Don't see how it really helps China. Something that close to the US can always be seized by force if neccessary.
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-building-a-nicaragua-canal-2013-6
QuoteNicaragua has approved plans for a mysterious Hong Kong-based company to build an estimated $40 billion canal across the middle of the country, Luis Manuel Galeano and Michael Weissenstein of The Associated Press report.
The waterway, which would have to be roughly three times as long as the 50-mile Panama Canal, would be one of the largest infrastructure projects ever.
The plan has some serious detractors: Environmentalists say it would devastate Lake Nicaragua, the country's primary source of fresh water, while shipping experts say that it may be an economically unfeasible power play by China.
The company, HK Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Co. (HKND Group), has provided virtually no details about the canal and declined to comment to the AP on the record about its funding and backers.
The path would certainly cross Lake Nicaragua — meaning the water used by the canal's locks could seriously deplete the lake.
"We're at a crossroads because either you use Lake [Nicaragua] for floating boats or you use it for drinking water, but you can't use it for both things at once," Victor Campos, assistant director of the Humboldt Center environmental organization, told the AP.
Furthermore, global engineering and shipping experts told the AP that lowered demand for massive container shipping and increasing competition from potential alternate routes could make the project economic unfeasible.
"It's addressing a need that definitely is not here now and I'm not sure if it's 'a build it and they will come' sort of thing," Rosalyn Wilson, a senior business analyst at the Delcan Corporation, a Toronto-based transportation consultancy and author of the U.S. logistics industry's annual report. "I wouldn't invest my money in it."
(Check out ABC's glance at the history of Nicaragua canal plans.)
panama
Wikimedia Commons
Nicaragua's National Assembly, dominated by President Daniel Ortega's Sandinista Front, disagree with those assessments. They say the canal will transform one of the region's poorest countries by bringing tens of thousands of jobs to the country and fueling an economic boom.
"Global trade demands that this canal is built because it's necessary," Sandinista congressman Jacinto Suarez said during Thursday's legislative debate. "The data shows that maritime transport is constantly growing and that makes this feasible. Opposing it is unpatriotic."
On its website the HKND Group argues that the rapid emergence of China as a manufacturing center and global economic growth will bolster international container traffic for decades to come.
Wilson noted that the global economic slowdown led to a lower demand for massive container shipping, and that climate change means that the Arctic could become a viable alternative to crossing Central America by canal.
Roberto Troncoso, president of the Panamanian Association of Business Executives, told the AP that he believes that the plan represents China's desire to trump the Panama Canal.
The Panama Canal was completed by the U.S. in 1914 at the cost of about $375 million and thounsands of lives. The waterway gave passage to 6.6 million shipping containers on freights in 2011.
"The money is totally irrelevant," he said. "We're talking about national hegemony. China is looking to turn itself into the predominant economic power. Whoever dominates trade, dominates the world."
China has been actively investing in Latin America. In March Ecuador agreed to auction off three million of the country's 8.1 million hectares of pristine Amazonian rainforest to Chinese oil companies.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2013, 11:09:04 PM
Don't see how it really helps China. Something that close to the US can always be seized by force if neccessary.
:huh:
Why would the US do that?
No way would they be able to do it.
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2013, 11:28:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2013, 11:09:04 PM
Don't see how it really helps China. Something that close to the US can always be seized by force if neccessary.
:huh:
Why would the US do that?
No way would they be able to do it.
Don't mind, Tim. He's just contemplating some alt-hist scenario.
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2013, 11:28:14 PM
:huh:
Why would the US do that?
So far, so good.
QuoteNo way would they be able to do it.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2013, 11:28:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2013, 11:09:04 PM
Don't see how it really helps China. Something that close to the US can always be seized by force if neccessary.
:huh:
Why would the US do that?
No way would they be able to do it.
IF NECCESSARYThe article makes it sound like Chinese ownership makes the canal inviolate and gives them a strangelhold over world trade.
If the US went to war with China over Taiwan or to help out Japan or whatever, the canal would be siezed to ensure freedom of trade.
Why do you doubt America's ability to so?
Garbon Alt
HIST happens in the past, so this in no way qualifies.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2013, 11:45:17 PM
IF NECCESSARY
The article makes it sound like Chinese ownership makes the canal inviolate and gives them a strangelhold over world trade.
If the US went to war with China over Taiwan or to help out Japan or whatever, the canal would be siezed to ensure freedom of trade.
Why do you doubt America's ability to so?
I don't.
In the remote theoretical of WW3 then that could certainly be done.
Thinking more realistically however that is unlikely to happen and isn't at all what the canal is about. It would be politically impossible for the US to seize it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 13, 2013, 11:43:29 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2013, 11:28:14 PM
:huh:
Why would the US do that?
So far, so good.
QuoteNo way would they be able to do it.
:lmfao:
:huh:
Why lmfao?
Tyr, when you said "no way they'll be able to do it" it sounds like you're saying "no way the US could take control of this canal"... which doesn't seem right.
If you meant "no way China will be able to actually build the damn thing", then that's a much more reasonable point.
Quote from: Jacob on June 13, 2013, 11:58:50 PM
Tyr, when you said "no way they'll be able to do it" it sounds like you're saying "no way the US could take control of this canal"... which doesn't seem right.
No, that's what I meant. Even a US company aquiring it seems a long shot let alone the US government just outright seizing it.
Quote
If you meant "no way China will be able to actually build the damn thing", then that's a much more reasonable point.
Nah, they can do it if they get the political will together. This canal was considered back before the Panama canal was built, it was just a volcanic eruption in the area and local politics which led to Panama being chosen. Nicaragua is in many ways considered to be an easier build since it largely involves using already existing waterways.
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2013, 11:57:15 PM
It would be politically impossible for the US to seize it.
We deposed a dictator in Panama because he was trafficking drugs. If it's militarily possible, it's politically possible.
Quote from: Tyr on June 14, 2013, 12:02:56 AM
No, that's what I meant. Even a US company aquiring it seems a long shot let alone the US government just outright seizing it.
I think the posited scenario was "in the case of a major armed conflict, the US military can seize control of the canal if necessary".
You think this is unlikely? What would stop them?
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 12:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 14, 2013, 12:02:56 AM
No, that's what I meant. Even a US company aquiring it seems a long shot let alone the US government just outright seizing it.
I think the posited scenario was "in the case of a major armed conflict, the US military can seize control of the canal if necessary".
You think this is unlikely? What would stop them?
The conflict is unlikely. Not that if it did happen the US could just send in a small ship to take over administration of the canal for the duration of the war.
It's an irrelevant issue really. To China the canal has very little military value whatsoever, the only use I could think for it would be in sneaking through unconventional assets to the Atlantic ocean a bit quicker, but that's not at all what the canal is about, its purely about economic and political dominance.
I mean yeah... it's not like when (if) the Chinese finish building this alleged canal the US will just waltz in and say "nice canal, I think I'll take it" out of the blue. That's politically impossible... mainly because the US doesn't do shit like that.
But if push came to shove and the canal was significant, do you doubt that the US could take control of it? It would be an act of war, against significant Chinese interests so it would likely precipitate an armed conflict between the two countries (if one was not already under way)... but do you doubt American ability to actually pull it off?
Quote from: Tyr on June 14, 2013, 12:14:25 AM
The conflict is unlikely. Not that if it did happen the US could just send in a small ship to take over administration of the canal for the duration of the war.
It's an irrelevant issue really. To China the canal has very little military value whatsoever, the only use I could think for it would be in sneaking through unconventional assets to the Atlantic ocean a bit quicker, but that's not at all what the canal is about, its purely about economic and political dominance.
So when you say it's impossible, what you mean is that it's perfectly possible but you're talking about something else. Gotcha :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2013, 11:45:17 PM
Garbon AltHIST happens in the past, so this in no way qualifies.
:lol:
An interesting move. The US essentially announced it's presence on the world stage with the Panama canal.
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 12:17:03 AM
I mean yeah... it's not like when (if) the Chinese finish building this alleged canal the US will just waltz in and say "nice canal, I think I'll take it" out of the blue. That's politically impossible... mainly because the US doesn't do shit like that.
Exactly.
Quote
But if push came to shove and the canal was significant, do you doubt that the US could take control of it? It would be an act of war, against significant Chinese interests so it would likely precipitate an armed conflict between the two countries (if one was not already under way)... but do you doubt American ability to actually pull it off?
In a silly war game scenario of course not. China wouldn't even try to defend it, it's not a military asset. I'd imagine the US would take it without a shot being fired and the only trouble being a few whiney Chinese civilians who are working there.
In what world are transoceanic canals not strategic assets?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2013, 12:36:35 AM
In what world are transoceanic canals not strategic assets?
In a world where even the entrance to the canal is hilariously outside of your navy's operating range and your area of military interest, let alone the ocean on the other side.
Why does China have to fight the US? Couldn't it be useful for China if they went to India or Indonesia?
Quote from: Tyr on June 14, 2013, 12:44:09 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2013, 12:36:35 AM
In what world are transoceanic canals not strategic assets?
In a world where even the entrance to the canal is hilariously outside of your navy's operating range and your area of military interest, let alone the ocean on the other side.
Does not China fill up a whole hell of a lot of container ships bound for every which way on Planet Earth? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 12:23:26 AM
An interesting move. The US essentially announced it's presence on the world stage with the Panama canal.
Exactly. I've been saying for years that China is the real enemy.
But Malthus was like "Hey, China will collapse in two years", like 10 years ago.
Still waiting.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 14, 2013, 01:15:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 14, 2013, 12:44:09 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2013, 12:36:35 AM
In what world are transoceanic canals not strategic assets?
In a world where even the entrance to the canal is hilariously outside of your navy's operating range and your area of military interest, let alone the ocean on the other side.
Does not China fill up a whole hell of a lot of container ships bound for every which way on Planet Earth? :huh:
:huh:
This does make sense for china from china's point of view. The Chinese Communist party lives in a world where politics and diplomacy trumps commerce and contracts. They believe that in a trade war with the US american puppets in panama city will close the canal to chinese commerce. In their mind they need an alternative canal in a country run by either chinese puppets or irrational anti-americans.
This is a source of conflict in the sense that china will now defend the sandinistas diplomatically, like they do the Sudan government.
Quote from: Viking on June 14, 2013, 06:08:14 AM
This does make sense for china from china's point of view. The Chinese Communist party lives in a world where politics and diplomacy trumps commerce and contracts. They believe that in a trade war with the US american puppets in panama city will close the canal to chinese commerce. In their mind they need an alternative canal in a country run by either chinese puppets or irrational anti-americans.
This is a source of conflict in the sense that china will now defend the sandinistas diplomatically, like they do the Sudan government.
I agree with this. The object of the canal isn't to make money. Hell, the canal may never even be built. The objective here is to demonstrate to the people of central and south America that China takes its interests (political, economic, etc) there seriously.
The idea that the first trans-isthmus canal was built at Panama rather than Nicaragua because of some fluke volcanic eruption or whatever is bogus. All of the planning for 20 years before the canal was built compared the two locations, and both long-term studies (before the French effort, and again before the American efforts) ended up concluding that the Nicaraguan route was not economically feasible, despite the lesser elevations that needed to be overcome.
I don't think this canal will ever be built.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 12:55:43 AM
Why does China have to fight the US? Couldn't it be useful for China if they went to India or Indonesia?
Why would the Chinese usea canal in Nicaragua to get to Indonesia?
Of course it won't be built. Nicaragua is pretty wide, even across the southern provinces. That's be a lot of work and would cost a lot more than $40 billion.
Also, watching Jos at work in this thread was pretty funny.
Interesting development, given the real and projected increase in number of 'post-panama' sized container ships and the shift to slow steaming, a canal of the that size might significantly cheapen China to Gulf and East seaboard ports shipping costs.
Good points about the political end of this. China gains some leverage in Central America, supports the local government, makes some inroads. China has become very active all over the world. A lot of interests in Africa. Chinese companies have some large oil contracts with Iraq. Mining in Afghanistan including for rare minerals. Apparently a mineral rich area. I wonder how much similar the US and the nations fighting or that did fight in Iraq or Afghanistan have going on in those countries?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 12:23:26 AM
An interesting move. The US essentially announced it's presence on the world stage with the Panama canal.
If China really wants to make an impression they should do something that hasn't been achieved yet. The Panama Canal was quite a feat: over 100 years ago.
Quote from: Neil on June 14, 2013, 07:36:11 AM
Of course it won't be built. Nicaragua is pretty wide, even across the southern provinces. That's be a lot of work and would cost a lot more than $40 billion.
Also, watching Jos at work in this thread was pretty funny.
I'm waiting for you to bring up the issue of wider and longer locks making dreadnoughts larger than the U.S.S. Texas viable.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2013, 10:38:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 12:23:26 AM
An interesting move. The US essentially announced it's presence on the world stage with the Panama canal.
If China really wants to make an impression they should do something that hasn't been achieved yet. The Panama Canal was quite a feat: over 100 years ago.
Modern tinpot dictatorship aren't very impressive. Just look at what Iran has managed in 20 plus years with 20 plus billion dollars and access to the blueprints and compare it to what a small band of jewish and gay refugees from europe managed to do in 18 months in 1944-1945.
Quote from: grumbler on June 14, 2013, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 14, 2013, 06:08:14 AM
This does make sense for china from china's point of view. The Chinese Communist party lives in a world where politics and diplomacy trumps commerce and contracts. They believe that in a trade war with the US american puppets in panama city will close the canal to chinese commerce. In their mind they need an alternative canal in a country run by either chinese puppets or irrational anti-americans.
This is a source of conflict in the sense that china will now defend the sandinistas diplomatically, like they do the Sudan government.
I agree with this. The object of the canal isn't to make money. Hell, the canal may never even be built. The objective here is to demonstrate to the people of central and south America that China takes its interests (political, economic, etc) there seriously.
The idea that the first trans-isthmus canal was built at Panama rather than Nicaragua because of some fluke volcanic eruption or whatever is bogus. All of the planning for 20 years before the canal was built compared the two locations, and both long-term studies (before the French effort, and again before the American efforts) ended up concluding that the Nicaraguan route was not economically feasible, despite the lesser elevations that needed to be overcome.
I don't think this canal will ever be built.
Yup, you guys sum it up pretty well.
I agree with Vikings points.
But it is interesting that China is taking a diplomatic shot directly at the US sphere of influence. Tit for tat from the Chinese perspective?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 11:06:19 AM
I agree with Vikings points.
But it is interesting that China is taking a diplomatic shot directly at the US sphere of influence. Tit for tat from the Chinese perspective?
If China wants to fund massive infrastructure improvements in central america, that is great. I don't see what that does for China though.
I think the sphere of influence concept is as outdated as making a major splash on the international scene with a canal across the central america. I suspect parts of Chinese leadership don't share that view though.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2013, 11:16:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 11:06:19 AM
I agree with Vikings points.
But it is interesting that China is taking a diplomatic shot directly at the US sphere of influence. Tit for tat from the Chinese perspective?
If China wants to fund massive infrastructure improvements in central america, that is great. I don't see what that does for China though.
I think the sphere of influence concept is as outdated as making a major splash on the international scene with a canal across the central america. I suspect parts of Chinese leadership don't share that view though.
They dont actually have to fund it to make the splash ;) They just have to talk about all their interest in doing it one day and how much that makes the area vital to their security interests.
Quote from: sbr on June 14, 2013, 07:33:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 12:55:43 AM
Why does China have to fight the US? Couldn't it be useful for China if they went to India or Indonesia?
Why would the Chinese usea canal in Nicaragua to get to Indonesia?
They wouldn't. It would keep trade lanes open to Europe though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 11:18:07 AM
They dont actually have to fund it to make the splash ;) They just have to talk about all their interest in doing it one day and how much that makes the area vital to their security interests.
Well put.
Clearly it will not work, as no suitable palindrome can be constructed using Nicaragua.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
Clearly it will not work, as no suitable palindrome can be constructed using Nicaragua.
[in fake "Fu Manchu" Chinese accent]
"Cin lan' a canal Nic?" :P
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2013, 10:38:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 12:23:26 AM
An interesting move. The US essentially announced it's presence on the world stage with the Panama canal.
If China really wants to make an impression they should do something that hasn't been achieved yet. The Panama Canal was quite a feat: over 100 years ago.
[timmah] Giant cargo-hauling zepplins! :w00t: [/timmah]
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.defenceindustrydaily.com%2Fimages%2FAIR_WALRUS_Skyfrieghter_lg.jpg&hash=c49a57327bb19323bdad3e5c10120ed7fabc20c1)
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 11:06:19 AM
I agree with Vikings points.
But it is interesting that China is taking a diplomatic shot directly at the US sphere of influence. Tit for tat from the Chinese perspective?
In their zero sum world, they will take any shot they will get. The Sandinistas are a good target for them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
Clearly it will not work, as no suitable palindrome can be constructed using Nicaragua.
DAMN YOU TO HELL! I was going to make that joke. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on June 14, 2013, 07:08:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
Clearly it will not work, as no suitable palindrome can be constructed using Nicaragua.
DAMN YOU TO HELL! I was going to make that joke. :mad:
Calm down. It wasn't that great a joke.
I was going to phrase it in a way that I think would have been marginally more humorous. Specifically, I was going to write this:
The main reason this won't ever happen is because "A man! A plan! A canal! NICARAGUA!" just doesn't work. :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 14, 2013, 07:12:04 PM
I was going to phrase it in a way that I think would have been marginally more humorous. Specifically, I was going to write this:
The main reason this won't ever happen is because "A man! A plan! A canal! NICARAGUA!" just doesn't work. :(
It still SOUNDS pretty cool.
Quote from: grumbler on June 14, 2013, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 14, 2013, 06:08:14 AM
This does make sense for china from china's point of view. The Chinese Communist party lives in a world where politics and diplomacy trumps commerce and contracts. They believe that in a trade war with the US american puppets in panama city will close the canal to chinese commerce. In their mind they need an alternative canal in a country run by either chinese puppets or irrational anti-americans.
This is a source of conflict in the sense that china will now defend the sandinistas diplomatically, like they do the Sudan government.
I agree with this. The object of the canal isn't to make money. Hell, the canal may never even be built. The objective here is to demonstrate to the people of central and south America that China takes its interests (political, economic, etc) there seriously.
The idea that the first trans-isthmus canal was built at Panama rather than Nicaragua because of some fluke volcanic eruption or whatever is bogus. All of the planning for 20 years before the canal was built compared the two locations, and both long-term studies (before the French effort, and again before the American efforts) ended up concluding that the Nicaraguan route was not economically feasible, despite the lesser elevations that needed to be overcome.
I don't think this canal will ever be built.
Well, it's been more than 100 years. Surely technological advances in the science of engineering have it a more viable endeavor.
Nuclear excavation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKo8g0wAuBc
Maybe they won't be happy until they have one of everything we have.
One aircraft carrier, one moon landing, one Panama canal...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2013, 07:58:43 PM
Well, it's been more than 100 years. Surely technological advances in the science of engineering have it a more viable endeavor.
Unfortunately for this reasoning, the last century has also brought about another canal. The economic viability of a second canal is going to be less than that of the first.
Whoa, I like the idea of giant zeppelin cargo balloons.
That could work.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2Faeroscraft-zeppelin-airship-blimp-187%2Fimage-336.jpg&hash=69495c71c9a54b99cd5d75a1af6a3d67f45dc0e6)
http://rt.com/news/aeroscraft-revolutionary-airship-cargo-187/
Siege. Don't get information from the enemy.
Shit, I didn't realize that was a russian website.
I blame it on google.
That's why I'm here. To guide you, my son. :)
BTW siegy...
1. in your sig, why don't you link to the source of the quote. The Joseph Feinnes Luther movie was quite good.
2. why do you quote an anti-semite in a sig otherwise devoted to Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
BTW siegy...
1. in your sig, why don't you link to the source of the quote. The Joseph Feinnes Luther movie was quite good.
2. why do you quote an anti-semite in a sig otherwise devoted to Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Why are you acting like a douche?
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
BTW siegy...
1. in your sig, why don't you link to the source of the quote. The Joseph Feinnes Luther movie was quite good.
2. why do you quote an anti-semite in a sig otherwise devoted to Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Really?
I was quoting Cayleb II Ahrmahk, King of Charis.
I didn't know the original quote was from Martin Luther King.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
BTW siegy...
1. in your sig, why don't you link to the source of the quote. The Joseph Feinnes Luther movie was quite good.
2. why do you quote an anti-semite in a sig otherwise devoted to Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Really?
I was quoting Cayleb II Ahrmahk, King of Charis.
I didn't know the original quote was from Martin Luther King.
Oy vey
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Really?
I was quoting Cayleb II Ahrmahk, King of Charis.
I didn't know the original quote was from Martin Luther King.
I was wondering how you got Luther's words jumbled up like that.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
BTW siegy...
1. in your sig, why don't you link to the source of the quote. The Joseph Feinnes Luther movie was quite good.
2. why do you quote an anti-semite in a sig otherwise devoted to Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Really?
I was quoting Cayleb II Ahrmahk, King of Charis.
I didn't know the original quote was from Martin Luther King.
:frusty:
Martin Luther <> Martin Luther King.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popsci.com%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Farticle_image_large%2Farticles%2Fcp0206luxHotel_485.jpg&hash=a30eac170fe10bca33e68f26366f0ef489303119)
http://www.popsci.com/aeros/article/2006-02/flying-luxury-hotel
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Martin Luther <> Martin Luther King.
They both told pharaoh to "let my people go".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 16, 2013, 06:16:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Martin Luther <> Martin Luther King.
They both told pharaoh to "let my people go".
That reminds me, I ended up in Alton Illinois yesterday. :yucky:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bestourism.com%2Fimg%2Fitems%2Fbig%2F7897%2FThe-Flying-Aeroscraft-Hotel-California-USA_Huge-flying-airship_14604.jpg&hash=996153a3c806f0d208803a0d32314f6c72316968)
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
BTW siegy...
1. in your sig, why don't you link to the source of the quote. The Joseph Feinnes Luther movie was quite good.
2. why do you quote an anti-semite in a sig otherwise devoted to Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Really?
I was quoting Cayleb II Ahrmahk, King of Charis.
I didn't know the original quote was from Martin Luther King.
:frusty:
Martin Luther <> Martin Luther King.
what ya min?
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:16:04 PM
I was quoting Cayleb II Ahrmahk, King of Charis.
I just realized what character this was. Boy, did that series turn to shit in a hurry!
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 06:24:24 PM
what ya min?
Martin Luther was the Kraut who invented Protestantism. Martin Luther King was the guy who invented voting for blacks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2013, 07:39:14 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 06:24:24 PM
what ya min?
Martin Luther was the Kraut who invented Protestantism. Martin Luther King was the guy who invented voting for blacks.
Man Harvard degrees are overrated <_<
Siege went to Harvard?
Quote from: Bluebook on June 16, 2013, 01:59:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
BTW siegy...
1. in your sig, why don't you link to the source of the quote. The Joseph Feinnes Luther movie was quite good.
2. why do you quote an anti-semite in a sig otherwise devoted to Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Why are you acting like a douche?
You not from around here are you? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 16, 2013, 08:10:17 PM
Siege went to Harvard?
Well it's possible, they let Yip in!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2013, 07:39:14 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 06:24:24 PM
what ya min?
Martin Luther was the Kraut who invented Protestantism. Martin Luther King was the guy who invented voting for blacks.
I'm pretty sure Sherman invented voting for Blacks. However much he tried not to.
Quote from: katmai on June 16, 2013, 08:12:43 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 16, 2013, 08:10:17 PM
Siege went to Harvard?
Well it's possible, they let Yip in!
Man no background checks for the guided tour?
Can I build a suit, like a balloon suit, fill it up with helium to 80% buyuancy, and then jump around like 50 meters high?
This is insane:
http://www.break.com/video/insane-flyby-in-wingsuit-2124423
This is not what I want.
I want a helium suit to jump slowly and high. Like anti-gravity.
Quote from: Ron PaulIt's Happening!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28206683
Quote8 July 2014 Last updated at 12:13
Nicaragua canal route: Atlantic-Pacific link unveiled
The Nicaraguan government and the company behind plans to build a canal linking the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean have settled on a route.
It would stretch 278km (173 miles) from Punta Gorda on the Caribbean through Lake Nicaragua to the mouth of the river Brito on the Pacific.
Environmentalists have expressed concerns about the plans to build a canal to rival that of Panama.
Nicaragua says it will break ground on the $40bn (£23bn) project this year.
Environmental concerns
Engineers for the Hong Kong-based HKND Group said the canal would be between 230m and 520m wide and 27.6m deep.
Nicaragua said it had chosen the route so it would avoid areas of great biodiversity, indigenous territories and environmentally protected lands.
But environmentalists are still concerned about the effects it may have on Lake Nicaragua, Central America's largest lake and an important source of fresh water.
The commission in charge of building the canal said environmental and social impact studies would be carried out on the route and changes would still be possible.
It said it expected construction to begin in December and to be finished within five years.
'No rivalry'
Sceptics point out that it took the United States 10 years to build the Panama Canal, which at 77km is less than a third of the length of the planned canal through Nicaragua.
But Nicaragua insists engineering and construction techniques have moved on since 1914, when the Panama Canal was completed.
Nicaraguan officials say their waterway would "complement" the Panama Canal rather than be in direct rivalry to it.
They say a bigger canal is essential to allow for increased global trade and ever larger tankers, many of which are too large for the Panama Canal, even after its current expansion.
They are confident the project will help lift the country out of poverty.
Paul Oquist, a close adviser to President Daniel Ortega on the project, said that formal employment in Nicaragua "would double thanks to the canal and its multiplier effect".
Mr Oquist told the BBC that the projects surrounding the canal, such as the creation of two free-trade zones, two ports linked by a railway and an international airport would create "a formative change in job creation".
The government estimates it will lift more than 400,000 people out of general poverty by 2018 with the help of revenues created by the project.
Opposition lawmakers have been sceptical of the government's projections.
Congressman Eliseo Nunez of the Independent Liberal Party called the announcement of the canal route "a propaganda game, a media show to continue generating false hopes of future prosperity among Nicaraguans".
By what percent will the country's surface area drop I ponder