China declares war on ISIS after terrorists claim to have executed Chinese hostage

[SlyPokerDog]

China will join the war on ISIS after four of its citizens were killed by Islamist terror groups in two separate attacks this week.

The vow comes after ISIS claimed to have killed Beijing man Fan Jinghui, 50, alongside Norwegian national Ole Johan Grimsgaard-Ofstad, 48, who were feared to have been taken hostage in September.

Chinese President Xi Jinping: "China will strengthen cooperation with the international community, resolutely crack down on violent terrorist operations that devastate innocent lives and safeguard world peace and security."

He also called on the relevant departments to boost security work "outside China's borders".

ISIS had earlier published pictures of the two men in two full-page posters which listed the men as 'for sale' in its propaganda publication Dabiq.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/china-declares-war-isis-after-6862200

 

[maxiep]

They really do want to bring the Apocalypse, don't they? I mean, mess with the spineless West all you wish, but when you start picking on Russia and China, that's just asking for it. They've killed more people in their pogroms than the populations of Syria and Iraq combined.

 

[maxiep]

Looks like with the French, Russians and Chinese all pissed at ISIS, we'll be "leading from behind" again. Having no influence in the Middle East is awesome.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Looks like with the French, Russians and Chinese all pissed at ISIS, we'll be "leading from behind" again. Having no influence in the Middle East is awesome.

I'm fine with that. Fuck the middle east. We've played there long enough. I would love to turn over our bases in Saudi Arabia to China. Have Russia and Iran on one side and China on the other in the coming cluster fuck Saudi civil war.

 

[maxiep]

I'm fine with that. Fuck the middle east. We've played there long enough. I would love to turn over our bases in Saudi Arabia to China. Have Russia and Iran on one side and China on the other in the coming cluster fuck Saudi civil war.

We first need to become completely self-sufficient in terms of energy. That means nuclear, more coal plants and frack the hell out of this country. We also need to encourage China and Mexico in their energy development. Moreover, we need to also be able to have a North American energy policy that can guarantee sufficient energy for Western Europe.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That means nuclear, more coal plants and frack the hell out of this country.

Nuclear is fine. Combining nuclear with coal liquefaction even better. Fracking is a huge mistake. Contamination of water is not worth it. Putting a giant straw into Canada to drink their oily milkshake is awesome.

 

[julius]

I hope the US goes all "exit stage left"

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

China about to get dat oil

sent from a phone you've probably never heard of

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Great, now China will have an unlimited supply of oil to turn into sugar free strawberry and grape parfait. Distributed by Great American Foods llc of course.

Note...I made up Great American Foods llc. If such a company exists and they import toxic shit from China to sell as food, fuck them.

 

[maxiep]

I hope the US goes all "exit stage left"

Huge mistake. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. We exit, nations like Russia and China will step up.

 

[julius]

Huge mistake. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. We exit, nations like Russia and China will step up.

Good, let them. Let that part of the world actually deal with this shit instead of us. And let that part of the world be the target instead of us.

 

[Further]

If we put the money we spend on interfering in the Middle East into energy independence the need for their oil would be null.

 

[Denny Crane]

If we put the money we spend on interfering in the Middle East into energy independence the need for their oil would be null.

Not even close.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

So when will obama pay for my solar panels?

 

[Further]

Not even close.

1. 
   The Cost of US Wars Since 9/11: $1.6 Trillion. The cost of US war-making in the 13 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks reached a whopping $1.6 trillion in 2014, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).Dec 23, 2014

1. 
   Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

You can't actually get 100% of a country's power from nuclear fission, because the reactors are hard to throttle up and down to follow daily load fluctuations. But France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear plants (using a special load-following design) so that's a technologically-realistic target.

The US uses about 4000 terawatt-hours of electricity per year. Which means we could readily get 3000 TWh/yr from nuclear power. That's an average generation output of 342.5 gigawatts.

Load-following nuclear plants do not run at full capacity all the time, and therefore have capacity factors in the upper 70% range. But to be conservative (and to make the numbers come out pretty) I'll say 71.3% capacity factor. That means we need 480 gigawatts of nuclear capacity, which is 400 nuclear reactors at 1.2 GW each. (For reference, there are already over 500 nuclear reactors in the world.)

Let's assume we want all new nuclear plants, in order to get the best possible safety features and to incorporate load-following technology that is not used in the US's existing reactor fleet. At a ballpark price of $5 billion per reactor, that comes out to $2 trillion. I think it would be much cheaper than this if we capture some economies of scale, but that's a fairly conservative estimate.

we use 18 million barrels a day but produce 8 billion per day, a current deficit of 10 billion

We have the worlds largest natural gas pipeline and the largest reserve of functional natural gas in the world.

We also produce a shit load of coal and have an ever increasing amount of solar, wind and other forms of energy.

If we couldn't gain energy independence for the costs of our wars, we certainly could get close. By some measures we already are, or are very close. The problem is we rely too heavily on crude oil as one component of that energy. If we as a nation can simply shift our energy consumption from crude oil to nuclear, natural gas and even clean coal, we could be every independent in short order. As it currently stands we will become very close to energy independent within the next decade but likely not actually reach the final goal unless it is truly made a national priority.

 

[barfo]

So I guess this makes Ben Carson right after all... he's prescient!

barfo

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Huge mistake. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. We exit, nations like Russia and China will step up.

those that refuse to ignore history are doomed to repeat it

 

[SlyPokerDog]

those that refuse to ignore history are doomed to repeat it

You mean like arming Muslim rebels like we did in Afghanistan?

What could go wrong?

 

[Denny Crane]

we use 18 million barrels a day but produce 8 billion per day, a current deficit of 10 billion

We have the worlds largest natural gas pipeline and the largest reserve of functional natural gas in the world.

We also produce a shit load of coal and have an ever increasing amount of solar, wind and other forms of energy.

If we couldn't gain energy independence for the costs of our wars, we certainly could get close. By some measures we already are, or are very close. The problem is we rely too heavily on crude oil as one component of that energy. If we as a nation can simply shift our energy consumption from crude oil to nuclear, natural gas and even clean coal, we could be every independent in short order. As it currently stands we will become very close to energy independent within the next decade but likely not actually reach the final goal unless it is truly made a national priority.

I think T Boone Pickens had a plan that would cost the same as the wars to reduce our energy independent by 43%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_Plan

Pickens wants to reduce American dependence on imported oil by investing approximately $US1trillion in new wind turbine farms for power generation, which he believes would allow the natural gas currently used for power generation to be shifted to fuel CNG trucks and other heavy vehicles. Pickens stated that his plan could reduce by $300 billion (43%) the amount the country spends annually on foreign oil.[1]

 

[Further]

I think ...

There are several issues that could help significantly towards bringing the US much closer to energy independence that would be heavily disputed by you or any Libertarian. A much greater governmental investment in non-oil tech, major incentives towards conversion AND major penalties (in the way of significant tariffs) on crude oil. I understand fully that you will argue we already have those things and they are unsuccessful, I would say we have some limited success because we haven't gone nearly far enough and the pendulum will only full swing with enough force. But neither you nor I can win this argument because we don't have enough proof or available proof. I would point to Germany as evidence of progress and you would point to Germany as evidence that even with all that backing they still have gasoline cars.

So, there really isn't a debate to be had between us. A fundamental difference in how we view the world. I do truly understand your vantage point and I dismiss it, and I would assume you do the same for me. I guess the good thing is, neither of us have power of dictatorship. But we do have votes, and for that I'm happy.


As far as Pickens, I think he makes a lot of sense on a lot of topics, especially energy, but I also think he is blinded on this topic towards certain outcomes. Also, there has been a lot of progress already on this front since that plan was devised. We are currently very close to energy independence if you quantify that as US total energy out vs US total energy in. However, if you define it as US required crude oil intake, than we have a major major deficit. I think we are better to define the current problem not as energy independence and instead as oil dependence. or at least foreign oil dependance. Because the amount of natural gas, coal and even oil that we ship out is tremendous. But if you favor free markets than we will always be bringing in oil from the Middle East as long as we require 18B gallons/day. We need to start incentivizing conversion to natural gas, hybrids, fully electric, hydrogen and any crude oil reductive method. Gas should cost much much more at the pump and then the free market along with governmental subsidies (paid for in great part by those gas tariffs) will find the solution and get us off the Mid East teat.

 

[santeesioux]

You mean like arming Muslim rebels like we did in Afghanistan?

What could go wrong?

Sylvester Stallone movies from thirty years ago that look really funny today where he helps groups like the Taliban?

 

[Denny Crane]

There are several issues that could help significantly towards bringing the US much closer to energy independence that would be heavily disputed by you or any Libertarian. A much greater governmental investment in non-oil tech, major incentives towards conversion AND major penalties (in the way of significant tariffs) on crude oil. I understand fully that you will argue we already have those things and they are unsuccessful, I would say we have some limited success because we haven't gone nearly far enough and the pendulum will only full swing with enough force. But neither you nor I can win this argument because we don't have enough proof or available proof. I would point to Germany as evidence of progress and you would point to Germany as evidence that even with all that backing they still have gasoline cars.

So, there really isn't a debate to be had between us. A fundamental difference in how we view the world. I do truly understand your vantage point and I dismiss it, and I would assume you do the same for me. I guess the good thing is, neither of us have power of dictatorship. But we do have votes, and for that I'm happy.


As far as Pickens, I think he makes a lot of sense on a lot of topics, especially energy, but I also think he is blinded on this topic towards certain outcomes. Also, there has been a lot of progress already on this front since that plan was devised. We are currently very close to energy independence if you quantify that as US total energy out vs US total energy in. However, if you define it as US required crude oil intake, than we have a major major deficit. I think we are better to define the current problem not as energy independence and instead as oil dependence. or at least foreign oil dependance. Because the amount of natural gas, coal and even oil that we ship out is tremendous. But if you favor free markets than we will always be bringing in oil from the Middle East as long as we require 18B gallons/day. We need to start incentivizing conversion to natural gas, hybrids, fully electric, hydrogen and any crude oil reductive method. Gas should cost much much more at the pump and then the free market along with governmental subsidies (paid for in great part by those gas tariffs) will find the solution and get us off the Mid East teat.

Pickens' plan consisted of exactly the kinds of massive investment you are talking about. $1T invested in windmill farms and incentives to convert vehicles to natural gas.

I simply think you underestimate the cost involved.

Germany invested massive amounts of money and still generates 50% or more of its energy from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. They are even still building coal power plants. Coal power accounts for 45% of their energy, nuclear another 16%. They import 1/3 of their energy. I simply wouldn't point to it as a success, but rather as an example of a boondoggle. The government there did wise up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

In 2013 coal made up about 45% of Germany's electricity production (19% from hard coal and 26% from lignite).[14]



http://www.voanews.com/content/green-energy-expansion-in-germany-comes-at-a-hefty-price/1858699.html

Green Energy Expansion in Germany Comes at a Hefty Price

FRANKFURT—Germany is one of the top producers of renewable energy in the world. Since the year 2000 the country’s production of clean electricity jumped from a modest 6 percent to 25 percent last year in an effort to shift the German economy from nuclear power and fossil fuels towards wind and solar energy. Despite the progress, German consumers pay among the highest electricity prices in the European Union.

Lissy Ishang started turning off appliances to save energy when she moved away from home a decade ago. Back then, Lissy’s family was paying half the price Germans pay today for electricity and this year German consumers are expected to pay even more.

Today an average family of four in Germany spends about $107 a month for electricity. This year, their monthly bill will be $129, almost three times more than a family in the United States.

“I always make sure that things are turned off when I leave home. I pull plugs and shut down appliances. I am trying to be careful how much we use because electricity is really, really expensive,” Ishang said.

The price hike is due to an increase in the Renewable Energy Surcharge. The surcharge is one of many government fees, taxes and subsidies that are passed on to average consumers and fund Germany’s renewable energy sector.

 

[Further]

I don't have time to check right now, but if I recall correctly, Pickens is against nuclear power. These modern plants would be the best investments and for under the cost of the wars (1.6 T) we could convert 65-75% of the us energy to this if we decided. I'm a big proponent as long as the plants are built with all the new safety measures and to the most rigorous codes. Top notch new plants run approximately 5 billion per plant. The amount of energy left over would be close, if not fully, coverable via our current natural gas and oil production.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't have time to check right now, but if I recall correctly, Pickens is against nuclear power. These modern plants would be the best investments and for under the cost of the wars (1.6 T) we could convert 65-75% of the us energy to this if we decided. I'm a big proponent as long as the plants are built with all the new safety measures and to the most rigorous codes. Top notch new plants run approximately 5 billion per plant. The amount of energy left over would be close, if not fully, coverable via our current natural gas and oil production.

About 1/2 of americans are against nuclear power.

I'm all for nuclear power. The regulatory hurdles are ridiculous. There are only 61 nuclear power plants in the country. It takes decades to get one approved and built.

Pickens knows his stuff

Your figure for the cost of nuclear power plant construction is understated by a factor of 2-3x.

Nuclear doesn't make cars move.

 

[barfo]

Denny, your two links seem to disagree completely. Is wind and solar in Germany 25%, or 2.1%?

barfo

 

[julius]

You mean like arming Muslim rebels like we did in Afghanistan?

What could go wrong?

or going into Vietnam and losing 50K+ lives for...what exactly?

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, your two links seem to disagree completely. Is wind and solar in Germany 25%, or 2.1%?

barfo

Natural gas and nuclear are clean energy.

Wind and solar is 2.1%.

 

[barfo]

About 1/2 of americans are against nuclear power.

I'm all for nuclear power. The regulatory hurdles are ridiculous. There are only 61 nuclear power plants in the country. It takes decades to get one approved and built.

Just elect any of the Republican candidates, they all promise they'll get rid of all those pesky regulations.

Getting rid of safety regulations is a good thing, right? And those candidates wouldn't be lying about getting rid of regulations, would they?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Just elect any of the Republican candidates, they all promise they'll get rid of all those pesky regulations.

Getting rid of safety regulations is a good thing, right? And those candidates wouldn't be lying about getting rid of regulations, would they?

barfo

Getting rid of regulations that serve no purpose and hinder progress is a good thing. We might look to France's regulations to see what works better than our own. They get 75% of their power from nuclear and their regulations actually are safer and deal with the waste better than ours.

You really want regulations that cripple the economy.

See how strawman logic fail works?

 

[barfo]

Getting rid of regulations that serve no purpose and hinder progress is a good thing. We might look to France's regulations to see what works better than our own. They get 75% of their power from nuclear and their regulations actually are safer and deal with the waste better than ours.

No, they are a different country and we CANNOT and MUST NOT ever consider whether another country might be doing something better. See, e.g. healthcare.

You really want regulations that cripple the economy.

Yes, I'm constantly proposing regulations that would cripple the economy. You got me. Like, background checks on gun sales, and, uh, I can't remember the others. Oops.

barfo