’s economic forecasts with a grain of salt – they are an unabashed advocacy organization. Most obviously, they totally ignore the costs of defending nuclear plants from terrorists and keeping control of material that could be used for warheads and bombs.

Similarly, the Department of Energy has a history of selling domestic use of the nuclear technology that was developed for military purposes, regardless of the affordability or safety of that technology.

While it’s nice to think that future reactor designs would be safer and more cost-effective than current ones, the complexity of building and running an actual nuclear reactor for decades is such that little confidence can be had from paper plans. The current generation was never thought to be susceptible to core meltdowns…