Most recently, Denmark has applied to join the AIIB.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/29/us-asia-aiib-denmark-idUSKBN0MP04P20150329
And the majority of other EU countries have either applied or have shown great interest.
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
QuantumTeleportation
United States119 Posts
March 30 2015 02:25 GMT
#35581
Most recently, Denmark has applied to join the AIIB. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/29/us-asia-aiib-denmark-idUSKBN0MP04P20150329 And the majority of other EU countries have either applied or have shown great interest. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
March 30 2015 02:31 GMT
#35582
But that's rather of a guess. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41107 Posts
March 30 2015 04:06 GMT
#35583
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — With a negotiating deadline just two days away, Iranian officials on Sunday backed away from a critical element of a proposed nuclear agreement, saying they are no longer willing to ship their atomic fuel out of the country. For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons program. But on Sunday Iran’s deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass. “The export of stocks of enriched uranium is not in our program, and we do not intend sending them abroad,” the official, Abbas Araqchi, told the Iranian media, according to Agence France-Presse. “There is no question of sending the stocks abroad.” Western officials confirmed that Iran was balking at shipping the fuel out, but insisted that there were other ways of dealing with the material. Chief among those options, they said, was blending it into a more diluted form. Source | ||
cLutZ
United States19551 Posts
March 30 2015 04:18 GMT
#35584
Who in the West wants to invade Iran? No one. Negotiating power is essentially 0. | ||
Sandvich
United States57 Posts
March 30 2015 04:36 GMT
#35585
On March 30 2015 13:18 cLutZ wrote: So silly to try and get this treaty. First, treaties of this kind aren't worth the paper they are written on, and second, you have to have a legitimate threat before and after its signed for it to work. Who in the West wants to invade Iran? No one. Negotiating power is essentially 0. Ground invasions aren't everything, especially when trying to stop development of a bomb. Israel and the US can and probably will bomb Iran's centrifuge sites and labs if they think Iran is getting too close. Also lifting of sanctions is the easing of an everpresent weight on the Iranian economy, something I'm sure Iran would prefer to have lifted. | ||
cLutZ
United States19551 Posts
March 30 2015 05:04 GMT
#35586
On March 30 2015 13:36 Sandvich wrote: Show nested quote + On March 30 2015 13:18 cLutZ wrote: So silly to try and get this treaty. First, treaties of this kind aren't worth the paper they are written on, and second, you have to have a legitimate threat before and after its signed for it to work. Who in the West wants to invade Iran? No one. Negotiating power is essentially 0. Ground invasions aren't everything, especially when trying to stop development of a bomb. Israel and the US can and probably will bomb Iran's centrifuge sites and labs if they think Iran is getting too close. Also lifting of sanctions is the easing of an everpresent weight on the Iranian economy, something I'm sure Iran would prefer to have lifted. 100% True. Those parties can also do that even after the treaty is signed, and the US side will have to invest huge sums of resources (regardless of treaty or not) to audit the capabilities of Iran's nuclear program. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
March 30 2015 05:13 GMT
#35587
On March 30 2015 11:25 QuantumTeleportation wrote: How do you think US allies joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will impact on the US economy? Most recently, Denmark has applied to join the AIIB. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/29/us-asia-aiib-denmark-idUSKBN0MP04P20150329 And the majority of other EU countries have either applied or have shown great interest. I doubt it will be impact-full enough to have a noticeable effect on the US. However, a healthy Asian economy is good for the US so kudos to them if it works out. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
March 30 2015 05:15 GMT
#35588
| ||
cLutZ
United States19551 Posts
March 30 2015 05:18 GMT
#35589
On March 30 2015 14:15 ticklishmusic wrote: I don't understand why people so so worried about the AIIB... Because they are afraid it will lead to a pseudo-Gold standard for the US by some mechanism (yet to be discovered). And a significant portion of the US political system think being able to control the value of your currency is very important (aka they blame the Euro for the current problems there). | ||
Sandvich
United States57 Posts
March 30 2015 11:26 GMT
#35590
On March 30 2015 14:04 cLutZ wrote: Show nested quote + On March 30 2015 13:36 Sandvich wrote: On March 30 2015 13:18 cLutZ wrote: So silly to try and get this treaty. First, treaties of this kind aren't worth the paper they are written on, and second, you have to have a legitimate threat before and after its signed for it to work. Who in the West wants to invade Iran? No one. Negotiating power is essentially 0. Ground invasions aren't everything, especially when trying to stop development of a bomb. Israel and the US can and probably will bomb Iran's centrifuge sites and labs if they think Iran is getting too close. Also lifting of sanctions is the easing of an everpresent weight on the Iranian economy, something I'm sure Iran would prefer to have lifted. 100% True. Those parties can also do that even after the treaty is signed, and the US side will have to invest huge sums of resources (regardless of treaty or not) to audit the capabilities of Iran's nuclear program. Still those "huge sums of resources" shouldn't be very large considering there is already an international agency for this purpose. It's also important to remember how expensive the alternative would be in terms of munitions and maintenance of aircraft. | ||
cLutZ
United States19551 Posts
March 30 2015 12:29 GMT
#35591
| ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
March 30 2015 12:53 GMT
#35592
| ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
March 30 2015 13:20 GMT
#35593
On March 30 2015 20:26 Sandvich wrote: Show nested quote + On March 30 2015 14:04 cLutZ wrote: On March 30 2015 13:36 Sandvich wrote: On March 30 2015 13:18 cLutZ wrote: So silly to try and get this treaty. First, treaties of this kind aren't worth the paper they are written on, and second, you have to have a legitimate threat before and after its signed for it to work. Who in the West wants to invade Iran? No one. Negotiating power is essentially 0. Ground invasions aren't everything, especially when trying to stop development of a bomb. Israel and the US can and probably will bomb Iran's centrifuge sites and labs if they think Iran is getting too close. Also lifting of sanctions is the easing of an everpresent weight on the Iranian economy, something I'm sure Iran would prefer to have lifted. 100% True. Those parties can also do that even after the treaty is signed, and the US side will have to invest huge sums of resources (regardless of treaty or not) to audit the capabilities of Iran's nuclear program. Still those "huge sums of resources" shouldn't be very large considering there is already an international agency for this purpose. It's also important to remember how expensive the alternative would be in terms of munitions and maintenance of aircraft. That, plus it's a low price to pay for regional stability. Cheaper than say... an invasion followed by an extended occupation and rebuilding of a country. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
March 30 2015 13:27 GMT
#35594
this presents some difficulties for a theoretical invasion-rebuilding of iran, in that the most ungovernable territory is also the one you want to reform the most. i think iran does possess a core of liberal moderate folks to internally reform, depending on education etc. official education is probably not good at this, but any sort of liberalization of their internets, for example, would be a good push in the right direction. | ||
always_winter
United States195 Posts
March 30 2015 15:55 GMT
#35595
On March 28 2015 11:23 dAPhREAk wrote: my japanese wife is laughing at the japanese history scholars here. Does she have any sisters xD On March 28 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2015 00:53 always_winter wrote: Good ole Monsanto, back in action. Slowing altering our DNA, one spray of Roundup at a time. There does need to be more extensive research surrounding this, and these organizations do need to be held accountable for environmental transgressions, but the only reason they're acting with the impunity that they do is because of these lobbyists and the vast amount of money they throw at our government to shape policy. Lobbyism is the true culprit here, and must be exterminated like the unwanted, invasive, blood-sucking weed that it is. Glyphosate is generally regarded as one of the safest herbicides out there. Monsanto bashing is nothing more than a mix of anti-science and irrational liberal fears. A rational, pro-science progressive begs to differ. And he has links. This one talks about how it probably causes cancer This one talks about how it's polluting our groundwater This one talks about cows retaining glyphosate in their urine And this one talks about how it's now in our blood and urine (dat liberal anti-science irrationality, amrite guiz???) Ask and you shall receive, my friend. Or don't ask and still receive. I'm cool either way. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41107 Posts
March 30 2015 16:08 GMT
#35596
WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare law that took aim at a bureaucratic board labeled by some Republicans as a "death panel" because it was designed to cut Medicare costs. The high court left intact a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that threw out the lawsuit. The court's action in an unsigned order was a victory for Obama administration, which has faced a barrage of legal challenges to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare. The court is currently weighing a separate case challenging health insurance subsidies that are key to Obamacare's implementation. A ruling is due by the end of June. In the case that the justices rejected on Monday, Arizona-based business owner Nick Coons and Dr. Eric Novack, an orthopedic surgeon, sued in 2011 in litigation backed by a conservative legal group. Source | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
March 30 2015 16:16 GMT
#35597
On March 31 2015 00:55 always_winter wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2015 11:23 dAPhREAk wrote: my japanese wife is laughing at the japanese history scholars here. Does she have any sisters xD Show nested quote + On March 28 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On March 28 2015 00:53 always_winter wrote: Good ole Monsanto, back in action. Slowing altering our DNA, one spray of Roundup at a time. There does need to be more extensive research surrounding this, and these organizations do need to be held accountable for environmental transgressions, but the only reason they're acting with the impunity that they do is because of these lobbyists and the vast amount of money they throw at our government to shape policy. Lobbyism is the true culprit here, and must be exterminated like the unwanted, invasive, blood-sucking weed that it is. Glyphosate is generally regarded as one of the safest herbicides out there. Monsanto bashing is nothing more than a mix of anti-science and irrational liberal fears. A rational, pro-science progressive begs to differ. And he has links. This one talks about how it probably causes cancer This one talks about how it's polluting our groundwater This one talks about cows retaining glyphosate in their urine And this one talks about how it's now in our blood and urine (dat liberal anti-science irrationality, amrite guiz???) Ask and you shall receive, my friend. Or don't ask and still receive. I'm cool either way. that lancet paper is not a new study. it's nothing new. the experimental and field testing of glyphosate showed very weak evidence for cancer. here's another recent paper based on the same old studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25716480 using words like probable cause gives a certain impression to the actual evidence involved. it's weak enough to be statistically nonsignificant and the strongest carcinogenic results are from high dosage experiments, which is literally drinking the stuff. a bonus i found funny, | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41107 Posts
March 30 2015 16:20 GMT
#35598
Never before has the U.S. had so much oil spurting up out of the ground and sloshing into storage tanks around the country. There's so much oil that the U.S. now rivals Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer. But there has been some concern that the U.S. will run out of places to put it all. Some analysts speculate that could spark another dramatic crash in oil prices. Everyone in the oil trading business needs information. One thing they want to know these days: How full are oil storage tanks in places like Cushing, Okla.? To find out, ask a professional — someone with eyes on the ground, and in the sky. Genscape, an oil intelligence service, uses planes, helicopters and satellites to track where and how much oil there is all over the world. The company "does a James Bond approach and flies over the storage field twice a week," says Hillary Stevenson, a manager at the firm. In the U.S., you can tell how full some oil tanks are by flying over them and looking down. Others require a little more sleuthing, "by using IR or infrared technology cameras and flying over the tanks," Stevenson says. In Cushing, there are fields of giant storage tanks, some the size of high school football stadiums. Genscape estimates they're about 70 percent full. As the storage tanks get closer to capacity, some analysts say that will drive prices lower. Nobody knows that for certain and there are lots of scenarios. But as space gets tight, it gets increasingly more expensive to store oil. That should discourage speculators from buying oil and storing it, hoping to sell it later for a profit. If fewer speculators are buying, that means there's less demand and prices fall. "We're running out of storage capacity in the U.S.," Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup, said at an event recently in New York. "And we're seeing the indication of the U.S. reaching tank tops. It's hard to know where the price goes down, but it does go down." The price of oil has already fallen from $100 a barrel last summer to $45 or $50 lately. Morse said lack of storage space could drive oil down to about $20 a barrel. Source | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
March 30 2015 18:52 GMT
#35599
Show nested quote + On March 28 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On March 28 2015 00:53 always_winter wrote: Good ole Monsanto, back in action. Slowing altering our DNA, one spray of Roundup at a time. There does need to be more extensive research surrounding this, and these organizations do need to be held accountable for environmental transgressions, but the only reason they're acting with the impunity that they do is because of these lobbyists and the vast amount of money they throw at our government to shape policy. Lobbyism is the true culprit here, and must be exterminated like the unwanted, invasive, blood-sucking weed that it is. Glyphosate is generally regarded as one of the safest herbicides out there. Monsanto bashing is nothing more than a mix of anti-science and irrational liberal fears. A rational, pro-science progressive begs to differ. And he has links. This one talks about how it probably causes cancer This one talks about how it's polluting our groundwater This one talks about cows retaining glyphosate in their urine And this one talks about how it's now in our blood and urine (dat liberal anti-science irrationality, amrite guiz???) Ask and you shall receive, my friend. Or don't ask and still receive. I'm cool either way. Ahh, GMWatch.org - home base for liberal foodie anti-science and irrational fears. Glyphosate really is regarded as one of the safest herbicides out there. That may change if new information comes to light, but that's the current consensus. If it turns out that by dumb luck all the Monsanto haters were right about it, that doesn't somehow make them any less anti-science. If the Bible successfully predicts an earthquake it doesn't suddenly become a science book. As for glyphosate causing cancer - many things do. High temperature frying causes cancer. From a Nature article on this: Doesn’t just about everything cause cancer if you look hard enough? Link Moreover what often matters is the dosage you are exposed to rather than any exposure whatsoever. Flying in a plane will increase the amount of cancer causing radiation you are exposed to, yet few who fly will end up with cancer because of it. This is why the EPA and USDA use 'tolerance levels' for chemicals in food. And before you suggest a tolerance level of zero, bear in mid that plants naturally produce their own chemicals that in some cases can be toxic to humans. The IARC classifies compounds on a scale of decreasing certainty: group 1 is for agents that are definitely carcinogenic to humans; 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans; 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans; 3, not classifiable; and 4, probably not carcinogenic to humans. Monsanto said in its statement, “IARC has classified numerous everyday items in Category 2 including coffee, cell phones, aloe vera extract and pickled vegetables, as well as professions such as a barber and fry cook.” But the IARC classified most of these items at the less dangerous 2B level, whereas glyphosate is in the 'probably carcinogenic' 2A category. Of Monsanto's list, only emissions from high-temperature frying and the occupational exposure experienced as a barber are rated as 2A. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
March 30 2015 18:57 GMT
#35600
On March 31 2015 00:55 always_winter wrote: A rational, pro-science progressive begs to differ. Laying it on a little thick, aren't we? | ||
| ||
ESL Pro Tour
Spring 2024 - AM Playoffs D1
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 CosmosSc2 199 StarCraft: Brood WarPiGStarcraft156 SteadfastSC 152 ZombieGrub126 Nathanias 89 JuggernautJason 84 ForJumy 13 Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • Reevou1 StarCraft: Brood War• intothetv • Kozan • Poblha • Migwel • Laughngamez YouTube • aXEnki • LaughNgamez Trovo • IndyKCrew • Gussbus Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
The PiG Daily
Maru vs TY
Creator vs SHIN
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
Hatchery Cup
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
H.4.0.S
GSL Code S
herO vs Reynor
soO vs GuMiho
|
|