Comment Re:Furthermore, Saudi Arabia must be destroyed (Score 1) 399
Yep, sorry about that :P
Economically viable large scale fusion reactors would hardly make a difference on oil countries. Grid power generation from petroleum amounts to around 5% (only 1% in the USA). In cars the electricity is already considered next to free compared to the price of battery through its lifetime. And batteries are not energy dense enough yet to power long distance planes and ships. So I believe it would not do much to the Saudis.
Is this really the case though? It seems like every time I think I`ve found a grass root revolution, there would actually be a 1% guy pulling the important strings.
Its important to note that it was really a 29$ computer with shipping included. I remember during the campaign even if you wanted 100 pieces, you would still pay 29$ x 100. And with that price I can already buy a tablet with the tablet stuff for a similar price with shipping included (currently listed as 31$).
Price of any stock will go up when the demand is higher than the supply. And if supplier business is truly not currently economically viable, less fields will be used for cocoa, supply will go down, and price will go up again. No need to talk about what one ethically "should" pay for it.
Given the ownership of the land in question was and is arguable, I think you overstate your case. The Mexicans fired on US troops who where occupying land that Mexico understood the US had annexed when they admitted the Republic of Texas into the union. They knew full well that a war could be the result of this action, but they did it anyway. They then lost the SECOND attempt to retain this land by force, this time to the USA...
The Mexicans shot first. But its not as if the annexation of Texas supported by illegal american immigrants isnt an act of war either. Apparently said immigrants were not happy about Mexico abolishing slavery. Mexico didnt have the military might to win the war, but you cant blame them for being upset about it.
BUT, the real clincher is the sale of additional lands to the USA. Had Mexico felt it had a claim to the lands taken previously, why on earth did they sell *more* land to the USA? I think that clearly establishes that Mexico had dropped all claims to the lands to the north of the purchased land and wanted to establish a well defined border with the USA which stands to this day.
They knew they had lost, with no opportunity in sight to win their land back.
Did we take territory from Mexico during a war? Of course, during the war we actually took ALL of Mexico, seems to me we gave a lot of it back and I'd bet that the people who live there now wish we had kept it all. Also don't forget that this war was to protect the disputed areas called Texas which had already declared it's independence and then joined the Union in 1845. Territory that had gone though multiple country's hands, including France, Spain before Mexico ended up with it. But this war was initiated by Mexico's attacks, and when the USA totally defeated Mexico, we gave most of it back to them.
Not to take away from your speech, but I believe you are severely downplaying the Mexican conquest. Mexico lost almost half their territory, while USA increased almost 50% in size. I wouldnt be so quick to mark Mexico as the first agressor in the war either. Pre independence, Texas was first pretty much conquered by US settlers, in a somewhat similar fashion to how the Muslim arabs conquered Lebanon from the Christian arabs.
Not that this changes how the USA is good or bad today
You make it sound like the education is given away, only to lose the investment. US universities are a good business with their high prices. Besides that I agree with your point about a lost recruitment opportunity.
I believe iOS had a marketshare decline compared to last year. Growing faster than that doesn't sound too impressive
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde
