Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Autonomous vehicles cannot come too soon. It is clear humans cannot handle driving cars. Between texting, drunk driving, emotional driving, vindictive driving, and just plain stupidity, most people have no business driving at least at times. Sure we can maintain parks or tracks for people who want to develop driving skills and test them against themselves or against others, but get the idiot out form behind the controls of automobiles.
Yes. Computers do a better job.
Computers do not text or play on Facebook while driving.
Computers do not stare at an accident alongside the road while driving forwards.
Computers do not get ticked off and use a car as a tool to express their emotions.
Computers do not slam a car into gear and pull into traffic without looking because they are mad at their kids.
Computers do not cut people off, tailgate, or intentionally hit other cars to prove a point, or just because they are in a bad mood, or dislike the look of a person or their choice of vehicle, etc.
Yes, computers will fail at times, but no where near as often as humans fail in driving and they will never fail intentionally due ot emotions or intoxication, or mental imbalance, etc. .
there are many things computers cannot do better than humans but driving is not one of them. As a species, we completely suck at driving.
Someone can make the argument that only several tens of thousands of deaths and a few million injuries a year among a country of 300 million something people isn't too bad. I'm not making that argument though.
You're really sticking by this whole WMD as the real basis for invading Iraq, eh? I didn't think true believers still existed. Would you at least believe that the importance of taking down a nation that can potentially disrupt oil markets at least has some bearing on the decision to invade Iraq?
And yea, it is an automotive forum and the question was why a hard push for EVs. There's at least a reasonable ancillary argument that intersects with the topic in that EVs can help bring the price of oil down which has large ramifications in terms of countries that are not friendly or bad friends to the US and its allies.
Talk about a stretch.
But yes. it was about WMD’s because I lived through all that. Iraq was breach of UN resolution 1441 and breaking U.N. resolutions regarding WMD’s was all we heard about for a decade prior to the war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...esolution_1441
The way the free market economy works, i we get oil at market prices regardless of who is running the oil producing country’s. Any attempt to manipulate the market out of spite ends up like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut
It’s an automotive forum so nobody cares.
If you’re hunting for alternative history on the internet, you’re going to find alternative history links. I bet you find someone recollecting being probed by aliens on the internet if you look hard enough.
you are intentionally blind. nothing i posted was questionable. they arent conspiracy theories, they are the truth that you find when you do a little research (from legitimate sources).
do you support whistle blowers like chelsea manning, edward snowden and julian assange?
Talk about a stretch.
But yes. it was about WMD’s because I lived through all that. Iraq was breach of UN resolution 1441 and breaking U.N. resolutions regarding WMD’s was all we heard about for a decade prior to the war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...esolution_1441
The way the free market economy works, i we get oil at market prices regardless of who is running the oil producing country’s. Any attempt to manipulate the market out of spite ends up like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut
i wonder if that required that the US government put a 100+ acre embassy complex with multiple buildings and up to 16,000 workers in iraq. i have no idea how someone can justify building that.
i guess the intelligence community was just totally wrong on wmd's (innocent misake) and oopsy millions of iraqis die as a result as well as the country is placed in a state of ongoing conflict causing endless death and suffering. just a little oopsie right, the US had no idea that it would go this way. they are just innocent dumb folks. it had nothing to do with the military industrial complex wanting another war to spend trillions on. im not one of those "war to take oil guys" but i am a guy who believes that oil interests bribe politicians to support war so that the price of a barrel goes up. oil was in the 20's a barrel before the iraq invasion and quickly doubled and tripled after. hey, nobody would have planned on that, just some unknown thing that just happened to happen.
i wonder if that required that the US government put a 100+ acre embassy complex with multiple buildings and up to 16,000 workers in iraq. i have no idea how someone can justify building that.
i guess the intelligence community was just totally wrong on wmd's (innocent misake) and oopsy millions of iraqis die as a result as well as the country is placed in a state of ongoing conflict causing endless death and suffering. just a little oopsie right, the US had no idea that it would go this way. they are just innocent dumb folks. it had nothing to do with the military industrial complex wanting another war to spend trillions on. im not one of those "war to take oil guys" but i am a guy who believes that oil interests bribe politicians to support war so that the price of a barrel goes up. oil was in the 20's a barrel before the iraq invasion and quickly doubled and tripled after. hey, nobody would have planned on that, just some unknown thing that just happened to happen.
Middle East instability tends to do that and those oil companies are publicly traded so you were invited to cash in on that if you've really got your finger on the pulse of the world.
Iraq was a dictatorship who's dictator had a history of launching chemical weapons at his own people and anybody else he didn't like. Most of the 90's was spent sending in UN inspectors and having them kicked out. Suspecting him of having WMDs wasn't necessarily a long shot. Eventually his bluff got called and he got hung, his son's got killed, and his country got taken over by his enemies. If anything it served as a lesson that no dictator is immune to consequences.
You can debate the morality of going into Iraq but the reasons for it were always tied to WMDs.
Middle East instability tends to do that and those oil companies are publicly traded so you were invited to cash in on that if you've really got your finger on the pulse of the world.
Iraq was a dictatorship who's dictator had a history of launching chemical weapons at his own people and anybody else he didn't like. Most of the 90's was spent sending in UN inspectors and having them kicked out. Suspecting him of having WMDs wasn't necessarily a long shot. Eventually his bluff got called and he got hung, his son's got killed, and his country got taken over by his enemies. If anything it served as a lesson that no dictator is immune to consequences.
You can debate the morality of going into Iraq but the reasons for it were always tied to WMDs.
you do realize that you are using a chemical attack from 1988 to justify an invasion that happened that happened in 2003 right? if the US cared so much about it, then they probably should have attacked iraq closer to 1988. it is interesting to see people pretend that Saddam gassing the Kurds in the 80's is somehow relevant to a decision to invade Iraq in 2003. it demonstrates a desire to seek a justification for a war that they wanted but clearly didnt have a justification for.
the US didnt have any evidence that iraq was building wmd's. they just werent given the access to inspect that they wanted. there was no requirement that a military invasion would happen if the inspectors didnt have access. iraq also had reasons for wanting to appear more dangerous than it really was.
i think its obvious that the US wanted the war and concocted insufficient reasons for it.
you do realize that you are using a chemical attack from 1988 to justify an invasion that happened that happened in 2003 right? if the US cared so much about it, then they probably should have attacked iraq closer to 1988. it is interesting to see people pretend that Saddam gassing the Kurds in the 80's is somehow relevant to a decision to invade Iraq in 2003. it demonstrates a desire to seek a justification for a war that they wanted but clearly didnt have a justification for.
the US didnt have any evidence that iraq was building wmd's. they just werent given the access to inspect that they wanted. there was no requirement that a military invasion would happen if the inspectors didnt have access. iraq also had reasons for wanting to appear more dangerous than it really was.
i think its obvious that the US wanted the war and concocted insufficient reasons for it.
Whether Bush actually was that stupid or it was just a line to drum up popular support is debatable. The majority Republican Senate intelligence committee made it pretty clear that it was either that Bush was that stupid or just was fine with lying about it to drum up support for his war. There was some concern about some old mustard or Sarin gas precursor that might be sitting around. US intelligence itself was spot on there. There were old chemical weapons sitting around. Not really any threat to us at all, but potentially for our allies they could have launched attacks that could have killed a few thousand people.
Which really gets back to whether Bush was so stupid that he though that some old chemical weapons that weren't particularly dangerous due to sitting around for 10 years could make mushroom clouds over New York City or just that he wanted a war and it made a good drum to pound on is debatable. Personally, I don't think Bush himself was that dumb and he generally did surround himself by fairly intelligent people who I can't imagine were that dumb themselves...
Whether Bush actually was that stupid or it was just a line to drum up popular support is debatable. The majority Republican Senate intelligence committee made it pretty clear that it was either that Bush was that stupid or just was fine with lying about it to drum up support for his war. There was some concern about some old mustard or Sarin gas precursor that might be sitting around. US intelligence itself was spot on there. There were old chemical weapons sitting around. Not really any threat to us at all, but potentially for our allies they could have launched attacks that could have killed a few thousand people.
Which really gets back to whether Bush was so stupid that he though that some old chemical weapons that weren't particularly dangerous due to sitting around for 10 years could make mushroom clouds over New York City or just that he wanted a war and it made a good drum to pound on is debatable. Personally, I don't think Bush himself was that dumb and he generally did surround himself by fairly intelligent people who I can't imagine were that dumb themselves...
Right, and on top of that, why would we be so interested when there are also other countries antagonistic to us with equal or more intent and abilities to attack the US? It’s because Iraq has a massive supply of sweet crude and we and our allies are dependent on such and have been for a while. Even if we meet our own needs temporarily, the global market for oil means price fluctuations are based on global supply and ease of extraction and the US and its allies has, not accidentally, a lot of nations antagonistic to us or incredibly bad friends who have a large majority of the more easily extractable sweet crude. If oil were not of such importance, the idea of invading Iraq on faulty premises or not, would have been ridiculous. It is incredibly bad foreign policy on our part to not move away from these resources as much as possible as quickly as possible.
We instead waited for the technology for alternatives to slowly creep up into mass production, and while it’s good that is happening now, we could have massively accelerated such earlier.
Right, and on top of that, why would we be so interested when there are also other countries antagonistic to us with equal or more intent and abilities to attack the US? It’s because Iraq has a massive supply of sweet crude and we and our allies are dependent on such and have been for a while. Even if we meet our own needs temporarily, the global market for oil means price fluctuations are based on global supply and ease of extraction and the US and its allies has, not accidentally, a lot of nations antagonistic to us or incredibly bad friends who have a large majority of the more easily extractable sweet crude. If oil were not of such importance, the idea of invading Iraq on faulty premises or not, would have been ridiculous. It is incredibly bad foreign policy on our part to not move away from these resources as much as possible as quickly as possible.
We instead waited for the technology for alternatives to slowly creep up into mass production, and while it’s good that is happening now, we could have massively accelerated such earlier.
We’re not invading North Korea or Iran because they’re backed by China and Russia. Saddam was pretty much alienated by everybody. He had successfully picked fights with the UN, Iran, Israel, and his Arab neighbors. He was single handedly flipping the middle finger at the UN but he didn’t have the military strength nor backing by another military power to get away with it. Again, we got oil from Saddam before and after the war at the same price that everybody else was selling it at. After a history of being at war with everyone from ourselves to the Philipeans, to Vietnam almost every decade after our founding, i find it funny that people think it’s oil that’s suddenly the reason behind all of our military aggression.
There’s no such thing as the resource independent utopia that you’re envisioning. Even sand is a limited resource that will one day cause conflicts in foreign lands. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...sis-180964815/
Right, and on top of that, why would we be so interested when there are also other countries antagonistic to us with equal or more intent and abilities to attack the US? It’s because Iraq has a massive supply of sweet crude and we and our allies are dependent on such and have been for a while. Even if we meet our own needs temporarily, the global market for oil means price fluctuations are based on global supply and ease of extraction and the US and its allies has, not accidentally, a lot of nations antagonistic to us or incredibly bad friends who have a large majority of the more easily extractable sweet crude. If oil were not of such importance, the idea of invading Iraq on faulty premises or not, would have been ridiculous. It is incredibly bad foreign policy on our part to not move away from these resources as much as possible as quickly as possible.
We instead waited for the technology for alternatives to slowly creep up into mass production, and while it’s good that is happening now, we could have massively accelerated such earlier.
its about picking wars that will cost a lot of money and not lead to political problems back home (limited blowback). the US doesnt attack north korea because they have successfully developed nuclear weapons. a nuclear weapon being fired will cause problems back home. its funny that the US government has Americans convinced that war with north korea should even be considered because North Korea hasnt invaded or attacked anybody. they are sooooo evil and crazy and yet they havent attacked any countries while the US has decimated nations and mass murdered people in multiple nations. but that kim jong un who attacked nobody, hes so scary!
iran is a little more interesting and uplifting. it seems obvious that (at the moment) the US population has learned that these wars are nothing but corruption and have zero benefit for American (some people may even care about the fact that the US government is mass murdering innocent people). so there is a lot of anti-war pressure from the people. however, the government knows that the pressure will drop when there is a false flag attack that is blamed on iran. that is what id watch out for. the government started small with the attack on the oil tankers and drawing them to attack a drone. eventually they will likely manufacture a larger attack to get their war. hopefully iran develops nuclear weapons before that happens.
once again, we are dealing with a country (iran) that hasnt attacked or invaded anyone. the US has mass murdered people in countries on 2 of irans borders (Iraq and Afghanistan) and constantly threatens them with war for doing what exactly? the US government just wants its wars because the military is a cash cow of corruption (and evil).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
