China Yangtze River Information: cruises, maps, pictures, ships, three gorges dam.

Tag: don’t

Three gorges dam HW help and plz dont put links thank you?

Question by : Three gorges dam HW help and plz dont put links thank you?
Historical Implications
Why was the building of the dam first proposed in 1919 and by whom?
Why have archaeologists and historians criticized the building of the Three Gorges Dam?
Governmental Implications
What has been the unfortunate response of local government officials assigned to help families affected by the construction of the Three Gorges Dam?
How has government corruption impacted safety?
Energy Implications
Why did China believe the building of the Three Gorges Dam was an absolute necessity in terms of energy production?
Compare the energy production of the Three Gorges Dam to the Hoover Dam. Although China believed the Dam would provide the nation with 10% of its power needs, what is the current amount of power it actually is supplying?
Environmental Implications
What are some of the environmental implications sited by Chinese officials that have occurred as a result of the Dam project?
What has been the “most worrying consequence” that has occurred as a result of the Dam?
Social Implications
What is the impact on local communities near the construction zone? What about farmland?
Although, over a million people have been displaced by the Dam already, what is the future forecast for local citizens? Is the social turmoil over yet?
Economic Implications
What was an important economic goal associated with the building of the Three Gorges Dam?
How does the Three Gorges Dam improve Yangtze River trade?

Best answer:

Answer by Sven the Swede
All of the answers are YES!

What do you think? Answer below!

Q&A: Why is it only ok when Republicans question a President? Why don’t liberals accuse them of the high insult of?

Question by ♥austingirl♥: Why is it only ok when Republicans question a President? Why don’t liberals accuse them of the high insult of?
being “un-American” like cons do? During Kosovo (where there were 0 troops deaths), Republicans lined up to insult the President during a time of “war”…are they “un-American” or just hypocrites?

“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I’m on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we’re running out of cruise missles. I can’t tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we’re almost out of cruise missles.”
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“I don’t know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag”
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Why didn’t they support our president in a time of war?

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

“The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We’re taking on not just Milosevic. We can’t just say, ‘that little guy, we can whip him.’ We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president.”
-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

“You can support the troops but not the president”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that’s when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started”
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

“Clinton’s bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo’s capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country”
-Pat Buchanan (R)

“These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark … who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton.”
-Michael Savage

“This has been an unmitigated disaster … Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we’ve killed. Ask the refugees that we’ve killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals.”
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring “wars of national liberation.”
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

“America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo’s capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country”
-Pat Buchanan (R)

“By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind’s history. Not even Hitler’s grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia.”
-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media
Sound familiar?
Unwarranted bashing is not what the Dems are doing regarding this current mishandled war, if anything, the Repub.’s questioning of Kosovo was premature and unwarranted as it was handled MUCH better than our current conflict. Keep in mind, Clinton was handed the same war plan from the PNAC that Bush was only he was smart enough to say…no way!

Best answer:

Answer by hey check out this song i wrote
you’re in over your head little kid.

by the way…no one is going to read all that..

anyone with common sense would know that….

Give your answer to this question below!

I don’t think 0bama is for this, but?

Question by Randa: I don’t think 0bama is for this, but?
What if Israel Strikes Iran from the Air?

By Ed Timperlake

With Russia and China slow-rolling any meaningful Iranian sanctions, a fundamental question being left out of the current debate about stopping Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon is this: What could happen after the Israeli Air Force (IAF) takes out Iranian weapon sites?

America, working through the United Nations, has been trying to initiate sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon programs. Our efforts have proven to be rather ineffectual but probably delayed imports of some major state-of-the art weapons from Russia, China and North Korea.

But to Israel it must appear the world does not take very seriously two famous words – “never again!”

When the IAF attacks, Iranian leaders have promised to unleash their missile force. Some intermediate-range ballistic missiles have a high probability of getting through anti-missile defenses and hitting Israeli population centers.

The 620-mile-range Iranian Shahab-3, a derivative of the North Korean No-dong series, is a powerful and dangerous missile. Like the V-2 barrage on London during World War II, innocent people will suffer but the nation will survive, and once an intermediate-range ballistic missile inventory is depleted, that threat is over and unless replenished, it ends.

In an attack against hardened Iranian ground targets, the IAF will first have to neutralize Iranian air defenses, including Iran’s air force. Iran’s current air order of battle includes a mix of Russian, French, Chinese and U.S. design systems, though the actual number of combat-effective aircraft is a guess because of the lack of spare parts and limited insight into the training and tactics of Iranian fighter pilots. However, even older Iranian F-4s, F-14s, MiGs and Sukhois can make a nasty hash of Persian Gulf targets.

So the big unanswered question is: What do Russia, China and North Korea do to help their client? Does an IAF attack lead them to race in and provide arms to help Iran?

The great untold story of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 was President Nixon turning on the spigot of U.S. military aid to make sure Israel survived, including the stripping of U.S. squadrons of jets and sending them to Israel, almost overnight. So there is a very real potential that the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans will take a page from history and re-equip Iran.

With an IAF strike, the United States will have a huge military role independent of any involvement in the initial attack because America will immediately be blamed by Iran and also vilified in the “Arab street.”

The U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor, the world’s best fighter, will be needed and can make a huge difference. Hopefully, F-22s can be immediately on station over Iraq, Afghanistan and every other high value Middle East target. Do we have enough?

Naval air power from aircraft carrier strikes groups will have their hands full protecting sea lines of communication. Mine warfare will be a huge challenge because insurance companies may shut down their tanker clients until mines are swept. Allied navies and the U.S. Navy also will have to neutralize a significant Iranian cruise missile threat, many of which were supplied by China.

Do the United States and our NATO allies have enough troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to beat back an Iranian-instigated ground attack using whatever fanatical forces they can mobilize? The number of these forces is anyone’s guess because Iran can pull the trigger on a lot of fanatics, including mobilizing its terrorist clients, Hezbollah and Hamas.

So the day after an IAF strike there is the potential need for enough U.S. military forces to engage the fight simultaneously both with conventional and unconventional forces. How long this will go on is a great unknown.

With the very real possibility of their citizens being killed in Iran at weapons sites, airfields and surface-to-air missile sites, Russian, Chineseand North Korean leaders and their citizens will not be happy with Israel, the United States and NATO. If any or all of those countries decide for whatever reason to overtly or covertly help Iran, events have the potential to really spin out of control.

But if those three nations do not help Iran, and Iran has its air order of battle destroyed and intermediate missiles depleted, then the world and specifically the Middle East will ultimately be much safer. And regardless of the effectiveness in stopping military weapons flowing into Iran after an IAF strike, America and Europe will still have a very significant, dedicated and smart Iranian-instigated terrorist problem.

• Ed Timperlake is a former Marine Corps fighter pilot who recently served as director of technology assessment for international technology security within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Best answer:

Answer by A
He wont let them and if they do, then they will be on their own, Just like our TROOPS in AFGHANISTAN ARE RIGHT NOW !!!!

What do you think? Answer below!

© 2024 China

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑