I'm getting an SUV....
Kjstudio
Yes, I am getting a Big Assed SUV to replace the van that went into the pond.
I really like the ones with the third row seat. We've looked at the Explorer
XLT and the Expedition, but that's about it. I have to get something this
weekend. We need an SUV so it can pull the boat, and it will be the family
vehicle as well.
I found a Merc Mountaineer that I loved too...the Premier Edition..it was
gorgeous..but about 2,000 out of our price range. Ken wouldnt budge and
neither would the salesman. >:/
Recommendations???
<b>***Cindi***
</b>
Imndano
>neither would the salesman. >:/
>Recommendations???
Call Tina, she's in your neck of the woods and she would HAVE to give ya a good
deal, :)
<B><Font Color="#FF0000"> Patti
</Font Color> <Font Color="#000080">"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as
if you'll die today."
-James Dean
Maria T3
Well, we just turned in our Pathfinder. Very peppy...may get another...but
hubby likes the new GMC. Good price, too. Also, have a Lexus...sleeker looking,
but also great pick-up.
~ Maria ~
~~Through the years we all will be together
If the fates allow
Hang a shining star upon the highest bough
And have yourself a Merry Little Christmas now~~
kelly
third row seat, and a trailer hitch for the boat. It's a wonderful ride.
Good luck.
Dan
well.
I likes me some of these:
<a href="http://www.chevrolet.com/tahoe/">Chevy Tahoe</a>
<a href="http://www.chevrolet.com/trailblazer/">Chevy Trailblazer</a>
<a href="http://www.toyota.com/sequoia/">Toyota Sequoia</a>
<a href="http://www.toyota.com/4runner/">Toyota 4Runner</a>
Kjstudio
>I likes me some of these:
>
>
>Chevy Trailblazer
>
>Toyota Sequoia
>
>Toyota 4Runner
>
>
>
>
>
>
well thanks Dandy Dan :)
<b>***Cindi***
</b>
TheGoochie
Before that we had the Jeep Cherokee but like you wanted to get something with
a third row..Make sure you get the runner with it..I can't believe how that
little touch makes the look of the whole car..KEEP IT AWAY FROM THE GIRLS!!..;)
Kjstudio
oh that's a given LOL
Thanks Gooch!!
<b>***Cindi***
</b>
Nettorfret
No ideas, hopefully everybody else can help ya
<b><font color="#006600"><i>~*~Nettie~*~</i></font></b>
<i><font color="#cc0000">Are we going to be friends forever? Asked Piglet.
Even longer, Pooh answered. <br>
--A. A. Milne Winnie the Pooh </font></i>
</body>
</html>
Dan
Name it Virgil.
NCDuckBoy
Try maybe either the Mazda Tribute or Liberty.
Kjstudio
>>Recommendations???
>
>Name it Virgil.
>
ROFL
well ok!
<b>***Cindi***
</b>
Bbuttons1
>gorgeous..but about 2,000 out of our price range.
The Exploder has a similar edition. It's the Limited and a little cheaper.
The Expedition really is an extra big-assed SUV, maybe more than you want or
need, but good for towing. The Exploder or the Mount and Steer with the towing
package would do you well. I happen to know a Ford employee that would be more
than happy to extend the Friends and Neighbors discount your way if you are so
inclined. Also, they usually run new discounts after the 1st of the year.
Barbara
...I just haven't been the same since that house fell on my sister...
Mark K.
SUVs sink much quicker.
You know that they use twice as much gas, have crap handling, are
expensive, and label you as someone with an inferiority complex?
They also broadcast the fact that in reality you don't give a fuck
about the environment.
Do you really want to blow thousands on shifting tons of scrap around
for (slowly) moving one ass (most of the time) and to support your
egos? As for boats, if it needs an SUV to pull it, it would be wiser
and cheaper to pay for storage near to where you actually use it or to
get a smaller boat.
Mark K.
Kjstudio
<b>Now HOW did I know you'd be here, Mark?</b>
>Do you really want to blow thousands on shifting tons of scrap around
>for (slowly) moving one ass (most of the time) and to support your
>egos?
<b>Yes I do. Oh, and there will be six asses in this SUV Monday thru Friday as
I drive the afternoon car pool to school.</b>
>As for boats, if it needs an SUV to pull it, it would be wiser
>and cheaper to pay for storage near to where you actually use it or to
>get a smaller boat.
<b>No... now see, that is just not gonna happen. It's a Ski Nautique that we
use nearly every weekend from March - October and we live on a lake.</b>
<b>Sorry, Mark, a Mini Cooper just wont cut it for my family.</b>
<b>***Cindi***
</b>
DramaMama
>The Expedition really is an extra big-assed SUV, maybe more than you want or
>need, but good for towing. The Exploder or the Mount and Steer with the
>towing
>package would do you well. I happen to know a Ford employee that would be
>more
>than happy to extend the Friends and Neighbors discount your way if you are
>so
>inclined. Also, they usually run new discounts after the 1st of the year.
>
>
>Barbara
How nice of you, Barbara*** :) <g>
We just got a Ford Explorer, Cindi..very happy with it..a friend has the
Mountaineer & loves it.
Ang has 2 Chevy Tahoe's different years..very nice as well..
We have an old Toyota 4 Runner...has been great.
Good luck!
:)
Chaysters
But we didn't love the $600+/month payments...
Chris
Always remember to forget the things that made you sad
But never forget the things that make you glad
Always remember to forget the friends that prove untrue
But don't forget to remember the ones that stuck by you
Always remember to forget
Chaysters
>
We have a Tribute...nice little baby SUV...don't think it'd tow a boat...and it
doesn't have a 3rd row seat available.
kdo711
No expert here on SUV's. When we were shopping around the only vehicle big
enough for all of us and our stuff was the Suburban (I don't think the
Expedition was around yet). We looked at others but even some of the other
models with a third row of seats just didn't have the room in the back for
stuff. From what I have heard/know the Expedition is bigger but drives even
more like a truck. The newer model Suburbans supposively don't drive as much
like trucks. (but I can't confirm or deny this -- only heard it -- LOL).
There's my expert opinion -- LOL.
Monique
<font color=#CC0000></font color>
Carol
BMW X5
Rusty red, this baby moves.
Love it!
Carol
Carol
>expensive,
Spoken by someone who himself is full of gas.
As for boats, if it needs an SUV to pull it, it would be wiser
>and cheaper to pay for storage near to where you actually use it or to
>get a smaller boat.
Nice of you to plan their transportation/recreation needs.
Carol
>
Reruns76
>gorgeous..but about 2,000 out of our price range. Ken wouldnt budge and
>neither would the salesman. >:/
>Recommendations???
Mercury and Ford are in cahoots....many of their vehicles are identical.. with
minor changes. Have you checked out all the Fords to see if the Mountaineer
has a twin? Fords generally run a tad cheaper too...
Aplejack
>>gorgeous..but about 2,000 out of our price range. Ken wouldnt budge and
>>neither would the salesman. >:/
>>Recommendations???
I think Cindi should go back without Ken. Just smile and ask him nicely in
that sweet Southern voice...
AJ
Susan
<font color="#800080"></font><font color="#800080">
Phebes </font> <font color="#0000FF">
The mind contains all possibilities.
~ Buddha </font>
NCDuckBoy
>
We have a Tribute...nice little baby SUV...don't think it'd tow a boat...and it
doesn't have a 3rd row seat available.>>>
That's true Chris. My parents have the Tribute. It did well towing a 5 x 8
UHaul trailer from Colorado to NC; however I don't think it can go bigger than
that. Tribute already has a hitch as well.
Me...I may never go for an SUV again lol...not because of Mr Mark's rantings
though...other reasons.
NCDuckBoy
than happy to extend the Friends and Neighbors discount your way if you are so
inclined. >>>
OOOo I may take the person up on that if I am in the market to get rid of my
Suzuki down the line...not like I am driving AT ALL right now...:(
Stolynn
>>Recommendations???
>
>Name it Virgil.
>
LMAOOO
<b><font color="#FF0000">Lynn
Best friends are the siblings God forgot to give us. <b><font color="#FF0000">
Kjstudio
>I think Cindi should go back without Ken. Just smile and ask him nicely in
>that sweet Southern voice...
>AJ
LOLOL
well now I hadnt thought of that.....
<g>
<b>***Cindi***
</b>
Mark K.
> <b>Now HOW did I know you'd be here, Mark?</b>
>
> >Do you really want to blow thousands on shifting tons of scrap around
> >for (slowly) moving one ass (most of the time) and to support your
> >egos?
>
> <b>Yes I do. Oh, and there will be six asses in this SUV Monday thru Friday as
> I drive the afternoon car pool to school.</b>
I bet you still do more mileage on your own.
>
>
> >As for boats, if it needs an SUV to pull it, it would be wiser
> >and cheaper to pay for storage near to where you actually use it or to
> >get a smaller boat.
>
> <b>No... now see, that is just not gonna happen. It's a Ski Nautique that we
> use nearly every weekend from March - October and we live on a lake.</b>
So you don't need it to tow the boat then.
>
> <b>Sorry, Mark, a Mini Cooper just wont cut it for my family.</b>
The average small car would do you fine. (Oh btw, oil prices are rising)
Mark K.
>
>
>
>
> <b>***Cindi***
> </b>
Kjstudio
>
>
Yes, I do. We live in FLA.....land of lakes. We ski on about 4 different lakes
nearby, and we tow it when we go camping,etc. Sorry, still getting the SUV!
<b>***Cindi***
</b>
Chaysters
>with
>minor changes.
Mercury & Ford are owned by the same company---Mercs are fancier & more $$ than
Fords but basically the same vehicle...So are the Mazda Tributes & Ford
Escapes, btw.
The same applies for Chevys & GMCs--all run by same company.
Mark K.
> >You know that they use twice as much gas, have crap handling, are
> >expensive,
>
> Spoken by someone who himself is full of gas.
Actually we use petrol in the rest of the world. The yanks misnamed
petra oleum, it's not a gas.
>
> As for boats, if it needs an SUV to pull it, it would be wiser
> >and cheaper to pay for storage near to where you actually use it or to
> >get a smaller boat.
>
> Nice of you to plan their transportation/recreation needs.
Yes, SUV drivers need all the help with intellectual tasks they can
get.
>
> Carol
> >
Mark K.
Bbuttons1
>>with
>>minor changes.
SUV's for the Ford "umbrella"
Lincoln - Aviator
Mercury - Mountaineer
Ford - Explorer
All have the same base chassis...different rides, trim packages, etc. The
"target" ride for the Aviator is completely different than the Explorer.
People who are going to spend big bucks for a SUV want it to ride like a car.
(Even though it's a truck)
Mark K.
> >Mercury and Ford are in cahoots....many of their vehicles are identical..
> >with
> >minor changes.
>
> Mercury & Ford are owned by the same company---Mercs are fancier & more $$ than
> Fords but basically the same vehicle...So are the Mazda Tributes & Ford
> Escapes, btw.
>
> The same applies for Chevys & GMCs--all run by same company.
>
>
> Chris
You could get one of these AND a used SUV. There are lots of them
driving around here. You'd use it more than a fuel guzzling, tons of
scrap, Stupid Useless Vehicle.
http://www.thesmart.co.uk/index.html
Mark K.
kdo711
Canada in that -- LOL.
Mark K.
So go by train if you're scared of flying.
Mark K.
kdo711
>Mark K.
Not afraid of flying -- just don't want to spend the bucks and the train would
be twice as much as the plane if we used tht option...and we would STILL need
to rent a vehicle when we arrive that would hold five peole and their
luggage.............
NCDuckBoy
be twice as much as the plane if we used tht option...>>>
She's right on that. Amtrak has long been known to gouge the public. One of
my relatives worked for Amtrak for YEARS in the National Ops Center
(northeast)...and would be the first to tell you that Amtrak was gouging...
Chaysters
and they don't carry 5 passengers & 3 dogs...so sorry to pop your ever present
bubble.
Mark K.
If you bought a normal car and invested the saving, you could get
quite a few Canada trips including a package rental car.
Plane and train are much safer than driving there btw.
In 2002, 42815 people were killed in road accidents in the US.
I do understand though that you need to return to Canada regularly to
keep your sanity.
Mark K.
kdo711
Excursion.
Bbuttons1
>the
>Excursion.
Ford isn't going to make those anymore. They were deemed to be too big-assed.
Mark K.
> So, all you SUV owners, what kind do you have and do you recommend it?
> Yes, I am getting a Big Assed SUV to replace the van that went into the pond.
> I really like the ones with the third row seat. We've looked at the Explorer
> XLT and the Expedition, but that's about it. I have to get something this
> weekend. We need an SUV so it can pull the boat, and it will be the family
> vehicle as well.
> I found a Merc Mountaineer that I loved too...the Premier Edition..it was
> gorgeous..but about 2,000 out of our price range. Ken wouldnt budge and
> neither would the salesman. >:/
> Recommendations???
> </b>
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=479418
'US climate policy bigger threat to world than terrorism'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
09 January 2004
Tony Blair's chief scientist has launched a withering attack on
President George Bush for failing to tackle climate change, which he
says is more serious than terrorism.
Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, says in an
article today in the journal Science that America, the world's
greatest polluter, must take the threat of global warming more
seriously.
"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are
facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," Sir
David says.
The Bush administration was wrong to pull out of the Kyoto protocol,
the international effort to limit the emission of greenhouse gases,
and wrong to imply the protocol could adversely affect the US economy,
Sir David says. "As the world's only remaining superpower, the United
States is accustomed to leading internationally co-ordinated action.
But the US government is failing to take up the challenge of global
warming.
"The Bush administration's strategy relies largely on market-based
incentives and voluntary action ... But the market cannot decide that
mitigation is necessary, nor can it establish the basic international
framework in which all actors can take their place."
Results of a major study showed yesterday that more than a million
species will become extinct as a result of global warming over the
next 50 years. Sir David says the Bush administration is wrong to
dispute the reality of global warming. The 10 hottest years on record
started in 1991 and, worldwide, average temperatures had risen by 0.6C
in the past century.
Sea levels were rising, ice caps were melting and flooding had become
more frequent. The Thames barrier was used about once a year in the
1980s to protect London but now it was used more than six times a
year.
"If we could stabilise the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration
at some realistically achievable and relatively low level, there is
still a good chance of mitigating the worst effects of climate
change."
But countries such as Britain could not solve the problem of global
warming in isolation, particularly when the US was by far the biggest
producer of greenhouse gases on the planet. "The United Kingdom is
responsible for only 2 per cent of the world's emissions, the United
States for more than 20 per cent (although it contains only 4 per cent
of the world's population)," Sir David says.
"The United States is already in the forefront of the science and
technology of global change, and the next step is surely to tackle
emissions control too. We can overcome this challenge only by facing
it together, shoulder to shoulder. We in the rest of the world are now
looking to the US to play its leading part."
Advisers to President Bush have suggested climate change is a natural
phenomenon and criticised climate researchers for suggesting that
rises in global temperatures are the result of man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
But Sir David says the "causal link" between man-made emissions and
global warming is well-established and scientists cannot explain the
general warming trend over the past century without invoking
human-induced effects.
The Cambridge academic, who was born in South Africa and emigrated to
Britain, implies that the US has a moral obligation to follow the UK's
lead in trying to limit the damage resulting from rising world
temperatures and climate change.
"As a consequence of continued warming, millions more people around
the world may in future be exposed to the risk of hunger, drought,
flooding, and debilitating diseases such as malaria," Sir David says.
"Poor people in developing countries are likely to be most vulnerable.
For instance, by 2080, if we assume continuing growth rates in
consumption of fossil fuels, the numbers of additional people exposed
to frequent flooding in the river delta areas of the world would be
counted in hundreds of millions assuming no adaptation measures were
implemented."
President Bush has said more research on global warming is needed
before the US will consider the sort of action needed to comply with
the Kyoto protocol, but Sir David says that by then it could be too
late. "Delaying action for decades, or even just years, is not a
serious option. I am firmly convinced that if we do not begin now,
more substantial, more disruptive, and more expensive change will be
needed later on."
Britain is committed to cutting its emissions of greenhouse gases by
60 per cent from 1990 levels by around 2050 and believes other
developed countries, such as the US, should follow suit. Bush
officials say that would damage their economy and provide an unfair
advantage to the country's international competitors. But Sir David
says that it is a "myth" that reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes
us poorer. "Taking action to tackle climate change can create economic
opportunities and higher living standards," he says.
A spokeswoman for the US State Department said that she was unable to
comment directly on Sir David's article.
9 January 2004 09:52
Search this site:
Printable Story
Zen
wrote:
>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=479418
>
>
>'US climate policy bigger threat to world than terrorism'
>By Steve Connor, Science Editor
>09 January 2004
>"The United States is already in the forefront of the science and
>technology of global change, and the next step is surely to tackle
>emissions control too. We can overcome this challenge only by facing
>it together, shoulder to shoulder. We in the rest of the world are now
>looking to the US to play its leading part."
They will...just as soon as they're done bombing the crap out of Iraq
for housing non-existent wmds and Al-Qaida terrorists.
>Advisers to President Bush have suggested climate change is a natural
>phenomenon and criticised climate researchers for suggesting that
>rises in global temperatures are the result of man-made emissions of
>greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
And most of those gaseous emissions are emanating from the White
House. Don't light a match...
>"Poor people in developing countries are likely to be most vulnerable.
>For instance, by 2080, if we assume continuing growth rates in
>consumption of fossil fuels, the numbers of additional people exposed
>to frequent flooding in the river delta areas of the world would be
>counted in hundreds of millions assuming no adaptation measures were
>implemented."
That's okay. G.W. has jobs and citizenship status waiting for each and
every one of them in the U.S. All they need to do first is to get into
their SUVs and drive on over...first country on the right...
>Britain is committed to cutting its emissions of greenhouse gases by
>60 per cent from 1990 levels by around 2050 and believes other
>developed countries, such as the US, should follow suit. Bush
>officials say that would damage their economy and provide an unfair
>advantage to the country's international competitors. But Sir David
>says that it is a "myth" that reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes
>us poorer. "Taking action to tackle climate change can create economic
>opportunities and higher living standards," he says.
>
>A spokeswoman for the US State Department said that she was unable to
>comment directly on Sir David's article.
Is this any surprise? Probably no one at the White House has even read
it yet.
kdo711
countries.. The problem lies in the enforcement and punishment that is doled
out. Georgia is a state that doesn't meet standards set by the environmental
legislation. They get fined/cited all the time. They lose road funding, pay
fines, etc....but still don't fix the cause of the pollution.
EvieC123
US will consider the sort of action needed to comply with the Kyoto protocol
Then GET IT DONE! Global warming is a HUGE threat to the earth, IMO.
*~Evie~*
Mark K.
There's a similar problem in the UK, in many cases it's cheaper for a
company to pay the fine than to comply to the laws.
A key statistic is that the US with only 4% of the world population
produces 20% of co2 pollution.
Mark K.
kdo711
>produces 20% of co2 pollution.
Funny you should mention that stat......what percentage of goods does the US
produce. What I am trying to say is --- Britain's percentage would be much
lower but it isn't a big manufacturing country.......Bermuda would have a very
low percentage but it's not because Bermuda has better pollution controls.
This stat is one of those that doesn't show the whole story. If the USA is
producing 20% of the world's goods or gross national production then we have to
acknowledge that the increase production/manufacturing (even with pollution
controls) would impact this stat.
Mark K.
> >A key statistic is that the US with only 4% of the world population
> >produces 20% of co2 pollution.
>
> Funny you should mention that stat......what percentage of goods does the US
> produce.
The US has a huge trade deficit.
> What I am trying to say is --- Britain's percentage would be much
> lower but it isn't a big manufacturing country.......Bermuda would have a very
> low percentage but it's not because Bermuda has better pollution controls.
> This stat is one of those that doesn't show the whole story. If the USA is
> producing 20% of the world's goods or gross national production
It imports more than it exports.
> then we have to
> acknowledge that the increase production/manufacturing (even with pollution
> controls) would impact this stat.
> Monique
> <font color=#CC0000></font color>
It's the other way around. Since it imports more than it exports, it
creates more pollution despite being a net importer.
Mark K.
(btw Buying SUVs for long distance driving sure doesn't help either,
it's just about the dumbest vehicle to use for that)
kdo711
>creates more pollution despite being a net importer.
No, no. . Good try. The fact the USA imports more than exports doesn't mean
that it doesn't produce more than other countries. What is the production rate
per capita of various countries. Doesn't matter what is imported or exported.
If Britain produces 1000 units and exports 500 they don't produce more than the
USA that may produce 2000 units and import 500. You would still expect the
rate of pollution to be higher in the USA because the production rate is
higher.
Mark K.
Do you have the real data?
Mark K.
kdo711
>Mark K.
>
No -- I am veery clear in stating that 'what if' and very careful not to go
searching for stats that don't explain the whole picture.
Mary
>that it doesn't produce more than other countries. What is the production
>rate
>per capita of various countries. Doesn't matter what is imported or
>exported.
>
>If Britain produces 1000 units and exports 500 they don't produce more than
>the
>USA that may produce 2000 units and import 500. You would still expect the
>rate of pollution to be higher in the USA because the production rate is
>higher.
>Monique
worth it...... :-)
Mary
People are lonely because they build walls instead of bridges.
Joseph Fort Newton
kdo711
>worth it...... :-)
LOL -- I'm enjoying this.
Mark K.
Fair enough. Apart from neither of us having that data, I say it
doesn't detract from the fact that 4% of the world population creates
20% of the world's CO2 pollution, and is hellbent on increasing this
abysmal record.
Over here in GB, we had no rain to speak of for months last year and
many reservoirs are still nearly empty.
(A month ago we went for a walk and to do some mushroom picking to a
local reservoir, instead of finding a romantic lake it was a mud pit.
Did see a stag though...)
Mark K.
Imndano
>>worth it...... :-)
I read an interesting viewpoint in my local paper, basically the writer said
trying to rationalize or reason with these terrorist or fundamental extremists
was useless, that truly the ONLY thing that would make any of them happy or to
not hate the US is for the US to become a Muslim nation and follow their
beliefs.
I think that is probably true, I honestly do not think Mark would be happy with
ANY American President in office, his, like the rest of the extremists, hatred
for the US and all things related is without real basis, it's basically a
hatred of an entire people and religion ( see zioni$ts ) that believes in
allowing everyone to be free to choose what or whom they wish to worship.
Just my opinion :)
<B><Font Color="#FF0000"> Patti
</Font Color> <Font Color="#000080">"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as
if you'll die today."
-James Dean
Mark K.
> >>that it's so not
> >>worth it...... :-)
>
> I read an interesting viewpoint in my local paper, basically the writer said
> trying to rationalize or reason with these terrorist or fundamental extremists
> was useless, that truly the ONLY thing that would make any of them happy or to
> not hate the US is for the US to become a Muslim nation and follow their
> beliefs.
>
> I think that is probably true, I honestly do not think Mark would be happy with
> ANY American President in office, his, like the rest of the extremists, hatred
> for the US and all things related is without real basis,
"Dislike of the US is without basis", now there's a joke. Not even a
politician would make such a remark. You don't even have an inkling of
how woefully out of touch you are with the real world.
> it's basically a
> hatred of an entire people and religion ( see zioni$ts ) that believes in
> allowing everyone to be free to choose what or whom they wish to worship.
..And free to ethnically cleanse a whole country, amongst a host of
other crimes and injustices. You forget that over 4 million refugees
are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave Palestine
to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants. Funny how you
whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
>
> Just my opinion :)
>
> <B><Font Color="#FF0000"> Patti
> </Font Color> <Font Color="#000080">"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as
> if you'll die today."
> -James Dean
How old are you?
Mark K.
Imndano
>to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
There is an intelligent argument.
> Funny how you
>whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
>don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
>
You have NEVEAH EVEAH read me do such a thing because I haven't ever expressed
an opinion on this board regarding that matter, you are generalizing once
again.
>How old are you?
>
>Mark K.
>
Why???? Because I disagree with you I must be an idiot and a child also?
Go back and reread my post, there is no talking to extremists who are filled
withy hatred, prejuidice and bias.
joseph irvin
"Mark K." <mark...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7a6f91bb.04011...@posting.google.com...
> imn...@aol.com (Imndano) wrote in message
news:<20040112184110...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> > >>that it's so not
> > >>worth it...... :-)
> >
> > I read an interesting viewpoint in my local paper, basically the writer
said
> > trying to rationalize or reason with these terrorist or fundamental
extremists
> > was useless, that truly the ONLY thing that would make any of them happy
or to
> > not hate the US is for the US to become a Muslim nation and follow their
> > beliefs.
> >
> > I think that is probably true, I honestly do not think Mark would be
happy with
> > ANY American President in office, his, like the rest of the extremists,
hatred
> > for the US and all things related is without real basis,
>
> "Dislike of the US is without basis", now there's a joke. Not even a
> politician would make such a remark. You don't even have an inkling of
> how woefully out of touch you are with the real world.
How out of touch are we...explain?
> > it's basically a
> > hatred of an entire people and religion ( see zioni$ts ) that believes
in
> > allowing everyone to be free to choose what or whom they wish to
worship.
>
> ..And free to ethnically cleanse a whole country, amongst a host of
> other crimes and injustices.
What country did the US ethnically cleanse?
You forget that over 4 million refugees
> are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave Palestine
> to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
Wasn't Israel, a country promised by the Balfour Declaration...the
declaration taking its name from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour?
Was GB in any way responsible? What are other arab countries doing to help
the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees immigrate to
their country.
Funny how you
> whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
> don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
Should any govt accept illegal immigrants? Why have legal immigration? Did
British citizens every complain about immigration when the Commonwealth
countries were free to immigrate to GB?
Zen
>>"God" gave Palestine
>>to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
>
>There is an intelligent argument.
>
>> Funny how you
>>whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
>>don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
>>
>You have NEVEAH EVEAH read me do such a thing because I haven't ever expressed
>an opinion on this board regarding that matter, you are generalizing once
>again.
>
>>How old are you?
>>
>>Mark K.
>>
> Why???? Because I disagree with you I must be an idiot and a child also?
Two things I was always brought up not to ask a person is their age
and how much money they make.
>Go back and reread my post, there is no talking to extremists who are filled
>withy hatred, prejuidice and bias.
So don't talk to him. That's not meant to be an endorsement to filter
anyone though. Censorship sucks.
joseph irvin
Well that is Sir David opinion, here is another. I cannot help but remember
in the early 70's there was a demonstration in Washington DC, during the 1st
Earth Day when the big worry then was another 'ice age', the Earth was
cooling. Now for another opinion by Thomas Sowell:
June 6, 2002
Global lying
The campaign to stampede the federal government into drastic action to
counter "global warming" has never let honesty cramp its style. The most
recent ploy has been the release of a study from the Environmental
Protection Agency which concluded that human actions were responsible for
rising temperatures and that government restrictions on those actions were
necessary to prevent various disastrous scenarios from unfolding.
The problem is that all this hysteria was based on a computer model which
had been shown to be incompatible with factual data. Patrick Michaels, a
professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, had
already exposed the inability of that computer model to account for existing
temperature changes before its release to the public was allowed to suggest
that it was able to predict future temperature changes.
This is by no means the first time that a supposedly "scientific" report
turned out to be a political report wrapping itself in the mantle of
science. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report,
garnished with the names of numerous eminent scientists, which was widely
hailed in the media as proving the dangers of global warming. The problem
with that particular report was that the scientists whose names were put on
display had not written the report nor even seen it before it was released.
One of those eminent scientists, MIT professor Richard S. Lindzen, publicly
repudiated the conclusions of the study on which his name had been
displayed. As Professor Lindzen, a meteorologist, pointed out, "the climate
is always changing. Innumerable factors go into temperature changes and many
of these factors, such as the changing amounts of heat put out by the sun
during different eras, are beyond the control of human beings."
The same kind of ploy was used by a United Nations report on climate in
1996. After the scientists had reviewed the report, the following sentence
was added, without their knowledge -- "the balance of evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate." But that is not what the
scientists said.
What are all these ploys about? There are people in the environmental cult
and in the media who are hell-bent to have the United States and other
countries sign the Kyoto treaty that would drastically restrict how our
economy works and what kind of lives the average American could lead.
Anything that allows them to impose their superior wisdom and virtue on the
rest of us gets a sympathetic hearing. Moral melodrama also has great appeal
to some. As Eric Hoffer said, "Intellectuals cannot operate at room
temperature."
Every record hot day is trumpeted in the media as showing global warming.
But record cold days are mentioned only as isolated curiosities, if they are
mentioned at all.
Environmental cults have already stampeded us into recycling programs that
studies have shown to be counterproductive -- except for appeasing shrill
zealots and allowing them to feel like they are saving the planet.
In the 1970s, the big scare was global cooling -- a "new ice age." And of
course drastic government action was needed to head it off. There has to be
moral melodrama.
The real question is not whether human beings have any effect on
temperature. The question is: How much? And how much can we change the
temperature -- and at what price? And what if we do nothing? What will
happen? And how dire will it be?
Professor Michaels estimates that most of the global warming over the past
century has been due to the sun's getting hotter. If we do everything the
Kyoto treaty calls for, it would not lower the average temperature in the
world by half a degree over the next 50 years. But it could wreck some
economies.
And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global warming,
such as a longer growing season, but we are not likely to see a lot of those
benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of warming. Moreover, it is
mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As Professor Michaels
points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to minus 28 in January." Is
anyone complaining -- other than professional complainers and professional
doomsayers?
Zen
<j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>This is by no means the first time that a supposedly "scientific" report
>turned out to be a political report wrapping itself in the mantle of
>science. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report,
>garnished with the names of numerous eminent scientists, which was widely
>hailed in the media as proving the dangers of global warming. The problem
>with that particular report was that the scientists whose names were put on
>display had not written the report nor even seen it before it was released.
This is not the kind of slanted reportage which people on this planet
(including Americans) want or need right now. If Stephen Hawkings were
to sign a 'report' such as this with his own hand (even with the aid
of trusted doctors), then this human would be more inclined to believe
it. Thanks for the heads up...
>One of those eminent scientists, MIT professor Richard S. Lindzen, publicly
>repudiated the conclusions of the study on which his name had been
>displayed. As Professor Lindzen, a meteorologist, pointed out, "the climate
>is always changing. Innumerable factors go into temperature changes and many
>of these factors, such as the changing amounts of heat put out by the sun
>during different eras, are beyond the control of human beings."
Hell...with all of our present-day forensics technologies and
specialized DNA testing and crap like that....we can't even tell for
certain who killed Jon Benet Ramsey, discern the whereabouts of Jimmy
Hoffa or even know for sure who really killed the Kennedys. Modern
science, on the other hand is able to completely explain when Helios
was on the rag and off of it, even before recorded human history...??
Bah...
>The same kind of ploy was used by a United Nations report on climate in
>1996. After the scientists had reviewed the report, the following sentence
>was added, without their knowledge -- "the balance of evidence suggests a
>discernible human influence on global climate." But that is not what the
>scientists said.
>
>What are all these ploys about? There are people in the environmental cult
>and in the media who are hell-bent to have the United States and other
>countries sign the Kyoto treaty that would drastically restrict how our
>economy works and what kind of lives the average American could lead.
So...SUVs are okay...? That's all inquiring American minds really want
to know...and one English one...
>Anything that allows them to impose their superior wisdom and virtue on the
>rest of us gets a sympathetic hearing. Moral melodrama also has great appeal
>to some. As Eric Hoffer said, "Intellectuals cannot operate at room
>temperature."
LOL
>Every record hot day is trumpeted in the media as showing global warming.
>But record cold days are mentioned only as isolated curiosities, if they are
>mentioned at all.
In Canada, we complain about those too, believe you me...
>Environmental cults have already stampeded us into recycling programs that
>studies have shown to be counterproductive -- except for appeasing shrill
>zealots and allowing them to feel like they are saving the planet.
>
>In the 1970s, the big scare was global cooling -- a "new ice age." And of
>course drastic government action was needed to head it off. There has to be
>moral melodrama.
>
>The real question is not whether human beings have any effect on
>temperature. The question is: How much? And how much can we change the
>temperature -- and at what price? And what if we do nothing? What will
>happen? And how dire will it be?
>
>Professor Michaels estimates that most of the global warming over the past
>century has been due to the sun's getting hotter. If we do everything the
>Kyoto treaty calls for, it would not lower the average temperature in the
>world by half a degree over the next 50 years. But it could wreck some
>economies.
>
>And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global warming,
>such as a longer growing season, but we are not likely to see a lot of those
>benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of warming. Moreover, it is
>mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As Professor Michaels
>points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to minus 28 in January." Is
>anyone complaining -- other than professional complainers and professional
>doomsayers?
And then Mark said...
joseph irvin
"EvieC123" <evie...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040109104853...@mb-m29.aol.com...
Well this is what they were saying about 'global warming' in the lates 60's
and 70's. Global cooling was a huge threat to the Earth back then.
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it
continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world
chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. --
Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for
the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year
2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. --
Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
>
>
>
> *~Evie~*
>
>
>
>
Mark K.
>
> Well that is Sir David opinion, here is another. I cannot help but remember
> in the early 70's there was a demonstration in Washington DC, during the 1st
> Earth Day when the big worry then was another 'ice age', the Earth was
> cooling. Now for another opinion by Thomas Sowell:
> June 6, 2002
>
> Global lying
>
> The campaign to stampede the federal government into drastic action to
> counter "global warming" has never let honesty cramp its style. The most
> recent ploy has been the release of a study from the Environmental
> Protection Agency which concluded that human actions were responsible for
> rising temperatures and that government restrictions on those actions were
> necessary to prevent various disastrous scenarios from unfolding.
>
> The problem is that all this hysteria was based on a computer model which
> had been shown to be incompatible with factual data.
and a 101 others haven't.
> Patrick Michaels, a
> professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, had
> already exposed the inability of that computer model to account for existing
> temperature changes before its release to the public was allowed to suggest
> that it was able to predict future temperature changes.
Yet Prof Michaels doesn't deny that the world has warmed considerably.
>
> This is by no means the first time that a supposedly "scientific" report
> turned out to be a political report wrapping itself in the mantle of
> science. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report,
> garnished with the names of numerous eminent scientists, which was widely
> hailed in the media as proving the dangers of global warming. The problem
> with that particular report was that the scientists whose names were put on
> display had not written the report nor even seen it before it was released.
>
> One of those eminent scientists, MIT professor Richard S. Lindzen, publicly
> repudiated the conclusions of the study on which his name had been
> displayed. As Professor Lindzen, a meteorologist, pointed out, "the climate
> is always changing. Innumerable factors go into temperature changes and many
> of these factors, such as the changing amounts of heat put out by the sun
> during different eras, are beyond the control of human beings."
So it could also be that global warming caused by humans is actually
much worse, but hidden by temporary activity that cools the planet.
>
> The same kind of ploy was used by a United Nations report on climate in
> 1996. After the scientists had reviewed the report, the following sentence
> was added, without their knowledge -- "the balance of evidence suggests a
> discernible human influence on global climate." But that is not what the
> scientists said.
>
> What are all these ploys about? There are people in the environmental cult
> and in the media who are hell-bent to have the United States and other
> countries sign the Kyoto treaty that would drastically restrict how our
> economy works and what kind of lives the average American could lead.
Ah, it's all a conspiracy by the world's climatologists to quash the
yank economy.
> Anything that allows them to impose their superior wisdom and virtue on the
> rest of us gets a sympathetic hearing. Moral melodrama also has great appeal
> to some.
> As Eric Hoffer said, "Intellectuals cannot operate at room
> temperature."
>
> Every record hot day is trumpeted in the media as showing global warming.
> But record cold days are mentioned only as isolated curiosities, if they are
> mentioned at all.
>
> Environmental cults have already stampeded us into recycling programs that
> studies have shown to be counterproductive -- except for appeasing shrill
> zealots and allowing them to feel like they are saving the planet.
>
> In the 1970s, the big scare was global cooling -- a "new ice age." And of
> course drastic government action was needed to head it off. There has to be
> moral melodrama.
>
> The real question is not whether human beings have any effect on
> temperature. The question is: How much? And how much can we change the
> temperature -- and at what price? And what if we do nothing? What will
> happen? And how dire will it be?
>
> Professor Michaels estimates that most of the global warming over the past
> century has been due to the sun's getting hotter. If we do everything the
> Kyoto treaty calls for, it would not lower the average temperature in the
> world by half a degree over the next 50 years. But it could wreck some
> economies.
No doubt anyone pushing the industrialist line might get extra funding
for his department. That's how it works in politics.
>
> And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global warming,
> such as a longer growing season,
Duh.
> but we are not likely to see a lot of those
> benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of warming. Moreover, it is
> mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As Professor Michaels
> points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to minus 28 in January." Is
> anyone complaining -- other than professional complainers and professional
> doomsayers?
What about the places that get too, hot and the rise in sea levels,
hmm? Funny, first he says that it's not happening and then he points
out places where it is.
Mark K.
Mark K.
> "Mark K." <mark...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7a6f91bb.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > imn...@aol.com (Imndano) wrote in message
> news:<20040112184110...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> > > >>that it's so not
> > > >>worth it...... :-)
> > >
> > > I read an interesting viewpoint in my local paper, basically the writer
> said
> > > trying to rationalize or reason with these terrorist or fundamental
> extremists
> > > was useless, that truly the ONLY thing that would make any of them happy
> or to
> > > not hate the US is for the US to become a Muslim nation and follow their
> > > beliefs.
> > >
> > > I think that is probably true, I honestly do not think Mark would be
> happy with
> > > ANY American President in office, his, like the rest of the extremists,
> hatred
> > > for the US and all things related is without real basis,
> >
> > "Dislike of the US is without basis", now there's a joke. Not even a
> > politician would make such a remark. You don't even have an inkling of
> > how woefully out of touch you are with the real world.
>
> How out of touch are we...explain?
About 80% of americans have never been to another country for a start.
You are much less likely to have relatives actually living outside the
americas.
You also have a low, slanted and partisan standard of media reporting.
>
> > > it's basically a
> > > hatred of an entire people and religion ( see zioni$ts ) that believes
> in
> > > allowing everyone to be free to choose what or whom they wish to
> worship.
> >
> > ..And free to ethnically cleanse a whole country, amongst a host of
> > other crimes and injustices.
>
> What country did the US ethnically cleanse?
We are talking about Israel (though it ethnically cleansed itself not
that long ago).
>
> You forget that over 4 million refugees
> > are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave Palestine
> > to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
>
> Wasn't Israel, a country promised by the Balfour Declaration...the
> declaration taking its name from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour?
> Was GB in any way responsible?
Yes.
Are you implying that when people talk about "the promised land", they
mean by Britain, rather than by an alleged omnipotent entity?
> What are other arab countries doing to help
> the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees immigrate to
> their country.
Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
I'm sure Israel would love an exodus of palestinians and for other
countries to so facilitate their ethnic cleansing. Of course the
Palestinians would much raher stay in their own country and that the
oppressors went.
>
> Funny how you
> > whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
> > don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
>
> Should any govt accept illegal immigrants? Why have legal immigration? Did
> British citizens every complain about immigration when the Commonwealth
> countries were free to immigrate to GB?
Sure they did, it was part of the hypocrisy of colonialism (An
additional factor being that GB is already densly populated and now
does accept numbers of refugees).
Why doesn't the US accept more palestinian refugees instead of giving
the Israelis the cash and weapons to drive them out?
Mark K.
joseph irvin
So its a questions of the number of scientist you have on your side rather
than the correctness of the interpretation of data? By the difference of
scientific opinion it is not clear that the global warming would have
happened anyway with or without mans involvement. In the 70's 'global
cooling' was all the rage with the scientific community.
Yes it could be/couldn't be, we don't know. It could be just a deviation in
the climate. We had an ice age without industrialization. Possible???
> > The same kind of ploy was used by a United Nations report on climate in
> > 1996. After the scientists had reviewed the report, the following
sentence
> > was added, without their knowledge -- "the balance of evidence suggests
a
> > discernible human influence on global climate." But that is not what the
> > scientists said.
> >
> > What are all these ploys about? There are people in the environmental
cult
> > and in the media who are hell-bent to have the United States and other
> > countries sign the Kyoto treaty that would drastically restrict how our
> > economy works and what kind of lives the average American could lead.
>
> Ah, it's all a conspiracy by the world's climatologists to quash the yank
economy.
No, but to add a sentence like the above makes me doubt the credibility of
the producers of the document. Would you put you name on a document that
you agreed with, and then later without you knowledge have things added that
you did not agree with or had knowledge of? Would you think maybe there may
be an agenda by the ones that added that "extra". No conspiracy at all just
dishonesty. Agree or diagree?
Or anyone for a sane enviromental policy. Prof Michaels points out that
some global warming may be caused by the sun getting hotter....something
that can be scientifically measured. This as opposed to global warming
cause only by man and industry. His opinion, and I'm sure it is an opinion,
is that enacting the Kyoto treaty would lower the temp. by 1/2 of a
degee....in reality no one knows....why distroy economies without sufficient
evidence? It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
> > And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global
warming,
> > such as a longer growing season,
>
> Duh.
Again an assumption. Both sides make assumptions.
> > but we are not likely to see a lot of those
> > benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of warming. Moreover,
it is
> > mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As Professor
Michaels
> > points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to minus 28 in January."
Is
> > anyone complaining -- other than professional complainers and
professional
> > doomsayers?
>
> What about the places that get too, hot and the rise in sea levels,
> hmm? Funny, first he says that it's not happening and then he points
> out places where it is.
What if these same places get hot no matter what we do?....what if its just
a pecularity of the Earths climate?..In the 70's it was global cooling, now
30+ years later it global warming. Who knows without further study. Also
third world countrie's industries wouldn't be held to the same standards as
the industrial countries. If one is serious about the Kyoto treaty all
countries should be held to the same standards wouldn't you agree?
> Mark K.
joseph irvin
So we Americans are out of touch with the rest of the world because we've
never been to another country? As for the media we do IMO have a slanted
one just like the British media is slanted. We also have many other means
of communication like 'talk radio'. We also have the internet and are able
to find out what is going on in the world. Its seems the in the past
century the only time that lots of Americans traveled was going to Europe to
help win two World Wars....we were more 'in touch' then. Maybe the US
doesn't share Europes world view and chose not to travel.
> > > > it's basically a
> > > > hatred of an entire people and religion ( see zioni$ts ) that
believes
> > in
> > > > allowing everyone to be free to choose what or whom they wish to
> > worship.
> > >
> > > ..And free to ethnically cleanse a whole country, amongst a host of
> > > other crimes and injustices.
> >
> > What country did the US ethnically cleanse?
>
> We are talking about Israel (though it ethnically cleansed itself not
> that long ago).
If you know the history of Israel since it formation the people living there
were asked to stay. They chose to leave as they though the arabs countries
would over run Israel. It didn't happen. By the way some Israelis were 'in
touch', the ones living in Germany before the 2nd WW. Look how these 'in
touch' Israelies are treated in France today.
> > You forget that over 4 million refugees
> > > are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave Palestine
> > > to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
> >
> > Wasn't Israel, a country promised by the Balfour Declaration...the
> > declaration taking its name from British Foreign Secretary Arthur
Balfour?
> > Was GB in any way responsible?
>
> Yes.
> Are you implying that when people talk about "the promised land", they
> mean by Britain, rather than by an alleged omnipotent entity?
I don't imply anything. I stated a fact. I don't pretend to know what an
'omnipotent entity' does or thinks. You blame Israel for the refugee
problem when they allowed the people living there at them time of the
formation of the country, to stay. You implyingly blame the US for aiding
Israel a country recognized by other sovereign countries. Why doesn't the
other arab countries give some of their oil money to help the refugees? Why
don't all of the arab countries let the refugees immigrate to their
countries...live there and get jobs.
> > What are other arab countries doing to help
> > the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees immigrate to
> > their country.
>
> Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
Why are they classified as refugees then?...aren't they allowed to work and
become citizens? If they don't why should other countries?
> I'm sure Israel would love an exodus of palestinians and for other
> countries to so facilitate their ethnic cleansing. Of course the
> Palestinians would much raher stay in their own country and that the
oppressors went.
They had a chance when Israel was formed into a State. They chose to leave
because they thought the Israelies would be defeated and run into the sea.
That didn't happen and now they want to live there now that Israel has made
it a strong wealthy State. Why now and not then? It seems they were lead
down the 'garden path' by their own people. How about living and taking
responsibility for ones own mistakes?
I've always understood ethnic cleansing as the destruction of an ethnic
group of people not just expelling them. If just expelling people is your
definition your country is also guilty of it as they sent British convicts
throughout the Empire.
> > Funny how you
> > > whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
> > > don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
> >
> > Should any govt accept illegal immigrants? Why have legal immigration?
Did
> > British citizens every complain about immigration when the Commonwealth
> > countries were free to immigrate to GB?
>
> Sure they did, it was part of the hypocrisy of colonialism (An
> additional factor being that GB is already densly populated and now
> does accept numbers of refugees).
Its easy to sit behind your computer and make judgments of past actions
(colonialism) of countries with todays standards. One of the best things
that ever happened in this world is the British Empire...the world is a
better place to day because of it and its colonialism.
> Why doesn't the US accept more palestinian refugees instead of giving the
Israelis the cash and weapons to drive them out?
Yes and why doesn't the US take the whole worlds problems as its
responsibilities? I don't think the US has the responsibility to make the
whole world right...this includes the taking/not taking of refugees. And as
for giving Israel money and weapons it is a choice for the US to make.
Please furnish some proof that the US gives Israelis 'the cash and weapons
to drive them out.' I want proof of the 'drive them out'. I realize that
the US for its interest and the interest of the industrial world supports
Israel because its the only semi democatic, stable country in the middle
east....keeping the flow of oil to the rest of the world....you know like
the British navy keeping the sea lanes open. It was in GB interest and the
rest of the world.
Zen
<j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Or anyone for a sane enviromental policy. Prof Michaels points out that
>some global warming may be caused by the sun getting hotter....something
>that can be scientifically measured. This as opposed to global warming
>cause only by man and industry. His opinion, and I'm sure it is an opinion,
>is that enacting the Kyoto treaty would lower the temp. by 1/2 of a
>degee....in reality no one knows....why distroy economies without sufficient
>evidence? It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
>still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
Okay...naive question: Would maintaining environmental standards and
agreements as proposed in the Kyoto Treaty actually destroy some
economies? What I'm not understanding is why the U.S. won't even make
an attempt to discuss these matters with other industrialized nations
and then work with them to find ways to reduce, but not necessarily
eliminate those greenhouse emissions.
Even if some of the fears about global warming are just hysterical
nonsense, I don't really see what harm could come of all countries
looking at and finding ways to reduce pollution on this planet. We all
have to live here, after all.
joseph irvin
"Zen" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
news:956b005s1j72cbe90...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:40:48 GMT, "joseph irvin"
> <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Or anyone for a sane enviromental policy. Prof Michaels points out that
> >some global warming may be caused by the sun getting hotter....something
> >that can be scientifically measured. This as opposed to global warming
> >cause only by man and industry. His opinion, and I'm sure it is an
opinion,
> >is that enacting the Kyoto treaty would lower the temp. by 1/2 of a
> >degee....in reality no one knows....why distroy economies without
sufficient
> >evidence? It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
> >still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
>
> Okay...naive question: Would maintaining environmental standards and
> agreements as proposed in the Kyoto Treaty actually destroy some
> economies? What I'm not understanding is why the U.S. won't even make
> an attempt to discuss these matters with other industrialized nations
> and then work with them to find ways to reduce, but not necessarily
> eliminate those greenhouse emissions.
The Kyoto treaty was discussed by Senate and rejected 97-0. It was also
unfair to industrial nations. Nations like China, Mexico, India, and Brazil
were exempted from some of the stricter standards. The treaty wouldn't
distroy any countries economy totally. I've read that it would cause the US
economy to shrink anywhere from 20 to 30%.
> Even if some of the fears about global warming are just hysterical
> nonsense, I don't really see what harm could come of all countries
> looking at and finding ways to reduce pollution on this planet. We all
> have to live here, after all.
The US has been reducing pollution. The US is a lot less polluted than 20
years ago. Things are getting better. Read magazine and books printed
30yrs ago predicting a future of gloom and doom....most didn't turn out to
be true or even close to true. Just remember things are getting better.
Politicians and leaders of big business have breath the same air and eat the
same food we do.
Inside Flap Copy
Includes essays by Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman E. Borlaug and other noted
scientists and scholars
The modern environmental movement began with the publication of three
seminal works, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Paul Ehrlich's The Population
Bomb, and the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth. These books' dismal
visions of a poisoned, over-populated, resource-depleted world spiraling
down toward environmental collapse are today's conventional wisdom. And
every year we hear about new "conclusive" reports from special interest
groups claiming that our atmosphere's temperatures are soaring, our air and
water are more polluted, our cities are more crowded, and our global food
supply is more precarious than ever before. However, according to a number
of leading scientists from around the world, members of the environmental
movement are guilty of twisting?sometimes manufacturing?the facts in an
effort to frighten people into joining their cause.
In this eye-opening book, some of the most respected researchers in the
country explode the myths behind much of the doom and gloom of today's
environmental movement. You will discover how the hysteria about global
warming, overpopulation, mass extinctions, imminent famines, biotechnology,
energy shortages, and more are grounded not in reason but in false science
and a fear of progress. When placed beside the overwhelming facts, some of
the most pervasive eco-myths crumble, including:
Myth:
Antarctica is melting due to global warming?threatening to raise ocean
levels
Fact:
Antarctica has been cooling?and its glaciers thickening?for the past 30
years
Myth:
The global population is growing faster than our ability to produce food
Fact:
Global fertility rates are falling dramatically, and with advanced
technology, farmers are producing more food using fewer resources than ever
before
Myth:
Solar- and wind-powered generators are a renewable, efficient, and less
intrusive alternative to gas-, oil-, and coal-burning generators
Fact:
Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being depleted,
and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more electricity
than 13,000 windmills
Myth:
Modern pesticides and fertilizers are increasing the rates of cancer in
humans
Fact:
No study has ever shown that anyone has developed cancer from the legal
application of pesticides, and environmental pollution accounts for at most
2 percent of all cancer cases versus 30 percent caused by tobacco use
See for yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/102-7574205-0387326?v=glance&vi=reviews
Mark K.
I doubt you are in any position to judge the correctness of the data,
whereas those who are, are the majority of scientists who
overwhelmingly find it to be indicitavive of man made global warming.
> By the difference of
> scientific opinion it is not clear that the global warming would have
> happened anyway with or without mans involvement. In the 70's 'global
> cooling' was all the rage with the scientific community.
Temporary cooling may well have be part of the overall warming
process.
When one increases a substance in a finely balanced complex chaotic
system, it introduces changes.
You seem to think that it's worth gambling with the whole planet just
to save a little inconvenience for a minority of well off people.
> > > The same kind of ploy was used by a United Nations report on climate in
> > > 1996. After the scientists had reviewed the report, the following
> sentence
> > > was added, without their knowledge -- "the balance of evidence suggests
> a
> > > discernible human influence on global climate." But that is not what the
> > > scientists said.
> > >
> > > What are all these ploys about? There are people in the environmental
> cult
> > > and in the media who are hell-bent to have the United States and other
> > > countries sign the Kyoto treaty that would drastically restrict how our
> > > economy works and what kind of lives the average American could lead.
> >
> > Ah, it's all a conspiracy by the world's climatologists to quash the yank
> economy.
>
> No, but to add a sentence like the above makes me doubt the credibility of
> the producers of the document. Would you put you name on a document that
> you agreed with, and then later without you knowledge have things added that
> you did not agree with or had knowledge of? Would you think maybe there may
> be an agenda by the ones that added that "extra". No conspiracy at all just
> dishonesty. Agree or diagree?
I'm not going to take one article by some person that I have never
heard of as some kind of debunking of global warming, especially one
wanting to be seen to be pushing the line of his government which is
run by morally and ethically corrupt industrialists.
Global warming: 1,240,000 google hits
There is plenty of evidence, why risk the planet over the whims of
it's biggest polluter.
> It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
> still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
Of course, inevitably. But lets not accelerate that process by
releasing millions of years worth of stored co2 into the atmosphere.
>
> > > And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global
> warming,
> > > such as a longer growing season,
> >
> > Duh.
>
> Again an assumption. Both sides make assumptions.
>
> > > but we are not likely to see a lot of those
> > > benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of warming. Moreover,
> it is
> > > mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As Professor
> Michaels
> > > points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to minus 28 in January."
> Is
> > > anyone complaining -- other than professional complainers and
> professional
> > > doomsayers?
> >
> > What about the places that get too, hot and the rise in sea levels,
> > hmm? Funny, first he says that it's not happening and then he points
> > out places where it is.
>
> What if these same places get hot no matter what we do?
Your logic is flawed. What if I burn down your house? You might
survive. I'm sure you'd prefer to wait until it burns down naturally.
> ....what if its just
> a pecularity of the Earths climate?..In the 70's it was global cooling, now
> 30+ years later it global warming. Who knows without further study. Also
> third world countrie's industries wouldn't be held to the same standards as
> the industrial countries. If one is serious about the Kyoto treaty all
> countries should be held to the same standards wouldn't you agree?
The biggest polluters who profited the most from their actions should
make the largest contribution.
>
> > Mark K.
Zen
<j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Thanks, Joseph! Going to have a look right now...
Mark K.
> "Zen" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:956b005s1j72cbe90...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:40:48 GMT, "joseph irvin"
> > <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Or anyone for a sane enviromental policy. Prof Michaels points out that
> > >some global warming may be caused by the sun getting hotter....something
> > >that can be scientifically measured. This as opposed to global warming
> > >cause only by man and industry. His opinion, and I'm sure it is an
> opinion,
> > >is that enacting the Kyoto treaty would lower the temp. by 1/2 of a
> > >degee....in reality no one knows....why distroy economies without
> sufficient
> > >evidence? It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
> > >still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
> >
> > Okay...naive question: Would maintaining environmental standards and
> > agreements as proposed in the Kyoto Treaty actually destroy some
> > economies? What I'm not understanding is why the U.S. won't even make
> > an attempt to discuss these matters with other industrialized nations
> > and then work with them to find ways to reduce, but not necessarily
> > eliminate those greenhouse emissions.
>
> The Kyoto treaty was discussed by Senate and rejected 97-0. It was also
> unfair to industrial nations.
That's a matter of opinion.
> Nations like China, Mexico, India, and Brazil
> were exempted from some of the stricter standards. The treaty wouldn't
> distroy any countries economy totally. I've read that it would cause the US
> economy to shrink anywhere from 20 to 30%.
Again bullshit. The main industry to suffer would be the oil and coal
industry (Bu$h's cronies). Change to green energy methods would CREATE
whole new industries.
What happens in practice is that fossil fuel industries buy up
budding green energy businesses and patents and then increase the
prices of the green products to discourage people from buying them,
meanwhile pretending to be green. (I have a friends who were in the
oil industry and are now in the solar energy biz. They now get their
main components from China, the best source for green products.)
>
> > Even if some of the fears about global warming are just hysterical
> > nonsense, I don't really see what harm could come of all countries
> > looking at and finding ways to reduce pollution on this planet. We all
> > have to live here, after all.
>
> The US has been reducing pollution. The US is a lot less polluted than 20
> years ago. Things are getting better.
Not on the Co2 front.
> Read magazine and books printed
> 30yrs ago predicting a future of gloom and doom....most didn't turn out to
> be true or even close to true. Just remember things are getting better.
"Just remember things are getting better" that's one of those Bu$h
statements designed to make you feel rosy and not worry about
pollution and, say, cutting down the alskan forests.
> Politicians and leaders of big business have breath the same air and eat the
> same food we do.
They get large places where the air don't stink and they get the best
food.
No, antarctica has warmed but it will take a bigger temperature rise
to cause it to significantly raise sea levels.
> Myth:
> The global population is growing faster than our ability to produce food
> Fact:
> Global fertility rates are falling dramatically, and with advanced
> technology, farmers are producing more food using fewer resources than ever
> before
So we don't need GM crops after all.....
> Myth:
> Solar- and wind-powered generators are a renewable, efficient, and less
> intrusive alternative to gas-, oil-, and coal-burning generators
> Fact:
> Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being depleted,
> and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more electricity
> than 13,000 windmills
Bullshit. It requires less than two thousand and IS renewable and
efficient, as would simply covering roofs in PV panels. It's also
cheaper long term, particularly large scale.
> Myth:
> Modern pesticides and fertilizers are increasing the rates of cancer in
> humans
> Fact:
> No study has ever shown that anyone has developed cancer from the legal
> application of pesticides, and environmental pollution accounts for at most
> 2 percent of all cancer cases versus 30 percent caused by tobacco use
(The tobacco industry also argued for decades that there is no link
between cancer and smoking.)
Of course all the other diseaeses, a plethora of as yet unknown
effects and the huge environmental impact aren't even mentioned:
Pesticides have never caused a car accident, therefore pesticides are
safe, duh.
> See for yourself:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/102-7574205-0387326?v=glance&vi=reviews
I am surprised that you even bothered to paste such a selection of
bullshit.
Mark K.
Zen
Mark K.
On the whole, yes. There is no substitute for experiencing different
cultures in the flesh.
> As for the media we do IMO have a slanted
> one just like the British media is slanted.
The US "media" is now more akin to a ziocon propaganda machine.
> We also have many other means
> of communication like 'talk radio'. We also have the internet and are able
> to find out what is going on in the world.
Though few actually use it for that purpose.
> Its seems the in the past
> century the only time that lots of Americans traveled was going to Europe to
> help win two World Wars
"Help" being the operative word. Most of the human price, and
defeating of the German military in WW2, was actually done by russia.
> ....we were more 'in touch' then.
Since much of the travelling is done by the the military, even that
view is slanted.
> Maybe the US
> doesn't share Europes world view and chose not to travel.
Insular mentality.
>
> > > > > it's basically a
> > > > > hatred of an entire people and religion ( see zioni$ts ) that
> believes
> in
> > > > > allowing everyone to be free to choose what or whom they wish to
> worship.
> > > >
> > > > ..And free to ethnically cleanse a whole country, amongst a host of
> > > > other crimes and injustices.
> > >
> > > What country did the US ethnically cleanse?
> >
> > We are talking about Israel (though it ethnically cleansed itself not
> > that long ago).
>
> If you know the history of Israel since it formation the people living there
> were asked to stay. They chose to leave as they though the arabs countries
> would over run Israel. It didn't happen.
So what's your point?
> By the way some Israelis were 'in
> touch', the ones living in Germany before the 2nd WW. Look how these 'in
> touch' Israelies are treated in France today.
Clarify.
>
> > > You forget that over 4 million refugees
> > > > are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave Palestine
> > > > to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
> > >
> > > Wasn't Israel, a country promised by the Balfour Declaration...the
> > > declaration taking its name from British Foreign Secretary Arthur
> Balfour?
> > > Was GB in any way responsible?
> >
> > Yes.
> > Are you implying that when people talk about "the promised land", they
> > mean by Britain, rather than by an alleged omnipotent entity?
>
> I don't imply anything. I stated a fact.
I'm stating the fact that Israelis allege and believe that an
omnipotent entity promised Palestine to them. That's the reason they
give for wanting to live there.
> I don't pretend to know what an
> 'omnipotent entity' does or thinks. You blame Israel for the refugee
> problem when they allowed the people living there at them time of the
> formation of the country, to stay.
Gee, that's big of them. "Allow" people to stay on their homeland and
serve the invaders.
> You implyingly blame the US for aiding
> Israel a country recognized by other sovereign countries.
It wasn't recognised as a country by a whole bunch, and it only became
an entity similating a country with mainly american aid.
> Why doesn't the
> other arab countries give some of their oil money to help the refugees?
They do.
> Why
> don't all of the arab countries let the refugees immigrate to their
> countries...live there and get jobs.
You mean aid the Israelis in removing them from their homeland?
> > > What are other arab countries doing to help
> > > the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees immigrate to
> > > their country.
> >
> > Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
>
> Why are they classified as refugees then?
Because they are refugees.
...aren't they allowed to work and
> become citizens?
They are Palestinians, why should they want to be anything else and
work in a foreign country?
> If they don't why should other countries?
>
> > I'm sure Israel would love an exodus of palestinians and for other
> > countries to so facilitate their ethnic cleansing. Of course the
> > Palestinians would much raher stay in their own country and that the
> oppressors went.
>
> They had a chance when Israel was formed into a State. They chose to leave
> because they thought the Israelies would be defeated and run into the sea.
Imagine that, not wanting to serve the invading zionists.
> That didn't happen and now they want to live there now that Israel has made
> it a strong wealthy State. Why now and not then? It seems they were lead
> down the 'garden path' by their own people.
THEY WERE FUCKING INVADED! Get real.
> How about living and taking
> responsibility for ones own mistakes?
Your ethics are totally FOBAR. What "mistake" do you mean???
> I've always understood ethnic cleansing as the destruction of an ethnic
> group of people not just expelling them.
You understood wrong. Here is the dictionary definition:
ethnic cleansing
n.
The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region
or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.
> If just expelling people is your
> definition your country is also guilty of it as they sent British convicts
> throughout the Empire.
I'm not british, it's not "my" but the dictionary's definition, and
no, deporting convicts is not ethnic cleansing because they are not an
ethnic group.
>
> > > Funny how you
> > > > whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
> > > > don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
> > >
> > > Should any govt accept illegal immigrants? Why have legal immigration?
> Did
> > > British citizens every complain about immigration when the Commonwealth
> > > countries were free to immigrate to GB?
> >
> > Sure they did, it was part of the hypocrisy of colonialism (An
> > additional factor being that GB is already densly populated and now
> > does accept numbers of refugees).
>
> Its easy to sit behind your computer and make judgments of past actions
> (colonialism) of countries with todays standards.
Actually, I'm more interested in present actions and the continued
support by the US of an apartheid racist regime engaged in ethnic
cleansing . You're the one who brought up the past.
> One of the best things
> that ever happened in this world is the British Empire...the world is a
> better place to day because of it and its colonialism.
The victims of it may well disagree with your speculation.
>
> > Why doesn't the US accept more palestinian refugees instead of giving the
> > Israelis the cash and weapons to drive them out?
>
> Yes and why doesn't the US take the whole worlds problems as its
> responsibilities? I don't think the US has the responsibility to make the
> whole world right
It should get the hell out of Iraq and quit interfering in a range of
other countries then.
> ...this includes the taking/not taking of refugees. And as
> for giving Israel money and weapons it is a choice for the US to make.
??? I don't think you meant to post such a banal phrase. Try applying
that same standard to other country's supports of causes.
I doubt, presented by the facts, most americans would give Israel a
penny. As it happens they only act on propaganda fed to them by the
ziocon newslaundry. Hell, most of them don't even know that
palestinians *are* refugees, never mind where Gaza is.
I also doubt they know more poignant facts about the country they
donate the largest aid, like Israel selling arms to apartheid South
Africa while most of the world was boycotting it.
> Please furnish some proof that the US gives Israelis 'the cash and weapons
> to drive them out.' I want proof of the 'drive them out'.
??? Apart from selling weapons on, what else do you think they do with
their arms aid?
> I realize that
> the US for its interest and the interest of the industrial world supports
> Israel because its the only semi democatic,
> stable country in the middle
> east
"Interest of the world"?
Israel holds the world record for ignoring UN resolutions. Support of
it has justifiably earned the wrath of countless millions of people,
for it's injustices towards the Palestinians. "The world" goes beyond
the US.
The big interest the "industrial world" has in it is that this tiny
country, smaller than Nu Joisy with only a 5.3 million population, is
that it is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world (no.5 in
2003).
"semi-democratic"?
Sharon is an indicted war criminal. (Hitler was also democratically
elected, btw)
"Stable country" ?
Without continual yank support to prop it up, I would love to see how
"stable" it really is.
>....keeping the flow of oil to the rest of the world....you know like
> the British navy keeping the sea lanes open. It was in GB interest and the
> rest of the world.
Sorry, but you are becoming incoherent.
Mark K.
>[snip]
joseph irvin
Your opinion is noted. You omit the fact that many people travel to this
country, some even risking there lives to get here.
> > As for the media we do IMO have a slanted
> > one just like the British media is slanted.
>
> The US "media" is now more akin to a ziocon propaganda machine.
Your opinion is noted...some proof would be helpful.
> > We also have many other means
> > of communication like 'talk radio'. We also have the internet and are
able
> > to find out what is going on in the world.
>
> Though few actually use it for that purpose.
I don't know the number of people who listen....what difference would it
make thought?....all US media according to you is "ziocon propaganda."
> > Its seems the in the past
> > century the only time that lots of Americans traveled was going to
Europe to
> > help win two World Wars
>
> "Help" being the operative word. Most of the human price, and
> defeating of the German military in WW2, was actually done by russia.
>
> > ....we were more 'in touch' then.
>
> Since much of the travelling is done by the the military, even that view
is slanted.
Why? Americans cannot do anything right can they? What the view that
Americans have to bail Europe out of their messes?
> > Maybe the US
> > doesn't share Europes world view and chose not to travel.
>
> Insular mentality.
Mr K. you cannot have it both ways. You argue that Americans are 'insular'
in their mentality but condemn us for participating in world affairs? What
if the US would have been 'insular' in 1917 and 1941? You probably wouldn't
be sitting behind that keyboard now.
> > > > > > it's basically a
> > > > > > hatred of an entire people and religion ( see zioni$ts ) that
> > believes
> > in
> > > > > > allowing everyone to be free to choose what or whom they wish to
> > worship.
> > > > >
> > > > > ..And free to ethnically cleanse a whole country, amongst a host
of
> > > > > other crimes and injustices.
> > > >
> > > > What country did the US ethnically cleanse?
> > >
> > > We are talking about Israel (though it ethnically cleansed itself not
> > > that long ago).
> >
> > If you know the history of Israel since it formation the people living
there
> > were asked to stay. They chose to leave as they though the arabs
countries
> > would over run Israel. It didn't happen.
>
> So what's your point?
That all people living in what is now Israel would participate in the
government of the new State.
> > By the way some Israelis were 'in
> > touch', the ones living in Germany before the 2nd WW. Look how these
'in
> > touch' Israelies are treated in France today.
>
> Clarify.
The Jewish people living under German domination were killed. Today, the
renewal of antisemitism in France.
> > > > You forget that over 4 million refugees
> > > > > are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave
Palestine
> > > > > to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't Israel, a country promised by the Balfour Declaration...the
> > > > declaration taking its name from British Foreign Secretary Arthur
> > Balfour?
> > > > Was GB in any way responsible?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > > Are you implying that when people talk about "the promised land", they
> > > mean by Britain, rather than by an alleged omnipotent entity?
> >
> > I don't imply anything. I stated a fact.
>
> I'm stating the fact that Israelis allege and believe that an
> omnipotent entity promised Palestine to them. That's the reason they give
for wanting to live there.
So what if they did believe that an omnipotent entity promised them
Palestine? GB had a big part in the process of the formation of Israel.
Israel alone didn't have the power to become a State. It is a State today
and recognized in the world as a legimate State. What do you suggest...take
Israel by force and tell the refugees here is your land back?....it would
become just another 3rd world oppressive govt. most likely.
> > I don't pretend to know what an
> > 'omnipotent entity' does or thinks. You blame Israel for the refugee
> > problem when they allowed the people living there at them time of the
> > formation of the country, to stay.
>
> Gee, that's big of them. "Allow" people to stay on their homeland and
serve the invaders.
Serve? No, allow them to stay and participate in the new State of Israel.
They chose not to and left some even joining the other arab States in
attacking the newly formed State of Israel.
> > You implyingly blame the US for aiding
> > Israel a country recognized by other sovereign countries.
>
> It wasn't recognised as a country by a whole bunch, and it only became
> an entity similating a country with mainly american aid.
Of course it was recognized by other States. Yes, Israel did get aid from
America, just like GB and the rest of the Allies got aid during the W Wars
or they would be Axis satillites today.
> > Why doesn't the
> > other arab countries give some of their oil money to help the refugees?
>
> They do.
Like the rich arab oil countries?...like Arafat who is stashing money in
European banks by the tons.
> > Why
> > don't all of the arab countries let the refugees immigrate to their
> > countries...live there and get jobs.
>
> You mean aid the Israelis in removing them from their homeland?
No, I mean just what I wrote....let the refugees live and work in their
countries.
> > > > What are other arab countries doing to help
> > > > the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees immigrate
to
> > > > their country.
> > >
> > > Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
> >
> > Why are they classified as refugees then?
>
> Because they are refugees.
True, but they wouldn't be if the other arab countries would let them become
citizens and get jobs.
>
> ...aren't they allowed to work and
> > become citizens?
>
> They are Palestinians, why should they want to be anything else and
> work in a foreign country?
They can still be Palestinians and live and work in other States. How do
you know what they think of believe unless they had the opportunity to work
and live in another country...they may just as well like this. This is your
assumption.
> > If they don't why should other countries?
> >
> > > I'm sure Israel would love an exodus of palestinians and for other
> > > countries to so facilitate their ethnic cleansing. Of course the
> > > Palestinians would much raher stay in their own country and that the
> > oppressors went.
> >
> > They had a chance when Israel was formed into a State. They chose to
leave
> > because they thought the Israelies would be defeated and run into the
sea.
>
> Imagine that, not wanting to serve the invading zionists.
Not serve, but live in, participate in, and become citizens of the new State
of Israel.
> > That didn't happen and now they want to live there now that Israel has
made
> > it a strong wealthy State. Why now and not then? It seems they were
lead
> > down the 'garden path' by their own people.
>
> THEY WERE FUCKING INVADED! Get real.
I am real. It is true there was a small war. What you leave out is a
Jewish State was promisesd by the Balfour Declation of 1917 affirming a
mandate by the League of Nations. Also the adoption of a UN resolution to
establish an independent Jewish State in Palestine. Thats getting real and
factual.
> > How about living and taking
> > responsibility for ones own mistakes?
>
> Your ethics are totally FOBAR. What "mistake" do you mean???
Sorry, I don't know what FOBAR means. The mistake I'm referring to is the
Palestineans choosing to move rather that stay in the newly forming State of
Israel because they thought the other arab State would over run Israel.
>
> > I've always understood ethnic cleansing as the destruction of an ethnic
> > group of people not just expelling them.
>
> You understood wrong. Here is the dictionary definition:
>
> ethnic cleansing
> n.
> The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region
> or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.
>
Ok, my mistake.
> > If just expelling people is your
> > definition your country is also guilty of it as they sent British
convicts
> > throughout the Empire.
>
> I'm not british, it's not "my" but the dictionary's definition, and
> no, deporting convicts is not ethnic cleansing because they are not an
> ethnic group.
Ok, again you are correct and I agree.
> > > > Funny how you
> > > > > whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
> > > > > don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
> > > >
> > > > Should any govt accept illegal immigrants? Why have legal
immigration?
> > Did
> > > > British citizens every complain about immigration when the
Commonwealth
> > > > countries were free to immigrate to GB?
> > >
> > > Sure they did, it was part of the hypocrisy of colonialism (An
> > > additional factor being that GB is already densly populated and now
> > > does accept numbers of refugees).
> >
> > Its easy to sit behind your computer and make judgments of past actions
> > (colonialism) of countries with todays standards.
>
> Actually, I'm more interested in present actions and the continued
> support by the US of an apartheid racist regime engaged in ethnic
> cleansing . You're the one who brought up the past.
True, I did bring up the past, but isn't the past where the problem started.
If the Palestinians had stayed and become citizens of Israel there probably
wouldn't have been such a problem. You opinion about the US supporting a
racist regime engaged in ethnic cleansing is noted.
> > One of the best things
> > that ever happened in this world is the British Empire...the world is a
> > better place to day because of it and its colonialism.
>
> The victims of it may well disagree with your speculation.
The victims are few compared to good that was spread around the world by the
colonial powers.
> > > Why doesn't the US accept more palestinian refugees instead of giving
the
> > > Israelis the cash and weapons to drive them out?
> >
> > Yes and why doesn't the US take the whole worlds problems as its
> > responsibilities? I don't think the US has the responsibility to make
the
> > whole world right
>
> It should get the hell out of Iraq and quit interfering in a range of
other countries then.
It seems to bother you that Iraq could ignore UN resolutions for years and
then when the US goes in an gets rid or of a real tyrant. that did actually
get rid of one who ordered ethnic cleansing (killing) you protest. You also
call the Americans 'insular' but now complain that we are to involved in
other countries. Seems you only want the US at Europes beck and call when
Europe gets in trouble.
> > ...this includes the taking/not taking of refugees. And as
> > for giving Israel money and weapons it is a choice for the US to make.
>
> ??? I don't think you meant to post such a banal phrase. Try applying
> that same standard to other country's supports of causes.
I did mean to post such a 'banal phrase.' One of the cardinal rules of
foreign policy is not to let other countries make your foreign
policy....this also means the UN. This seems to bother you that the US can
make its own foreign policy without consulting the 3rd world tyrants in the
UN. Does it?
>
> I doubt, presented by the facts, most americans would give Israel a
> penny.
Well, we have a free media over here and they are opinions that cover the
full range regarding aid to Israel like most foreign policies that the US
persues.
As it happens they only act on propaganda fed to them by the
> ziocon newslaundry. Hell, most of them don't even know that
> palestinians *are* refugees, never mind where Gaza is.
> I also doubt they know more poignant facts about the country they
> donate the largest aid, like Israel selling arms to apartheid South
> Africa while most of the world was boycotting it.
So we Americans over here are all 'insular' hayseeds not having any idea
what our govt is doing huh? We should be at the stand by for a call from
Europe or the UN to send whatever is needed around the world and how to act
in the world from the same...Europe and the UN?
> > Please furnish some proof that the US gives Israelis 'the cash and
weapons
> > to drive them out.' I want proof of the 'drive them out'.
>
> ??? Apart from selling weapons on, what else do you think they do with
> their arms aid?
Well maybe use them for self defense...is that allowed?
> > I realize that
> > the US for its interest and the interest of the industrial world
supports
> > Israel because its the only semi democatic,
> > stable country in the middle
> > east
>
> "Interest of the world"?
> Israel holds the world record for ignoring UN resolutions.
Wonder if that has anything to do with Israel ignoring resolutions that
would weaken the country and make it subject to attack.
Support of
> it has justifiably earned the wrath of countless millions of people,
> for it's injustices towards the Palestinians.
I'm sure Israel is guilty of some transgressions but then again the
terrorist operating in Israel and around Israel do more horrendous acts.
"The world" goes beyond
> the US.
> The big interest the "industrial world" has in it is that this tiny
> country, smaller than Nu Joisy with only a 5.3 million population, is
> that it is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world (no.5 in
> 2003).
Israel may be one of the biggest arms exporters in the world but what does
that have to do with right of the State of Israel to exist? You see all the
'dreadful' acts of Israel...arms exporting, ethnic cleansing etc. and see
none of these same 'dreadful' acts of arab countries...how open minded of
you.
> "semi-democratic"?
> Sharon is an indicted war criminal. (Hitler was also democratically
> elected, btw)
So you are comparing Hitler to Sharon? Please give examples of death camps
for the sole purpose of systematic killing of a race of people.
> "Stable country" ?
> Without continual yank support to prop it up, I would love to see how
> "stable" it really is.
Lets just say Israel's govt is more stable than the govts of Europe during
the 1940's when it was completely dominated by the Axis powers, and England
was getting bombed constantly. It took US aid and MANPOWER to restore those
govts. So far no US troops have been sent to bail out Israel.
> >....keeping the flow of oil to the rest of the world....you know like
> > the British navy keeping the sea lanes open. It was in GB interest and
the
> > rest of the world.
>
> Sorry, but you are becoming incoherent.
Sorry, The British Navy use to rule the oceans of the world making them safe
for the rest of the world to trade...an interest to GB as well as the world.
>
> Mark K.
>
>
>
> >[snip]
Zen
<j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > I read an interesting viewpoint in my local paper, basically the
>> > writer
>> > said
>> > > > > > trying to rationalize or reason with these terrorist or
>fundamental
>> > extremists
>> > > > > > was useless, that truly the ONLY thing that would make any of
>them
>> > happy
>> > or to
>> > > > > > not hate the US is for the US to become a Muslim nation and
>follow
>> > their
>> > > > > > beliefs.
I agree with this. We (non-Muslims) are 'in their way' of Allah and
they cannot suffer their world being soiled and disgraced by
non-Muslims such as us. It's why I hate Islam even more than I hate
Catholicism. Historically speaking, no religion has ever been more
dangerous to man and womankind than that of the pedophile Muhammad's
Nation of Islam.
>> I'm stating the fact that Israelis allege and believe that an
>> omnipotent entity promised Palestine to them. That's the reason they give
>for wanting to live there.
>
>So what if they did believe that an omnipotent entity promised them
>Palestine? GB had a big part in the process of the formation of Israel.
>Israel alone didn't have the power to become a State. It is a State today
>and recognized in the world as a legimate State.
Not by Iran and probably most other Muslim/Arabic countries.
> What do you suggest...take
>Israel by force and tell the refugees here is your land back?....it would
>become just another 3rd world oppressive govt. most likely.
>
>> > I don't pretend to know what an
>> > 'omnipotent entity' does or thinks. You blame Israel for the refugee
>> > problem when they allowed the people living there at them time of the
>> > formation of the country, to stay.
>>
>> Gee, that's big of them. "Allow" people to stay on their homeland and
>serve the invaders.
>
>Serve? No, allow them to stay and participate in the new State of Israel.
>They chose not to and left some even joining the other arab States in
>attacking the newly formed State of Israel.
Within Israel, Palestinians have few if any rights...not even by
marriage to a Jewish/Israeli citizen. Sounds to me as if there might
be a pretty illegitimate and flawed governmental framework in place...
>> > > > What are other arab countries doing to help
>> > > > the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees immigrate
>to
>> > > > their country.
>> > >
>> > > Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
>> >
>> > Why are they classified as refugees then?
>>
>> Because they are refugees.
>
>True, but they wouldn't be if the other arab countries would let them become
>citizens and get jobs.
>>
>> ...aren't they allowed to work and
>> > become citizens?
>>
>> They are Palestinians, why should they want to be anything else and
>> work in a foreign country?
In that case, then they would most likely choose to be Americans or
Canadians.
> As it happens they only act on propaganda fed to them by the
>> ziocon newslaundry. Hell, most of them don't even know that
>> palestinians *are* refugees, never mind where Gaza is.
>> I also doubt they know more poignant facts about the country they
>> donate the largest aid, like Israel selling arms to apartheid South
>> Africa while most of the world was boycotting it.
This is true. And America kept sending professional entertainment to
pacify apartheid South Africans until Little Steven (an
American/Jewish fellow, I believe) and some other enlightened friends
said "I won't play Sun City."
Little Steven is just deadly cool:
http://www.littlestevensundergroundgarage.com/
joseph irvin
True, expressed by the People of the US through there govt. Kinda one
sided, wouldn't you say.
> > Nations like China, Mexico, India, and Brazil
> > were exempted from some of the stricter standards. The treaty wouldn't
> > distroy any countries economy totally. I've read that it would cause
the US
> > economy to shrink anywhere from 20 to 30%.
>
> Again bullshit.
Bullshit to what?
The main industry to suffer would be the oil and coal
> industry (Bu$h's cronies).
So the coal and oil industry don't count?
Change to green energy methods would CREATE whole new industries.
And it will as it matures but not now because the technology is not cheap
enough yet. Price a hybred car now...well above the cost of an ordinary
car...the performance as compared to regular cars? Car companies are in
business to make money, a novel concept to a 'greenie.'
> What happens in practice is that fossil fuel industries buy up
> budding green energy businesses and patents and then increase the
> prices of the green products to discourage people from buying them,
> meanwhile pretending to be green.
Oh, how devious one kind of energy company buying up another kind of energy
company. I'm sure you realize that if 'green energy' is going to get any
traction it will probably be by another, energy co./group of energy
companies or some big investor (fossil) buying them and financing the R&D
necessary to make it feasable.
(I have a friends who were in the
> oil industry and are now in the solar energy biz. They now get their
> main components from China, the best source for green products.)
Why isn't it happening.....putting the fossil energy companies out of
business?...you know the better mouse trap.
> > > Even if some of the fears about global warming are just hysterical
> > > nonsense, I don't really see what harm could come of all countries
> > > looking at and finding ways to reduce pollution on this planet. We all
> > > have to live here, after all.
> >
> > The US has been reducing pollution. The US is a lot less polluted than
20
> > years ago. Things are getting better.
>
> Not on the Co2 front.
Yes the C02 front in the US. City air is cleaner generally.
> > Read magazine and books printed
> > 30yrs ago predicting a future of gloom and doom....most didn't turn out
to
> > be true or even close to true. Just remember things are getting better.
>
> "Just remember things are getting better" that's one of those Bu$h
> statements designed to make you feel rosy and not worry about
> pollution and, say, cutting down the alskan forests.
I don't know if Bush made that kind of statement or not. I was referring to
Julian Simon's bet with Paul Ehrlich Mr Gloom and Doom. Mr Simone made a
bet with Mr Ehrlich. (I think Mr Ehrlich wrote a book back in the 60's or
70's "The Population Bomb". Its thesis was that the world was running out of
natural resources and their would be world wide famine by now.) Mr Simon
challenged Mr Ehrlic on this so in 1980 they bet.....
By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in
1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07. Prices of the
metals chosen by Ehrlich fell so much that Simon would have won the bet even
if the prices hadn't been adjusted for inflation. (1) Here's how each of the
metals performed from 1980-1990.
Metal (2)
1980 price (1980 dollars)
1990 price (1980 dollars)
Percentage change
Copper (195.56 lbs.)
$200
$163
-18.5%
Chrome (51.28 lbs.)
$200
$120
-40%
Nickel (63.52 lbs.)
$200
$193
-3.5%
Tin (229.1 lbs.)
$200
$56
-72%
Tungsten (13.64 lbs.)
$200
$86
-57%
Web address: http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html
Even though Mr Ehrlich lost it didn't stop him from his gloom and doom
forcasts. Remember the 70's gas shortages...the world was running out of
oil...huge shortages ahead. It didn't happen. In the late 60's early
70's...the Earth is cooling...it didn't happen. The 'greenies' just don't
let facts get in the way.
> > Politicians and leaders of big business have breath the same air and eat
the
> > same food we do.
>
> They get large places where the air don't stink and they get the best
> food.
How do the 'industrialist' know when to stop polluting so as not to affect
themselves?
When should one start investing in palm trees to plant along the coast of
the northeastern US for Mr Al Gore to give his next global warming speech of
"I told you so". While this global warming is going on the northeastern
part of the US is having record breaking cold weather....global warming?
> > Myth:
> > The global population is growing faster than our ability to produce food
> > Fact:
> > Global fertility rates are falling dramatically, and with advanced
> > technology, farmers are producing more food using fewer resources than
ever
> > before
>
> So we don't need GM crops after all.....
We have plenty of food. In the US the problem is not a shortage of food but
to much food.
> > Myth:
> > Solar- and wind-powered generators are a renewable, efficient, and less
> > intrusive alternative to gas-, oil-, and coal-burning generators
> > Fact:
> > Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being
depleted,
> > and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more
electricity
> > than 13,000 windmills
>
> Bullshit. It requires less than two thousand and IS renewable and
> efficient, as would simply covering roofs in PV panels. It's also
> cheaper long term, particularly large scale.
In Calif on the big windmill farms they are having problems with
birds...endangered species...flying into the blades. What's a 'greenie' to
do?
> > Myth:
> > Modern pesticides and fertilizers are increasing the rates of cancer in
> > humans
> > Fact:
> > No study has ever shown that anyone has developed cancer from the legal
> > application of pesticides, and environmental pollution accounts for at
most
> > 2 percent of all cancer cases versus 30 percent caused by tobacco use
>
> (The tobacco industry also argued for decades that there is no link
between cancer and smoking.)
And they are paying dearly for it also. I noticed the Fed govt wasn't sued
for pushing tobacco in the military....C rations contained packs of smokes
when I was in.
> Of course all the other diseaeses, a plethora of as yet unknown
> effects and the huge environmental impact aren't even mentioned:
Whats also not mentioned is the people who smoke, by taxation are paying an
unfair share of the medicare expenses and are dieing earlier. If everyone
who smokes quit today the Soc Security system would fold faster. Who is
scamming who?
> Pesticides have never caused a car accident, therefore pesticides are
> safe, duh.
You mean like alar that was used on apples. It was suppose to be such a
toxic chemical. The only people hurt were the apple producers as they found
later on it was safe. Did that affect the 'greenies'.....no. Or DDT that
practically wiped out malaria and yellow fever a big killer in the 3rd
world....Its toxic to the envir.
We now have West Nile virus in this country on the rise. I'm guessing that
if it gets to the epidemic stage we will be using DDT again. The 'greenies'
position is, I'm almost certain that humans are expendable.
>
> > See for yourself:
> >
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/102-7574205-0387326?v=glance&vi=reviews
>
>
> I am surprised that you even bothered to paste such a selection of
> bullshit.
I am also supprised that you failed to refute much of what I posted.
>
> Mark K.
joseph irvin
If you mean am I a scientist, no I'm in no position to judge but when I see
the predictions made and then the incorrectness of the predictions I start
doubting....global cooling in the 70's didn't happen, but it now global
warming. Alar a toxic pesticide...the apple industry hurt....It was not
harmful....the gas shortage of the 70's running out of oil didn't
happen...plenty of oil....population explosion....world famine by the turn
of the century....didn't happen...plenty of food. The problem is the
distribution system if there is a problem. Do you see why I may be a little
disbeleiving?
> whereas those who are, are the majority of scientists who
> overwhelmingly find it to be indicitavive of man made global warming.
Just because the majority of scientists think that there is global warming
doesn't make it correct. I'm in no way saying that there is no global
warming...there very well maybe. There are scientist that believe that
there is no global warming/there is some global warming/the global warming
if it is happening may not be as bad as predicted. I'm open. You seem only
to think that it 'is', without a doubt....also it will be extremely harmful.
> > By the difference of
> > scientific opinion it is not clear that the global warming would have
> > happened anyway with or without mans involvement. In the 70's 'global
> > cooling' was all the rage with the scientific community.
>
> Temporary cooling may well have be part of the overall warming
> process.
How do we know what is only temporary cooling? How long is temporary?
Maybe so but it doesn't have to be 'bad' change, it could also be 'good'
change. The 'greenies' believe only 'bad' change.
> You seem to think that it's worth gambling with the whole planet just
> to save a little inconvenience for a minority of well off people.
You just said it, this (envir.) was a 'finely balanced complex chaotic
system' now you are implying that a minority of 'well off people' can
control it enough that they will not be affected. Something is wrong with
your reasoning. They can control this system for their benefit? If they
kill all the people who buys there products they make cheaply by polluting?
I'm in no way asking you to take that one persons word. Do a google serch
using words like Cato, Heritage foundation with global warming...Cato is a
libertarian think tank and Heritage is a conservative think tank...get more
than one kind of opinion.
You cannot generalize about all industrialists as being 'ethnically corrupt.
It is true some are and some are not. Take a look at some of the 'robber
barons' of the mid 1800's to early 1900's.
Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, etc. Vanderbilt left a University, and his
home in Ashville, NC. Carneigie had disposed of almost all of his income
building 2811 free libraries and the purchase of 7689 church organs. Lots
of these early industrialist were free to get wealthy and then start large
foundations to help less fortunate. This was when there was not Fed Income
tax or very little. These people were rich rich. Ford, H. Hughes, and B.
Gates have continued this. Lots of very rich people feel obligated to give
there wealth away.
> Global warming: 1,240,000 google hits
See above.
How about the above whims of the 'greenies' who made so many predictions
that were wrong. This hurt people also. The ordinary folk who you are
trying so hard to protect.
> > It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
> > still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
> Of course, inevitably. But lets not accelerate that process by
> releasing millions of years worth of stored co2 into the atmosphere.
We don't know that this is accelerating. There also could be some
beneficial effects. Effects do not always have to be negative.
> > > > And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global
> > warming,
> > > > such as a longer growing season,
> > >
> > > Duh.
> >
> > Again an assumption. Both sides make assumptions.
> >
> > > > but we are not likely to see a lot of those
> > > > benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of warming.
Moreover,
> > it is
> > > > mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As Professor
> > Michaels
> > > > points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to minus 28 in
January."
> > Is
> > > > anyone complaining -- other than professional complainers and
> > professional
> > > > doomsayers?
> > >
> > > What about the places that get too, hot and the rise in sea levels,
> > > hmm? Funny, first he says that it's not happening and then he points
> > > out places where it is.
> >
> > What if these same places get hot no matter what we do?
>
> Your logic is flawed. What if I burn down your house? You might
> survive. I'm sure you'd prefer to wait until it burns down naturally.
No, my location has nothing to do with my house buring down. Waiting for it
to burn down naturally doesn't assure me of living through such and ordeal.
Also buying insurance doesn't assure me of living if my house burns down.
> > ....what if its just
> > a pecularity of the Earths climate?..In the 70's it was global cooling,
now
> > 30+ years later it global warming. Who knows without further study.
Also
> > third world countrie's industries wouldn't be held to the same standards
as
> > the industrial countries. If one is serious about the Kyoto treaty all
> > countries should be held to the same standards wouldn't you agree?
>
> The biggest polluters who profited the most from their actions should
> make the largest contribution.
The biggest polluters usually pay a huge price for there pollution. Look at
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Any other company that pollutes if found out
also pays.
> >
> > > Mark K.
joseph irvin
That's great. A side effect of just talking about global warming. <grin>
Our 'hot air' at least produced something positive. See, global warming
isn't all bad.
Zen
LOL!
It's very lovely in B.C. Canada in fact, but my heart really does go
out to all those who are experiencing such inhumanly cold temperatures
in the east, northeastern and midwestern U.S. right now.
Hang in there, folks!!
It is very refreshing and enlightening to read your discussions
though, both yours and Mark's. Welcome to alt.wisdom, Joseph.
joseph irvin
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:13:35 GMT, "joseph irvin"
> <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > I read an interesting viewpoint in my local paper, basically
the
> >> > writer
> >> > said
> >> > > > > > trying to rationalize or reason with these terrorist or
> >fundamental
> >> > extremists
> >> > > > > > was useless, that truly the ONLY thing that would make any of
> >them
> >> > happy
> >> > or to
> >> > > > > > not hate the US is for the US to become a Muslim nation and
> >follow
> >> > their
> >> > > > > > beliefs.
>
> I agree with this. We (non-Muslims) are 'in their way' of Allah and
> they cannot suffer their world being soiled and disgraced by
> non-Muslims such as us. It's why I hate Islam even more than I hate
> Catholicism. Historically speaking, no religion has ever been more
> dangerous to man and womankind than that of the pedophile Muhammad's
> Nation of Islam.
I kinda of agree with this, but can we be sure that all Muslims are
fundamentalist and extremist or even hold these beliefs. What bothers me is
that the so called moderate Muslims are, for the most part, silent in
condemning the terrorism committed by Muslims. This could be because of
fear which I understand. Other Muslim countries govts hardly ever condemn
terrorist actions. These are reasons I kinda of agree. The Muslim's
religion definitely has to be brought into the 21st century. The Catholic
religion doesn't bother me, my brother converted to Catholicism.
> >> I'm stating the fact that Israelis allege and believe that an
> >> omnipotent entity promised Palestine to them. That's the reason they
give
> >for wanting to live there.
> >
> >So what if they did believe that an omnipotent entity promised them
> >Palestine? GB had a big part in the process of the formation of Israel.
> >Israel alone didn't have the power to become a State. It is a State
today
> >and recognized in the world as a legimate State.
>
> Not by Iran and probably most other Muslim/Arabic countries.
Thats true. Saddam's Iraq didn't even recognize Kewait, but though it part
of Iraq. It may very well have been at one time.
Otherwise Israel is a recognized in the world as a sovereign State.
> > What do you suggest...take
> >Israel by force and tell the refugees here is your land back?....it would
> >become just another 3rd world oppressive govt. most likely.
> >
> >> > I don't pretend to know what an
> >> > 'omnipotent entity' does or thinks. You blame Israel for the refugee
> >> > problem when they allowed the people living there at them time of the
> >> > formation of the country, to stay.
> >>
> >> Gee, that's big of them. "Allow" people to stay on their homeland and
> >serve the invaders.
> >
> >Serve? No, allow them to stay and participate in the new State of
Israel.
> >They chose not to and left some even joining the other arab States in
> >attacking the newly formed State of Israel.
>
> Within Israel, Palestinians have few if any rights...not even by
> marriage to a Jewish/Israeli citizen. Sounds to me as if there might
> be a pretty illegitimate and flawed governmental framework in place...
What I was talking about above was during the time of the formation of the
Jewish state. People living there would be able to remain and become
citizens of the new State. Things now are hard on non-Jewish people living
in Israel but you have to understand they are living in a garrisoned
state...non Jews are all suspected. I imagine it would be the same way in
any country that has suffered the terrrorism that Israel has suffered. Look
at how the Japanese in the US were treated after Pearl Harbor... how Lincoln
responded after the beginning of the Civil War. A first responsibility of a
government is to perpetuate itself and protect its people....this is Israels
way of doing this.
> >> > > > What are other arab countries doing to help
> >> > > > the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees
immigrate
> >to
> >> > > > their country.
> >> > >
> >> > > Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
> >> >
> >> > Why are they classified as refugees then?
> >>
> >> Because they are refugees.
> >
> >True, but they wouldn't be if the other arab countries would let them
become
> >citizens and get jobs.
> >>
> >> ...aren't they allowed to work and
> >> > become citizens?
> >>
> >> They are Palestinians, why should they want to be anything else and
> >> work in a foreign country?
>
> In that case, then they would most likely choose to be Americans or
> Canadians.
I don't know, maybe other European countries may be a choice. We know most
other Arab countries do not want to accept them which is there right. Many
refugees don't have the means to get to the US or Canada. Even if they did
they would have to go through the immigration process.
> > As it happens they only act on propaganda fed to them by the
> >> ziocon newslaundry. Hell, most of them don't even know that
> >> palestinians *are* refugees, never mind where Gaza is.
> >> I also doubt they know more poignant facts about the country they
> >> donate the largest aid, like Israel selling arms to apartheid South
> >> Africa while most of the world was boycotting it.
>
> This is true. And America kept sending professional entertainment to
> pacify apartheid South Africans until Little Steven (an
> American/Jewish fellow, I believe) and some other enlightened friends
> said "I won't play Sun City."
Did America *send* 'professional entertainment' to South Africa or were
American entertainers free to travel to South Africa to work?
Mark K.
> "Mark K." <mark...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7a6f91bb.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > "joseph irvin" <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<kieNb.35692$6y6.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > "Mark K." <mark...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:7a6f91bb.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "joseph irvin" <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<85YMb.11505$VS4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > > > "Mark K." <mark...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:7a6f91bb.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > kjst...@aol.comhymnal (Kjstudio) wrote in message
> news:<20031231083733...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
I told you before, early signs of cooling may be part of the warming
trend.
> Alar a toxic pesticide...the apple industry hurt....It was not
> harmful
??? Most pesticides are harmful, what are you on about?
> ....the gas shortage of the 70's running out of oil didn't
> happen...plenty of oil
??? So why is the US now so desperate to secure oil supplies? Oil is
getting more scarce, it's a finite commodity.
> ....population explosion
Population IS increasing. It is precisely because of such studies that
china took measures to reduce birth rates.
> ....world famine by the turn
> of the century....didn't happen...plenty of food. The problem is the
> distribution system if there is a problem. Do you see why I may be a little
> disbeleiving?
Again, it was partly as a result of those warnings that food
production increased. (Yet there were still famines)
>
> > whereas those who are, are the majority of scientists who
> > overwhelmingly find it to be indicitavive of man made global warming.
>
> Just because the majority of scientists think that there is global warming
> doesn't make it correct. I'm in no way saying that there is no global
> warming...there very well maybe.
So IOW, you and the industrialist US administration think we should
wait until the proof hits us on the head irreversably.
> There are scientist that believe that
> there is no global warming/there is some global warming/the global warming
> if it is happening may not be as bad as predicted.
There is no doubt that global warming IS happening (whatever the
reason), even according to your Mr. Michael.
You are also attempting to divert from the fact that the US is
imposing about 20% (and increasing) of Co2 emissions on the whole
world.
The world has democratically and scientifically come to the conclusion
that this is a danger to it and it's wildlife. The US is thereby
undermining democracy, science and ethics.
> I'm open.
No, you are advocating no action and the increase of Co2 emissions.
> You seem only
> to think that it 'is', without a doubt....also it will be extremely harmful.
It already is harmful. You should inform youself better. (A more
regular look at non-american media sources would help you there).
??? It already is mostly harmful.
>
> > You seem to think that it's worth gambling with the whole planet just
> > to save a little inconvenience for a minority of well off people.
>
> You just said it, this (envir.) was a 'finely balanced complex chaotic
> system' now you are implying that a minority of 'well off people' can
> control it enough that they will not be affected. Something is wrong with
> your reasoning. They can control this system for their benefit?
Your comprehension is the problem. It is the actions of these people
and their ignorance or plain disregard of the consequences that are
affecting the weather and the environment. From what you have written,
you are a classical example.
> If they
> kill all the people who buys there products they make cheaply by polluting?
???
I'm quite happy reading sources from countries that aren't dominated
by the industrial lobby who overwhelmingly find that it is real, a
threat and largely due to Co2 emissions.
> You cannot generalize about all industrialists as being 'ethnically corrupt.
( ITYM "ethically" )
I sure can claim that the vast majority of industrialist are out to
make as much money *as they can get away with* at the expense of the
environment.
That's why your industrialist pres has decimated US environmental
laws, an act that damages the whole world.
> It is true some are and some are not. Take a look at some of the 'robber
> barons' of the mid 1800's to early 1900's.
> Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, etc. Vanderbilt left a University, and his
> home in Ashville, NC. Carneigie had disposed of almost all of his income
> building 2811 free libraries and the purchase of 7689 church organs. Lots
> of these early industrialist were free to get wealthy and then start large
> foundations to help less fortunate. This was when there was not Fed Income
> tax or very little. These people were rich rich. Ford, H. Hughes, and B.
> Gates have continued this. Lots of very rich people feel obligated to give
> there wealth away.
I'm not going to start discussing individual cases, the evidence of
their wrongdoings is out there (and much of it never comes to light).
See above.
Surely you are not trying to claim that "the greenies" (whoever you
take these to be) are worse than the industrialists. I also note that
you don't even bother to consider the harm done life other than human.
> > > It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
> > > still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
>
> > Of course, inevitably. But lets not accelerate that process by
> > releasing millions of years worth of stored co2 into the atmosphere.
>
> We don't know that this is accelerating.
Yes we do. (See 1,250,000 google links.)
> There also could be some
> beneficial effects. Effects do not always have to be negative.
You are becoming repetitive. The benefits dwarf the damage. The
changes alone wipe out whole ecosystems. I've seen some of it.
>
> > > > > And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global
> warming,
> > > > > such as a longer growing season,
> > > >
> > > > Duh.
> > >
> > > Again an assumption. Both sides make assumptions.
> > >
> > > > > but we are not likely to see a lot of those
> > > > > benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of warming.
> Moreover,
> it is
> > > > > mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As Professor
> Michaels
> > > > > points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to minus 28 in
> January."
> Is
> > > > > anyone complaining -- other than professional complainers and
> professional
> > > > > doomsayers?
> > > >
> > > > What about the places that get too, hot and the rise in sea levels,
> > > > hmm? Funny, first he says that it's not happening and then he points
> > > > out places where it is.
> > >
> > > What if these same places get hot no matter what we do?
> >
> > Your logic is flawed. What if I burn down your house? You might
> > survive. I'm sure you'd prefer to wait until it burns down naturally.
>
> No, my location has nothing to do with my house buring down.
Location has nothing to do with the example I gave.
> Waiting for it
> to burn down naturally doesn't assure me of living through such and ordeal.
The point is that if I am prevented from doing it, it's unlikely to
happen at all. Similarly, if we reduce/eliminate unnatural human Co2
emissions, we elimante the human cause of changes.
> Also buying insurance doesn't assure me of living if my house burns down.
Preventing me setting light to it eliminates the certainty of it
burning down.
>
> > > ....what if its just
> > > a pecularity of the Earths climate?..In the 70's it was global cooling,
> now
> > > 30+ years later it global warming. Who knows without further study.
> Also
> > > third world countrie's industries wouldn't be held to the same standards
> as
> > > the industrial countries. If one is serious about the Kyoto treaty all
> > > countries should be held to the same standards wouldn't you agree?
> >
> > The biggest polluters who profited the most from their actions should
> > make the largest contribution.
>
> The biggest polluters usually pay a huge price for there pollution. Look at
> the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Any other company that pollutes if found out
> also pays.
Hahaha! Again you quote one example. In the vast majority of cases of
pollution , the perpetrators aren't even found, and when they are,
they usually get little more than a slap on the wrist.
Say, are you some kind of ex defence shyister? It sounds like you are
used to defending criminals who are as guilty as hell.
Mark K.
> > >
> > > > Mark K.
Zen
<j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I agree with this. We (non-Muslims) are 'in their way' of Allah and
>> they cannot suffer their world being soiled and disgraced by
>> non-Muslims such as us. It's why I hate Islam even more than I hate
>> Catholicism. Historically speaking, no religion has ever been more
>> dangerous to man and womankind than that of the pedophile Muhammad's
>> Nation of Islam.
>
>I kinda of agree with this, but can we be sure that all Muslims are
>fundamentalist and extremist or even hold these beliefs. What bothers me is
>that the so called moderate Muslims are, for the most part, silent in
>condemning the terrorism committed by Muslims. This could be because of
>fear which I understand. Other Muslim countries govts hardly ever condemn
>terrorist actions. These are reasons I kinda of agree. The Muslim's
>religion definitely has to be brought into the 21st century. The Catholic
>religion doesn't bother me, my brother converted to Catholicism.
Just contributing my own gas emissions to this thread;-)
You're right...the majority of religious people of all
denominations/dominations seem to have a healthy handle on what
religion is really for. What I was really referring to is some of the
awful events which have occurred in the past, thanks to fundamental
zealots, particularly those representing Islam and Catholicism. With
the possible exception of Scientology (among other strange cults), one
religion is about as good or bad as the other, imo.
>> Within Israel, Palestinians have few if any rights...not even by
>> marriage to a Jewish/Israeli citizen. Sounds to me as if there might
>> be a pretty illegitimate and flawed governmental framework in place...
>
>What I was talking about above was during the time of the formation of the
>Jewish state. People living there would be able to remain and become
>citizens of the new State. Things now are hard on non-Jewish people living
>in Israel but you have to understand they are living in a garrisoned
>state...non Jews are all suspected. I imagine it would be the same way in
>any country that has suffered the terrrorism that Israel has suffered. Look
>at how the Japanese in the US were treated after Pearl Harbor... how Lincoln
>responded after the beginning of the Civil War. A first responsibility of a
>government is to perpetuate itself and protect its people....this is Israels
>way of doing this.
I do understand this. When 911 happened in your country, I was one of
those most in favor in this newsgroup of sending all Muslims off of
the continent and bombing the crap out of most of the Middle East. How
extreme is that?? Lol Compared to those feelings and considering the
daily fear which Israeli civilians must be feeling, they are actually
being very cool-headed about it all. I also admired Israel very much
for their restraint when Saddam was firing missiles at them during the
Gulf War and they did nothing in retaliation.
>Did America *send* 'professional entertainment' to South Africa or were
>American entertainers free to travel to South Africa to work?
They were free to go there and were paid handsomely for their
appearances in South Africa. Even once the rest of the entertainment
world had openly condemned S.A. and refused to perform there, some
very big names, such as Frank Sinatra continued to go. My point though
was that an American of Jewish descent was one of the most outspoken
entertainers against that regime and quite instrumental in effecting
real change for the better. I'm a big fan.
Mark K.
Very one sided, since only part of the US people actually agree with
the US government which only represents 4% of the world population.
>
> > > Nations like China, Mexico, India, and Brazil
> > > were exempted from some of the stricter standards. The treaty wouldn't
> > > distroy any countries economy totally. I've read that it would cause
> the US
> > > economy to shrink anywhere from 20 to 30%.
> >
> > Again bullshit.
>
> Bullshit to what?
The bit about "destroying economies" and "economies shrinking by
20-30%".
>
> The main industry to suffer would be the oil and coal
> > industry (Bu$h's cronies).
>
> So the coal and oil industry don't count?
As far as the health of the planet and everything on it is concerned,
the fossil fuel industries count diddlysquat.
>
> Change to green energy methods would CREATE whole new industries.
>
> And it will as it matures but not now because the technology is not cheap
> enough yet.
> Price a hybred car now...well above the cost of an ordinary car
I already explained to you that the price of green tech is kept
artificially high by the fossil fuel industries.
> ...the performance as compared to regular cars?
Better acceleration.
> Car companies are in
> business to make money,
Car companies are under pressure by fossil fuel companies to keep
buying their pollutants.
They "green" hydrogen car pushed by Bu$h is another one of those ploys
to make you think it's green when it actually needs fossil fuels to
make the hydrogen.
> a novel concept to a 'greenie.'
You have this irrational thing about "greenies", is that a term for
people you've been conditioned to instinctively discredit?
> > What happens in practice is that fossil fuel industries buy up
> > budding green energy businesses and patents and then increase the
> > prices of the green products to discourage people from buying them,
> > meanwhile pretending to be green.
>
> Oh, how devious one kind of energy company buying up another kind of energy
> company.
YES! It is, when it is done mainly to stop a better and cheaper
technology from gaining acceptance.
> I'm sure you realize that if 'green energy' is going to get any
> traction it will probably be by another, energy co./group of energy
> companies or some big investor (fossil) buying them and financing the R&D
> necessary to make it feasable.
No.
It is already feasable.
It doesn't need a large energy co./group or fossil fuel investor to
get it off the ground. They are actually the very ones stopping small
companies and quashing the green competition.
> (I have a friends who were in the
> > oil industry and are now in the solar energy biz. They now get their
> > main components from China, the best source for green products.)
>
> Why isn't it happening.....putting the fossil energy companies out of
> business?...you know the better mouse trap.
I told you so, above. I'll repeat it for you again:
Fossil fuel companies buy up new companies and patents starting to
make green products which favourably compete with fossil fuels. They
then make sure these products either never see the light of day ore
price them too highly for acceptance and pretend they are being green
by offering them for sale.
>
> > > > Even if some of the fears about global warming are just hysterical
> > > > nonsense, I don't really see what harm could come of all countries
> > > > looking at and finding ways to reduce pollution on this planet. We all
> > > > have to live here, after all.
> > >
> > > The US has been reducing pollution. The US is a lot less polluted than
> 20
> > > years ago. Things are getting better.
> >
> > Not on the Co2 front.
>
> Yes the C02 front in the US. City air is cleaner generally.
??? Co2 emissions in the US are increasing.
"City air being cleaner generally" has nothing to do with Co2
emissions.
Funny how this daimler-chrysler-Mercedes car is selling in europe but
they haven't dared to sell it in the US, instead they will try to
launch an SUV version for the fatarses in 2006 :
http://www.smart.com/
You seem to be under the illusion that oil resources are unlimited and
that you can just keep pouring all of what's left into the
atmosphere.
Quite frankly I'd be much more inclined to help "the greenies" you so
despise clean the world than the aid the filthy fat $elf-centred oil
$cum that you seem to be so impressed by. (The very same ones that
have placed all members of the yank green party on the "no-fly" list
as "potential terrorists", btw.)
>
> > > Politicians and leaders of big business have breath the same air and eat
> the
> > > same food we do.
> >
> > They get large places where the air don't stink and they get the best
> > food.
>
> How do the 'industrialist' know when to stop polluting so as not to affect
> themselves?
They don't. They have to be made to stop. Which is why "voluntary
compliance to environmental guidelines" as pushed by failed oilman
Bu4h is such a joke.
Yes! Global warming makes weather much more extreme. You really need
to read up on things. Here's a start:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/07/03/wmo.extremes/
>
> > > Myth:
> > > The global population is growing faster than our ability to produce food
> > > Fact:
> > > Global fertility rates are falling dramatically, and with advanced
> > > technology, farmers are producing more food using fewer resources than
> ever
> > > before
> >
> > So we don't need GM crops after all.....
>
> We have plenty of food. In the US the problem is not a shortage of food but
> to much food.
Yes....
>
> > > Myth:
> > > Solar- and wind-powered generators are a renewable, efficient, and less
> > > intrusive alternative to gas-, oil-, and coal-burning generators
> > > Fact:
> > > Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being
> depleted,
> > > and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more
> electricity
> > > than 13,000 windmills
> >
> > Bullshit. It requires less than two thousand and IS renewable and
> > efficient, as would simply covering roofs in PV panels. It's also
> > cheaper long term, particularly large scale.
>
> In Calif on the big windmill farms they are having problems with
> birds...endangered species...flying into the blades. What's a 'greenie' to
> do?
Repel birds, just like is done at airports..
>
> > > Myth:
> > > Modern pesticides and fertilizers are increasing the rates of cancer in
> > > humans
> > > Fact:
> > > No study has ever shown that anyone has developed cancer from the legal
> > > application of pesticides, and environmental pollution accounts for at
> most
> > > 2 percent of all cancer cases versus 30 percent caused by tobacco use
> >
> > (The tobacco industry also argued for decades that there is no link
> between cancer and smoking.)
>
> And they are paying dearly for it also. I noticed the Fed govt wasn't sued
> for pushing tobacco in the military....C rations contained packs of smokes
> when I was in.
The lesson is: err on the side of caution where chemicals are
concerned.
Right now people are gulping down the neurotoxin aspartame (thanks to
Rumsfeld), for another example.
> > Of course all the other diseaeses, a plethora of as yet unknown
> > effects and the huge environmental impact aren't even mentioned:
>
> Whats also not mentioned is the people who smoke, by taxation are paying an
> unfair share of the medicare expenses and are dieing earlier. If everyone
> who smokes quit today the Soc Security system would fold faster. Who is
> scamming who?
In GB they claim the opposite. Smokers allegedly use up more NHS
resources.
>
> > Pesticides have never caused a car accident, therefore pesticides are
> > safe, duh.
>
> You mean like alar that was used on apples. It was suppose to be such a
> toxic chemical. The only people hurt were the apple producers as they found
> later on it was safe. Did that affect the 'greenies'.....no. Or DDT that
> practically wiped out malaria and yellow fever a big killer in the 3rd
> world....Its toxic to the envir.
> We now have West Nile virus in this country on the rise. I'm guessing that
> if it gets to the epidemic stage we will be using DDT again. The 'greenies'
> position is, I'm almost certain that humans are expendable.
No the green position is, most likely, combat WNV without harming the
rest of the environment.
> >
> > > See for yourself:
> > >
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/102-7574205-0387326?v=glance&vi=reviews
> >
> >
> > I am surprised that you even bothered to paste such a selection of
> > bullshit.
>
> I am also supprised that you failed to refute much of what I posted.
I did refute virtually all of what you posted, you just added more
rubbish.
Mark K.
> >
> > Mark K.
Mark K.
> "Mark K." <mark...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7a6f91bb.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > "joseph irvin" <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<5ffNb.35993$6y6.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > "Mark K." <mark...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:7a6f91bb.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "joseph irvin" <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<6VWMb.11306$VS4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > > > "Mark K." <mark...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:7a6f91bb.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > imn...@aol.com (Imndano) wrote in message
> news:<20040112184110...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
[snip]
> > > > > > ..... You don't even have an inkling of
> > > > > > how woefully out of touch you are with the real world.
> > > > >
> > > > > How out of touch are we...explain?
> > > >
> > > > About 80% of americans have never been to another country for a start.
> > > > You are much less likely to have relatives actually living outside the
> > > > americas.
> > > > You also have a low, slanted and partisan standard of media reporting.
> > >
> > > So we Americans are out of touch with the rest of the world because
> we've
> > > never been to another country?
> >
> > On the whole, yes. There is no substitute for experiencing different
> > cultures in the flesh.
>
> Your opinion is noted.
> You omit the fact that many people travel to this
> country, some even risking there lives to get here.
Because we are talking about "only 20% of americans ever having been
abroad".
If you want to talk about *immigration* that's a different subject.
...To which I say that the vast majority of all people who ever
migrated TO the US did so for financial opportunities. And it is the
main reason why american culture is also famous for it's "culture of
greed", because it is so deeply embedded in the psychy of the country.
>
> > > As for the media we do IMO have a slanted
> > > one just like the British media is slanted.
> >
> > The US "media" is now more akin to a ziocon propaganda machine.
>
> Your opinion is noted...some proof would be helpful.
The Murdoch media empire.
Controlling positions in media companies being occupied by a largely
disproportionate number of pro-zionists.
"Greg Dyke, BBC director-general, has condemned US media coverage of
the Iraq war and accused American broadcasters of "swapping
impartiality for patriotism".
http://www.people-link.org/news/showupdates.php?upid=759
But the best way to see for yourself is to actually begin to read
non-american news sites on the web regularly, the BBC one is a start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
If you want to balance your view, you have to read both sides of a
story (eg. Fox and Al Jazeera, CNN and Pravda). Then you should get a
clearer idea of how slanted your media is.
One recent small example would be that the tests on shells found by
danish troops propagandised as containing blister agent have now shown
that they actually don't. Most americans have not been made aware of
that fact.
> > > We also have many other means
> > > of communication like 'talk radio'. We also have the internet and are
> able
> > > to find out what is going on in the world.
> >
> > Though few actually use it for that purpose.
>
> I don't know the number of people who listen....what difference would it
> make thought?....all US media according to you is "ziocon propaganda."
No, MOST us media is strongly pro-zionist BIASED. Occasionally they
have to let some snippets through or they would loose credibility. The
reason the US-Israel centric media doesn't have much cred in europe
(nay the world)is because we have a more diverse media (despite
scumbag Murdoch's efforts to the opposite) which actually reports some
of the injustices suffered daily by the Palestinians.
> > > Its seems the in the past
> > > century the only time that lots of Americans traveled was going to
> Europe to
> > > help win two World Wars
> >
> > "Help" being the operative word. Most of the human price, and
> > defeating of the German military in WW2, was actually done by russia.
> >
> > > ....we were more 'in touch' then.
> >
> > Since much of the travelling is done by the military, even that view
> is slanted.
>
> Why?
Because the military go to potential and actual conflict zones or live
grouped in US camps/stations, not with the local population or in
peacetime. They mostly aren't of the type interested in broadening
their cultural horizons much beyond rifle range or the local brothels
and bars.
> Americans cannot do anything right can they?
Not much. (See "particpating in world affairs with an insular
viewpoint")
> What the view that
> Americans have to bail Europe out of their messes?
The US actually did much less "bailing" in europe than they boast
about ,
and what they did certainly wasn't out of altruism. They entered both
wars late and did so because of the fear that the enmey would
eventually come over an get their ass. They decided that it was better
to fight abroad rather than get their own country trashed. While some
of the actual soldiers may have believed they were out to save europe,
the real reasons were different.
>
> > > Maybe the US
> > > doesn't share Europes world view and chose not to travel.
> >
> > Insular mentality.
>
> Mr K. you cannot have it both ways. You argue that Americans are 'insular'
> in their mentality but condemn us for participating in world affairs?
"Participitating" in world affairs with an insular mentality isn't
exactly a recepie for success and popularity. QED Iraq etc..
> What
> if the US would have been 'insular' in 1917 and 1941? You probably wouldn't
> be sitting behind that keyboard now.
Here are the casualty figures for WW1: Russia tops the list. US only
fought the last year of it.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8054/casualty.html
Here are the casualties for WW2: russia tops the list (also note where
most of the german army died, their crack troops)
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
That should put things in perspective for you.
> > > > > > > it's basically a
> > > > > > > hatred of an entire people and religion ( see zioni$ts ) that
> > > believes
> > > in
> > > > > > > allowing everyone to be free to choose what or whom they wish to
> worship.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ..And free to ethnically cleanse a whole country, amongst a host
> of
> > > > > > other crimes and injustices.
> > > > >
> > > > > What country did the US ethnically cleanse?
> > > >
> > > > We are talking about Israel (though it ethnically cleansed itself not
> > > > that long ago).
> > >
> > > If you know the history of Israel since it formation the people living
> there
> > > were asked to stay. They chose to leave as they though the arabs
> countries
> > > would over run Israel. It didn't happen.
> >
> > So what's your point?
>
> That all people living in what is now Israel would participate in the
> government of the new State.
If, say, mexicans suddenly told you at gunpoint that they are now the
new regime in your part of the country, would you want to participate
in their government with their gun in your back or get out to kick
their ass later?
>
> > > By the way some Israelis were 'in
> > > touch', the ones living in Germany before the 2nd WW. Look how these
> 'in
> > > touch' Israelies are treated in France today.
> >
> > Clarify.
>
> The Jewish people living under German domination were killed. Today, the
> renewal of antisemitism in France.
Ah yes, the ZioCon campaign to malign the "Old Europe".
Any "antisemitism" in France is totally dwarfed by the
anti-arab/muslim racism in the US.
Criticising Israel and NaZionism isn't "antisemitism" btw (a misnoma
if ever there was one, Israelis aren't semites).
>
> > > > > You forget that over 4 million refugees
> > > > > > are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave
> Palestine
> > > > > > to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wasn't Israel, a country promised by the Balfour Declaration...the
> > > > > declaration taking its name from British Foreign Secretary Arthur
> Balfour?
> > > > > Was GB in any way responsible?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > > Are you implying that when people talk about "the promised land", they
> > > > mean by Britain, rather than by an alleged omnipotent entity?
> > >
> > > I don't imply anything. I stated a fact.
> >
> > I'm stating the fact that Israelis allege and believe that an
> > omnipotent entity promised Palestine to them. That's the reason they give
> for wanting to live there.
>
> So what if they did believe that an omnipotent entity promised them
> Palestine?
??? They are obviously totally batty!
> GB had a big part in the process of the formation of Israel.
Sure, they wanted them out of europe. Their Bolshevism had recently
ruined russia.
> Israel alone didn't have the power to become a State.
Exactly. It's a totally artificial construct.
> It is a State today
> and recognized in the world as a legimate State.
Only under the pressure of the US and previously Britain.
> What do you suggest...take
> Israel by force and tell the refugees here is your land back?
Disarm israel as much as possible (of nukes particularly, fallout from
which would damage the whole world), stop giving it arms aid, make it
obey UN resolutions. Let UN troops keep the peace until both sides
come to an agreement.
> ....it would
> become just another 3rd world oppressive govt. most likely.
It already is. They can't even agree amongst themselves.
>
> > > I don't pretend to know what an
> > > 'omnipotent entity' does or thinks. You blame Israel for the refugee
> > > problem when they allowed the people living there at them time of the
> > > formation of the country, to stay.
> >
> > Gee, that's big of them. "Allow" people to stay on their homeland and
> serve the invaders.
>
> Serve? No, allow them to stay and participate in the new State of Israel.
See how you'd like to "participate" with the side with the guns.
Do you think Outsiders "participating" in a jewish dominated
organisation (holding guns)is a viable proposition anywhere?
> They chose not to and left some even joining the other arab States in
> attacking the newly formed State of Israel.
Bastards, trying to get their land back, the cheek...
> > > You implyingly blame the US for aiding
> > > Israel a country recognized by other sovereign countries.
> >
> > It wasn't recognised as a country by a whole bunch, and it only became
> > an entity similating a country with mainly american aid.
>
> Of course it was recognized by other States. Yes, Israel did get aid from
> America, just like GB and the rest of the Allies got aid during the W Wars
> or they would be Axis satillites today.
I refer to political pressure, as well as aid.
> > > Why doesn't the
> > > other arab countries give some of their oil money to help the refugees?
> > They do.
> Like the rich arab oil countries?
Yes.
> ...like Arafat who is stashing money in
> European banks by the tons.
Would you prefer him to put it in a jewish bank? There isn't a bank
safe from the Israelis in Palestine.
>
> > > Why
> > > don't all of the arab countries let the refugees immigrate to their
> > > countries...live there and get jobs.
> >
> > You mean aid the Israelis in removing them from their homeland?
>
> No, I mean just what I wrote....let the refugees live and work in their
> countries.
...which is tantamount to helping the evacuation of Palestine and
handing ALL OF IT to the Israelis on a platter.
> > > > > What are other arab countries doing to help
> > > > > the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees immigrate
> to
> > > > > their country.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
> > >
> > > Why are they classified as refugees then?
> >
> > Because they are refugees.
>
> True, but they wouldn't be if the other arab countries would let them become
> citizens and get jobs.
See above and below. It's up to Israel to quit opressing them and to
let them live in their home country.
> >
> > ...aren't they allowed to work and
> > > become citizens?
> >
> > They are Palestinians, why should they want to be anything else and
> > work in a foreign country?
>
> They can still be Palestinians and live and work in other States.
???
better idea: The Israeli immigrants go back to where they just came
from.
> How do
> you know what they think of believe unless they had the opportunity to work
> and live in another country...they may just as well like this.
> This is your assumption.
Tell you what: I take your house and most of your posessions, you get
out and live somewhere else or I shoot you, you might like it.
Your ethics are FUBAR (that's: Fucked Up Beyond Al Recognition , a
vietnam term, I believe)
> > > If they don't why should other countries?
> > >
> > > > I'm sure Israel would love an exodus of palestinians and for other
> > > > countries to so facilitate their ethnic cleansing. Of course the
> > > > Palestinians would much raher stay in their own country and that the
> > > oppressors went.
> > >
> > > They had a chance when Israel was formed into a State. They chose to
> leave
> > > because they thought the Israelies would be defeated and run into the
> sea.
> >
> > Imagine that, not wanting to serve the invading zionists.
>
> Not serve, but live in, participate in, and become citizens of the new State
> of Israel.
See above
> > > That didn't happen and now they want to live there now that Israel has
> made
> > > it a strong wealthy State. Why now and not then? It seems they were
> lead
> > > down the 'garden path' by their own people.
> >
> > THEY WERE FUCKING INVADED! Get real.
>
> I am real. It is true there was a small war. What you leave out is a
> Jewish State was promisesd by the Balfour Declation of 1917 affirming a
> mandate by the League of Nations. Also the adoption of a UN resolution to
> establish an independent Jewish State in Palestine. Thats getting real and
> factual.
It obviously and predictably hasn't worked, because it was ethically
flawed.
The position NOW is that most Palestinians are refugees and are being
opressed by Israelis who are gradually becoming a minority.
>
> > > How about living and taking
> > > responsibility for ones own mistakes?
> >
> > Your ethics are totally FOBAR. What "mistake" do you mean???
>
> Sorry, I don't know what FOBAR means.
(Typo, that should be FUBAR, see above explanation)
> The mistake I'm referring to is the
> Palestineans choosing to move rather that stay in the newly forming State of
> Israel because they thought the other arab State would over run Israel.
See above
> > > I've always understood ethnic cleansing as the destruction of an ethnic
> > > group of people not just expelling them.
> >
> > You understood wrong. Here is the dictionary definition:
> >
> > ethnic cleansing
> > n.
> > The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region
> > or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.
> >
> Ok, my mistake.
>
> > > If just expelling people is your
> > > definition your country is also guilty of it as they sent British
> convicts
> > > throughout the Empire.
> >
> > I'm not british, it's not "my" but the dictionary's definition, and
> > no, deporting convicts is not ethnic cleansing because they are not an
> > ethnic group.
>
> Ok, again you are correct and I agree.
Thanks.
> > > > > Funny how you
> > > > > > whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and they
> > > > > > don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
> > > > >
> > > > > Should any govt accept illegal immigrants? Why have legal
> immigration?
> Did
> > > > > British citizens every complain about immigration when the
> Commonwealth
> > > > > countries were free to immigrate to GB?
> > > >
> > > > Sure they did, it was part of the hypocrisy of colonialism (An
> > > > additional factor being that GB is already densly populated and now
> > > > does accept numbers of refugees).
> > >
> > > Its easy to sit behind your computer and make judgments of past actions
> > > (colonialism) of countries with todays standards.
> >
> > Actually, I'm more interested in present actions and the continued
> > support by the US of an apartheid racist regime engaged in ethnic
> > cleansing . You're the one who brought up the past.
>
> True, I did bring up the past, but isn't the past where the problem started.
Sure, the perpetuated fallout from imperial injustices.
> If the Palestinians had stayed and become citizens of Israel there probably
> wouldn't have been such a problem. You opinion about the US supporting a
> racist regime engaged in ethnic cleansing is noted.
Clarify "noted".
> > > One of the best things
> > > that ever happened in this world is the British Empire...the world is a
> > > better place to day because of it and its colonialism.
> >
> > The victims of it may well disagree with your speculation.
>
> The victims are few compared to good that was spread around the world by the
> colonial powers.
Imperialism is unethical.
>
> > > > Why doesn't the US accept more palestinian refugees instead of giving
> the
> > > > Israelis the cash and weapons to drive them out?
> > >
> > > Yes and why doesn't the US take the whole worlds problems as its
> > > responsibilities? I don't think the US has the responsibility to make
> the
> > > whole world right
> >
> > It should get the hell out of Iraq and quit interfering in a range of
> other countries then.
>
> It seems to bother you that Iraq could ignore UN resolutions for years and
> then when the US goes in an gets rid or of a real tyrant.
> that did actually
> get rid of one who ordered ethnic cleansing (killing) you protest.
It's not up to the US to defy the UN either. It is up to the UN to
decide when or when not force is used to enforce it's resolutions.
The US should get it's grubby hands out of the Iraqi pie of assets
instead of divvying it up between Bu$hs cronies and let the UN take
over.
> You also
> call the Americans 'insular' but now complain that we are to involved in
> other countries. Seems you only want the US at Europes beck and call when
> Europe gets in trouble.
I want the US to obey and strengthen the world democracy of the UN.
Action without majority concensus is a recepie for conflict.
>
> > > ...this includes the taking/not taking of refugees. And as
> > > for giving Israel money and weapons it is a choice for the US to make.
> >
> > ??? I don't think you meant to post such a banal phrase. Try applying
> > that same standard to other country's supports of causes.
>
> I did mean to post such a 'banal phrase.' One of the cardinal rules of
> foreign policy is not to let other countries make your foreign
> policy....this also means the UN.
OK, it's not the business of the US to force other countries to change
their foreign policies. Your hairbrained "cardinal rule" works both
ways, see.
Another sign that you are not capable of democracy.
> This seems to bother you that the US can
> make its own foreign policy without consulting the 3rd world tyrants in the
> UN. Does it?
Are you calling the whole world tyrants? Pot meet kettle.
> > I doubt, presented by the facts, most americans would give Israel a
> > penny.
>
> Well, we have a free media over here and they are opinions that cover the
> full range regarding aid to Israel like most foreign policies that the US
> persues.
Bullshit. You even said yourself that your media is biased. It is, in
fact, hugely pro Zionist biased.
> > As it happens they only act on propaganda fed to them by the
> > ziocon newslaundry. Hell, most of them don't even know that
> > palestinians *are* refugees, never mind where Gaza is.
> > I also doubt they know more poignant facts about the country they
> > donate the largest aid, like Israel selling arms to apartheid South
> > Africa while most of the world was boycotting it.
>
> So we Americans over here are all 'insular' hayseeds not having any idea
> what our govt is doing huh? We should be at the stand by for a call from
> Europe or the UN to send whatever is needed around the world and how to act
> in the world from the same...Europe and the UN?
You are becoming incoherent again.
>
> > > Please furnish some proof that the US gives Israelis 'the cash and
> weapons
> > > to drive them out.' I want proof of the 'drive them out'.
> >
> > ??? Apart from selling weapons on, what else do you think they do with
> > their arms aid?
>
> Well maybe use them for self defense...is that allowed?
How about the US giving the Palestinians guns and tanks and
helicopters to defend themselves. It's their land after all and they
are getting killed at a rate of 3 to 1.
> > > I realize that
> > > the US for its interest and the interest of the industrial world
> supports
> > > Israel because its the only semi democatic,
> > > stable country in the middle
> > > east
> >
> > "Interest of the world"?
> > Israel holds the world record for ignoring UN resolutions.
>
> Wonder if that has anything to do with Israel ignoring resolutions that
> would weaken the country and make it subject to attack.
Bullshit. It's expanding. That's what all the new settlements are for.
It's even disregarding the US road map on settlemnts.
>
> Support of
> > it has justifiably earned the wrath of countless millions of people,
> > for it's injustices towards the Palestinians.
>
> I'm sure Israel is guilty of some transgressions but then again the
> terrorist operating in Israel and around Israel do more horrendous acts.
The bottom line is that Israelis kill 3 times as many palestinians.
> "The world" goes beyond
> > the US.
> > The big interest the "industrial world" has in it is that this tiny
> > country, smaller than Nu Joisy with only a 5.3 million population, is
> > that it is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world (no.5 in
> > 2003).
>
> Israel may be one of the biggest arms exporters in the world but what does
> that have to do with right of the State of Israel to exist? You see all the
> 'dreadful' acts of Israel...arms exporting, ethnic cleansing etc. and see
> none of these same 'dreadful' acts of arab countries...how open minded of
> you.
I've already told you that your ZioCon media doesn't show you the
ISRAELI ATROCITIES being commited. Israel controls or destroys most
channels of information coming out of Palestine. Talked to any
Palestinians recently? I bet you talked to loads of Zionist supporters
though.
>
> > "semi-democratic"?
> > Sharon is an indicted war criminal. (Hitler was also democratically
> > elected, btw)
>
> So you are comparing Hitler to Sharon? Please give examples of death camps
> for the sole purpose of systematic killing of a race of people.
Sharon was responsible for massacres of people in a refugee camps,
amongst other things.
Read about it in detail:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml
> > "Stable country" ?
> > Without continual yank support to prop it up, I would love to see how
> > "stable" it really is.
>
> Lets just say Israel's govt is more stable than the govts of Europe during
> the 1940's when it was completely dominated by the Axis powers, and England
> was getting bombed constantly.
Eeer, it's 2004.
> It took US aid and MANPOWER to restore those
> govts. So far no US troops have been sent to bail out Israel.
How about bailing out the Palestinians, they are the ones who have by
far the most of the suffering.
> > >....keeping the flow of oil to the rest of the world....you know like
> > > the British navy keeping the sea lanes open. It was in GB interest and
> the
> > > rest of the world.
> >
> > Sorry, but you are becoming incoherent.
>
> Sorry, The British Navy use to rule the oceans of the world making them safe
> for the rest of the world to trade...an interest to GB as well as the world.
??? The british navy was fighting much of the world on the oceans,
hardly "making them safe". The Portugese, Spanish and French, to name
but a few (and they all fought various pirates). Even your colony was
a battlefield.
> >
> > Mark K.
> >
> >
> >
> > >[snip]
Zen
wrote:
>> It seems to bother you that Iraq could ignore UN resolutions for years and
>> then when the US goes in an gets rid or of a real tyrant.
>> that did actually
>> get rid of one who ordered ethnic cleansing (killing) you protest.
>It's not up to the US to defy the UN either. It is up to the UN to
>decide when or when not force is used to enforce it's resolutions.
>The US should get it's grubby hands out of the Iraqi pie of assets
>instead of divvying it up between Bu$hs cronies and let the UN take
>over.
>> You also
>> call the Americans 'insular' but now complain that we are to involved in
>> other countries. Seems you only want the US at Europes beck and call when
>> Europe gets in trouble.
>I want the US to obey and strengthen the world democracy of the UN.
>Action without majority concensus is a recepie for conflict.
Ita on both of these points, Mark.
>> So you are comparing Hitler to Sharon? Please give examples of death camps
>> for the sole purpose of systematic killing of a race of people.
>Sharon was responsible for massacres of people in a refugee camps,
>amongst other things.
>Read about it in detail:
>http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml
Read this some time ago as well. Truly awful stuff and Sharon is a
truly evil man, imo.
joseph irvin
We don't haves a direct democracy here in the US. We have a representative
democracy. 97-0 against Kyoto is smashingly against ratification. As for
the rest of the world they do not vote on treaties between the US and other
countries. I'm sure that they are some people in the US that are for the
Kyoto treaty though.
> > > > Nations like China, Mexico, India, and Brazil
> > > > were exempted from some of the stricter standards. The treaty
wouldn't
> > > > distroy any countries economy totally. I've read that it would
cause
> > the US
> > > > economy to shrink anywhere from 20 to 30%.
> > >
> > > Again bullshit.
> >
> > Bullshit to what?
>
> The bit about "destroying economies" and "economies shrinking by
> 20-30%".
I wrote that the treaty would NOT destroy any country's economy totally. 20
to 30% shrinkage is what I have read.
This was from another article I read:
Developed on the basis of spotty data and deeply flawed analytical models,
the Kyoto treaty - if implemented - would produce only one certain result:
severe harm to the U.S. economy. As Wall Street Journal columnist James
Glassman has noted, "The U.S. could meet the Kyoto targets only by sharply
increasing the price of fossil fuels. . [T]he growth of gross domestic
product in the U.S. would be cut by more than half as businesses moved
offshore to escape the high tax." by Angela Antonelli former dir or Roe
Institute for economic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation. And as I
wrote before all countries are not held to the same standards. US companies
would probably move off shore further damaging the US economy.
> > The main industry to suffer would be the oil and coal
> > > industry (Bu$h's cronies).
> >
> > So the coal and oil industry don't count?
>
> As far as the health of the planet and everything on it is concerned, the
fossil fuel industries count diddlysquat.
Your opinion is noted. It seems its the 'green tech' car industry that
counts for diddlysquat.
> > Change to green energy methods would CREATE whole new industries.
> >
> > And it will as it matures but not now because the technology is not
cheap
> > enough yet.
> > Price a hybred car now...well above the cost of an ordinary car
>
> I already explained to you that the price of green tech is kept
> artificially high by the fossil fuel industries.
This is all assumption. Industry is in the business of making money. Give
evidence of a 'fossil fuel industry' stopping a green tech industy from
bring its product to market. This is just a veriation of an old urban
legend that the oil industry bought the patents up for an engin that would
get x miles more than regular engines.
> > ...the performance as compared to regular cars?
>
> Better acceleration.
Car buyers have more than one standard for the performance of a car they
plan to purchase...thats why there are so many different makes and models.
I'm sure if the 'green tech' people had a competative car it would be on the
market.
> > Car companies are in
> > business to make money,
>
> Car companies are under pressure by fossil fuel companies to keep
> buying their pollutants.
Another unsupported assumption. Why has the gas milage increased in
cars....didn't the oil companies have enough clout? There are many
different tastes in cars in the US...some like the smaller cars and some
like the big cars...Hummers, and many in between.
> They "green" hydrogen car pushed by Bu$h is another one of those ploys
> to make you think it's green when it actually needs fossil fuels to
> make the hydrogen.
What kind of car do you suggest? It has to be feasible and competitively
priced with cars on todays market.
> > a novel concept to a 'greenie.'
>
> You have this irrational thing about "greenies", is that a term for
> people you've been conditioned to instinctively discredit?
I'm not trying to discredit anyone. You say that the oil companies are
keeping 'green tech' cars off of the market with no proof but what you
write. How about some proof of a oil company buying a 'green tech' company
and then shelving its 'better car.'
> > > What happens in practice is that fossil fuel industries buy up
> > > budding green energy businesses and patents and then increase the
> > > prices of the green products to discourage people from buying them,
> > > meanwhile pretending to be green.
> >
> > Oh, how devious one kind of energy company buying up another kind of
energy
> > company.
>
> YES! It is, when it is done mainly to stop a better and cheaper
> technology from gaining acceptance.
How about some proof then. Energy companies buy other energy companies all
the time because it is economically advantagous for them to do so and not
because they want to kill progress. Why aren't these cars in Europe?
Europeans are dying to control the US economy.
> > I'm sure you realize that if 'green energy' is going to get any
> > traction it will probably be by another, energy co./group of energy
> > companies or some big investor (fossil) buying them and financing the
R&D
> > necessary to make it feasable.
>
> No.
> It is already feasable.
If it was feasable the cars would be on the market. The hybred cars now are
more expensive and as long as they stay that way there will be a small
market for them.
> It doesn't need a large energy co./group or fossil fuel investor to
> get it off the ground. They are actually the very ones stopping small
companies and quashing the green competition.
Proof please.
> > (I have a friends who were in the
> > > oil industry and are now in the solar energy biz. They now get their
> > > main components from China, the best source for green products.)
> >
> > Why isn't it happening.....putting the fossil energy companies out of
> > business?...you know the better mouse trap.
>
> I told you so, above. I'll repeat it for you again:
> Fossil fuel companies buy up new companies and patents starting to
> make green products which favourably compete with fossil fuels. They
> then make sure these products either never see the light of day ore
> price them too highly for acceptance and pretend they are being green by
offering them for sale.
Please give examples then. Foreign countries could built these so called
'green tech' cars. Why don't they. Give examples of a patent for one of
these wonder cars that was sold to an oil company. As much as some
Europeans are jealous of the US they would surely do it just to be one up on
the US unless of course Europe is so backward they cannot come up with these
wonder cars you write about....maybe they don't exist as feasible huh?
> > > > > Even if some of the fears about global warming are just hysterical
> > > > > nonsense, I don't really see what harm could come of all countries
> > > > > looking at and finding ways to reduce pollution on this planet. We
all
> > > > > have to live here, after all.
> > > >
> > > > The US has been reducing pollution. The US is a lot less polluted
than
> > 20
> > > > years ago. Things are getting better.
> > >
> > > Not on the Co2 front.
> >
> > Yes the C02 front in the US. City air is cleaner generally.
>
> ??? Co2 emissions in the US are increasing.
> "City air being cleaner generally" has nothing to do with Co2
> emissions.
Explain exactly what the problem is then.
> Funny how this daimler-chrysler-Mercedes car is selling in europe but
> they haven't dared to sell it in the US, instead they will try to
> launch an SUV version for the fatarses in 2006 :
> http://www.smart.com/
It probably wouldn't be a big seller in the US because of its size. It
would be good probably for city driving only....surely not a car to take on
a long trip or family car. Why doesn't Daimler-Chrysler sell one of those
'green tech' wonder cars...they surely have the big $$$$.
No I'm under no illusion at all. By the time earths oil resources run out
there will be some other technology. Mr Ehrlich is the one under an
illusion that we are running out of everything and we are overpopulating and
that there would be global famine...now thats and illusion. But keep
believing this stuff.
> Quite frankly I'd be much more inclined to help "the greenies" you so
> despise clean the world than the aid the filthy fat $elf-centred oil
> $cum that you seem to be so impressed by.
I hate no one. I just think the opinions of the doom and gloom people are
wrong. They have proven themselves wrong so many times. It was they, who
in the 70's thought the world was cooling. Now its warming. You can only
cry 'wolf' so many times before people stop believing you.
(The very same ones that
> have placed all members of the yank green party on the "no-fly" list
> as "potential terrorists", btw.)
Wrong, its only the extremist who distroy other peoples property. The Green
Party is alive and unwell in the US.
> > > > Politicians and leaders of big business have breath the same air and
eat
> > the
> > > > same food we do.
> > >
> > > They get large places where the air don't stink and they get the best
> > > food.
> >
> > How do the 'industrialist' know when to stop polluting so as not to
affect
> > themselves?
>
> They don't. They have to be made to stop.
To quote you: "They get large places where the air don't stink and they get
the best food." This implies, 'they' (the industrialist) have enough
control over the envir. to stop polluting when it affects them. You can't
have it both ways.
Which is why "voluntary
> compliance to environmental guidelines" as pushed by failed oilman Bu4h is
such a joke.
If they were popular or important enough they would be passed into
law....tell the UN.
There is always an answer when something don't go like predicted. In the
mist of global warming we can have extreme cold. This wasn't predicted but
now that its here its because of global warming. Its temporary, but
temporary is never defined as to what it is and how long tempory lasts.
This way you never have to revise your thinking. I read the article
noticing that the explaination for the tornados and bitter cold is explained
after the fact. Predictions is a risky business but not for the 'greenies'
they predict the past.
> > > > Myth:
> > > > The global population is growing faster than our ability to produce
food
> > > > Fact:
> > > > Global fertility rates are falling dramatically, and with advanced
> > > > technology, farmers are producing more food using fewer resources
than
> > ever
> > > > before
> > >
> > > So we don't need GM crops after all.....
> >
> > We have plenty of food. In the US the problem is not a shortage of food
but
> > to much food.
>
> Yes....
But no explaination after it was predicted that by the year 2000 there would
be massive famine.
> > > > Myth:
> > > > Solar- and wind-powered generators are a renewable, efficient, and
less
> > > > intrusive alternative to gas-, oil-, and coal-burning generators
> > > > Fact:
> > > > Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being
> > depleted,
> > > > and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more
> > electricity
> > > > than 13,000 windmills
> > >
> > > Bullshit. It requires less than two thousand and IS renewable and
> > > efficient, as would simply covering roofs in PV panels. It's also
> > > cheaper long term, particularly large scale.
> >
> > In Calif on the big windmill farms they are having problems with
> > birds...endangered species...flying into the blades. What's a 'greenie'
to
> > do?
>
> Repel birds, just like is done at airports..
And it doesn't work. There still are bird strikes and still birds are
injested into jet engines. This could put greenies against greenies.
> > > > Myth:
> > > > Modern pesticides and fertilizers are increasing the rates of cancer
in
> > > > humans
> > > > Fact:
> > > > No study has ever shown that anyone has developed cancer from the
legal
> > > > application of pesticides, and environmental pollution accounts for
at
> > most
> > > > 2 percent of all cancer cases versus 30 percent caused by tobacco
use
> > >
> > > (The tobacco industry also argued for decades that there is no link
> > between cancer and smoking.)
> >
> > And they are paying dearly for it also. I noticed the Fed govt wasn't
sued
> > for pushing tobacco in the military....C rations contained packs of
smokes
> > when I was in.
>
> The lesson is: err on the side of caution where chemicals are
> concerned.
That is your lesson. No matter what the human cost...jobs and lives. You
do realize that humans are part of the Earths ecosystem?
> Right now people are gulping down the neurotoxin aspartame (thanks to
> Rumsfeld), for another example.
No, if they are gulping it down its because they chose to. Mr Rumsfeld has
no power to force anyone to gulp down aspartame. It bothers you because its
on the market and you don't like it. It bothers you that Americans have
this choice and really wish that Europe through the UN or international
treaties could force the US to do your bidding. The US is governed under
the US Constitution and not the UN charter.
> > > Of course all the other diseaeses, a plethora of as yet unknown
> > > effects and the huge environmental impact aren't even mentioned:
> >
> > Whats also not mentioned is the people who smoke, by taxation are paying
an
> > unfair share of the medicare expenses and are dieing earlier. If
everyone
> > who smokes quit today the Soc Security system would fold faster. Who is
> > scamming who?
>
> In GB they claim the opposite. Smokers allegedly use up more NHS
> resources.
Smokes are taxed heavily here by the Feds and States.
> > > Pesticides have never caused a car accident, therefore pesticides are
> > > safe, duh.
> >
> > You mean like alar that was used on apples. It was suppose to be such a
> > toxic chemical. The only people hurt were the apple producers as they
found
> > later on it was safe. Did that affect the 'greenies'.....no. Or DDT
that
> > practically wiped out malaria and yellow fever a big killer in the 3rd
> > world....Its toxic to the envir.
> > We now have West Nile virus in this country on the rise. I'm guessing
that
> > if it gets to the epidemic stage we will be using DDT again. The
'greenies'
> > position is, I'm almost certain that humans are expendable.
>
> No the green position is, most likely, combat WNV without harming the
> rest of the environment.
To hell with humanity as long as the envir. remains prestine. There is no
middle ground with with the 'greenies', its there way or it wrong....even
with such a track record.
> > > > See for yourself:
> > > >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/102-7574205-0387326?v=glance&vi=reviews
> > >
> > >
> > > I am surprised that you even bothered to paste such a selection of
> > > bullshit.
> >
> > I am also supprised that you failed to refute much of what I posted.
>
> I did refute virtually all of what you posted, you just added more
> rubbish.
Typical, I post rubbish you post the truth.
>
> Mark K.
>
> > >
> > > Mark K.
joseph irvin
No, I'm not talking about immigration, I'm talking about people coming over
to this country to visit, work temporarily, and be on vacation.
>
> ...To which I say that the vast majority of all people who ever
> migrated TO the US did so for financial opportunities. And it is the
> main reason why american culture is also famous for it's "culture of
> greed", because it is so deeply embedded in the psychy of the country.
Is greed something that is only common in America. Do you know any history?
GB built an empire that the sun never set on. Was that just for the hell of
it. Spain was hauling gold out of the Americas by the boat load. Ever
heard of mercantilism?
Was this greed or benevolence by European countries? Same thing with most
of the European powers. You assume that all greed is bad. Going after
wealth doesn't always mean people being exploited. The better mouse trap
most time makes someone/or people wealthy. B Gates may/may not be greedy
but it made the world better. We know what happens when people aren't free
to pursue their callings but are told by the State what is best for them.
> > > > As for the media we do IMO have a slanted
> > > > one just like the British media is slanted.
> > >
> > > The US "media" is now more akin to a ziocon propaganda machine.
> >
> > Your opinion is noted...some proof would be helpful.
>
> The Murdoch media empire.
I don't know is Murdoch jewish? How much imput does he have into the actual
news opinion expressed. How about the Washington Times it is or use to be
owned by the Rev Moon, a Korean. He had almost no imput into what was
printed. The NY Times and Washington Post express other points of view.
Naming the Murdoch media empire doesn't give examples of the "ziocon
propaganda machine", it only tell what you think it is. What is 'ziocon
propaganda?'....the jewish view of the middle east? Why shouldn't 'ziocon
propagand machine' have an opinion?
> Controlling positions in media companies being occupied by a largely
> disproportionate number of pro-zionists.
Well thats your opinion, and it may have some weight at certain times in
decision making. Positions in the media change. You mentioned earlier how
uninformed the American people were on middle east affairs and now you are
saying they influence and are influenced by the media.
> "Greg Dyke, BBC director-general, has condemned US media coverage of
> the Iraq war and accused American broadcasters of "swapping
> impartiality for patriotism".
> http://www.people-link.org/news/showupdates.php?upid=759
Well I guess that is a trait the Europeans would not recognize, to support
your military when its involved in a military conflict. Fox News (Murdoch
ziocon propaganda machine) TV broadcasters even went so far as to wear
Ameican Flags on their jacket lapels....whats this world coming to. They
should be neutral. Was the British media neutral during the world wars?
> But the best way to see for yourself is to actually begin to read
> non-american news sites on the web regularly, the BBC one is a start:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/
> If you want to balance your view, you have to read both sides of a
> story (eg. Fox and Al Jazeera, CNN and Pravda). Then you should get a
> clearer idea of how slanted your media is.
I got my side of the news on Pan Am over Lockerbe, the Marine barracks in
Lebanon, Kobar towers, USS Cole, 2 embassy bombings in Africa, bombing the
World Trade Center, and the flying 2 air craft into the towers, from US
television and newspapers. Al Jazeera's said the flying the air craft into
the WTC was a jewish plot. I think I, and most American have a pretty clear
view on what is going on in the world.
>
> One recent small example would be that the tests on shells found by
> danish troops propagandised as containing blister agent have now shown
> that they actually don't. Most americans have not been made aware of
> that fact.
And the mass graves, torture and rape rooms, they are all bogus also.
> > > > We also have many other means
> > > > of communication like 'talk radio'. We also have the internet and
are
> > able
> > > > to find out what is going on in the world.
> > >
> > > Though few actually use it for that purpose.
> >
> > I don't know the number of people who listen....what difference would it
> > make thought?....all US media according to you is "ziocon propaganda."
>
> No, MOST us media is strongly pro-zionist BIASED. Occasionally they
> have to let some snippets through or they would loose credibility. The
> reason the US-Israel centric media doesn't have much cred in europe
> (nay the world)is because we have a more diverse media (despite
> scumbag Murdoch's efforts to the opposite) which actually reports some
> of the injustices suffered daily by the Palestinians.
You know, I really don't care how much credibility we have with the
Europeans. The Europeans you speak of could care less about the welfare of
the Ameican people. The US has been the one Europe always runs to when it
gets in trouble and now that the US needs help hardly any want to help. Of
course there are exceptions. You are sitting behind your keyboard now
writting because Americans came to Europe to bail you out.
> > > > Its seems the in the past
> > > > century the only time that lots of Americans traveled was going to
> > Europe to
> > > > help win two World Wars
> > >
> > > "Help" being the operative word. Most of the human price, and
> > > defeating of the German military in WW2, was actually done by russia.
> > >
> > > > ....we were more 'in touch' then.
> > >
> > > Since much of the travelling is done by the military, even that view
> > is slanted.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the military go to potential and actual conflict zones or live
> grouped in US camps/stations, not with the local population or in
> peacetime. They mostly aren't of the type interested in broadening
> their cultural horizons much beyond rifle range or the local brothels
> and bars.
Why don't you just say barbarians. These are the same barbarians that are
always bailing Europe out because they lack the guts/forsight to act until
it to late....remember Neville Chamberlain's peace in our time when he came
back from Germany....appeasement the European way. A lot of Americans lost
their lives because France and England didn't stop Hitler before be became
to strong....Nazism and Facism another of the gifts from Europe to
civilization...but Americans are to 'insular.'
> > Americans cannot do anything right can they?
>
> Not much. (See "particpating in world affairs with an insular
> viewpoint")
Its because of Americans you can have your particular view point. You don't
read to much history do you?
> > What the view that
> > Americans have to bail Europe out of their messes?
>
> The US actually did much less "bailing" in europe than they boast
> about , and what they did certainly wasn't out of altruism. They entered
both
> wars late and did so because of the fear that the enmey would
> eventually come over an get their ass. They decided that it was better
> to fight abroad rather than get their own country trashed.
Why didn't the French and English stop Hitler before he became dominate?
Call it fear or whatever but it was in the US interest to do something
France and Britian were afraid to do...stop Hitler when he invaded
Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Hitler went through France like Sherman went through the South. Yes, the US
did 'decide to fight abroad rather than get their own country
trashed'....not like GB and France who chose to get their countries and
people trashed because they had rather appease. I see by your opinions you
still haven't learned that lesson...appeasemen leads to more appeasement and
eventually having to fight. You are so lucky that the US is taking on this
burden...notice M. Kadafi stopped bombing bars after the US bombed him.
Remember France wouldn't let US planes use their air space. Ms Thatcher had
a lot more moral fortitude.
While some
> of the actual soldiers may have believed they were out to save europe,
> the real reasons were different.
The real reason was because Americans have guts and believe in freedom and
are responsible for their own freedom. Europe knows the US will probably
come to their aid. Europe insisted on having US troops, not UN troops in
Europe after WWII so if the Russians came accross the boarders there would
be US troops to draw us into the fray. Europe couldn't even defend itself
for the better part of the 20th century without US help.
> > > > Maybe the US
> > > > doesn't share Europes world view and chose not to travel.
> > >
> > > Insular mentality.
> >
> > Mr K. you cannot have it both ways. You argue that Americans are
'insular'
> > in their mentality but condemn us for participating in world affairs?
>
> "Participitating" in world affairs with an insular mentality isn't
> exactly a recepie for success and popularity. QED Iraq etc..
It was in 1917 and 1941. It depends on who's at risk doesn't it. Europeans
wanted all the help they could get then from this country with its 'insular
mentality.'....as opposed to they European appeasement mentality.
Popularity contests never has won any country its freedom.
> > What
> > if the US would have been 'insular' in 1917 and 1941? You probably
wouldn't
> > be sitting behind that keyboard now.
>
> Here are the casualty figures for WW1: Russia tops the list. US only
> fought the last year of it.
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8054/casualty.html
True, the US did fight the last year because it was a stand off. The US
made the difference. It was a European war. Why did/should the US even be
involved? Your mind set is that the US should be here on call for Europe.
> Here are the casualties for WW2: russia tops the list (also note where
> most of the german army died, their crack troops)
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
It seems you do not understand warfare. The object is to inflict the most
damage on your enemy and not to see how many of your own troops can be
killed. The US did this and did a good job of it. Again it was a European
war and if France and GB had of acted before Hitler became to strong it
probably could have been avoided.
>
> That should put things in perspective for you.
See above.
Nope, and I believe our country wouldn't put us in that position because we
would respond with what ever necessary. If the Mexicans won it would be a
different story.
> > > > By the way some Israelis were 'in
> > > > touch', the ones living in Germany before the 2nd WW. Look how
these
> > 'in
> > > > touch' Israelies are treated in France today.
> > >
> > > Clarify.
> >
> > The Jewish people living under German domination were killed. Today,
the
> > renewal of antisemitism in France.
>
> Ah yes, the ZioCon campaign to malign the "Old Europe".
> Any "antisemitism" in France is totally dwarfed by the
> anti-arab/muslim racism in the US.
I'll admit the US is not perfect, but we haven't had Jewish temples burned
down and Jews attacked in the streets because they were Jews. There is
hardly any anti-arab/muslim racism in this country, even in light as to what
has happened. If you think so give some proof then I will respond. I
noticed you didn't respond to my charge of anti-semitism in France, but
instead blamed the US.
> Criticising Israel and NaZionism isn't "antisemitism" btw (a misnoma
> if ever there was one, Israelis aren't semites).
So criticism in France is burning down Jewish temples, attacking Jews on the
streets just because the are Jews? Believing that Israel is the biggest to
threat to peace in the world isn't anti-semitism?
> > > > > > You forget that over 4 million refugees
> > > > > > > are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave
> > Palestine
> > > > > > > to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wasn't Israel, a country promised by the Balfour
Declaration...the
> > > > > > declaration taking its name from British Foreign Secretary
Arthur
> > Balfour?
> > > > > > Was GB in any way responsible?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > > Are you implying that when people talk about "the promised land",
they
> > > > > mean by Britain, rather than by an alleged omnipotent entity?
> > > >
> > > > I don't imply anything. I stated a fact.
> > >
> > > I'm stating the fact that Israelis allege and believe that an
> > > omnipotent entity promised Palestine to them. That's the reason they
give
> > for wanting to live there.
> >
> > So what if they did believe that an omnipotent entity promised them
> > Palestine?
>
> ??? They are obviously totally batty!
What is batty about that? Its batty for Israelis to have religious beliefs
but ok for Muslims to have religious beliefs.
> > GB had a big part in the process of the formation of Israel.
>
> Sure, they wanted them out of europe.
And that is not anti-semitism?
Their Bolshevism had recently
> ruined russia.
And it was an on and off relationship between Hitler and Stalin.
By the way Russia was a feudal society before the
Revolution...Bosshevism wasn't the answer I'll agree.
> > Israel alone didn't have the power to become a State.
>
> Exactly. It's a totally artificial construct.
Well then you should be blaming GB, the League of Nations, and the UN, not
Israel. European countries had a hand in drawing the maps of lots of
countries in the middle east, Africa, and Asia. Musta done a poor job huh?
Europe is at fault. How about some blame there?
> > It is a State today
> > and recognized in the world as a legimate State.
>
> Only under the pressure of the US and previously Britain.
So what, that is what was best at the time. Its easy to sit behind your
computer and complain...welcome to the real world.
> > What do you suggest...take
> > Israel by force and tell the refugees here is your land back?
>
>
> Disarm israel as much as possible (of nukes particularly, fallout from
> which would damage the whole world), stop giving it arms aid, make it
> obey UN resolutions. Let UN troops keep the peace until both sides
> come to an agreement.
Obviously your BBC has been telling you that Israel doesn't exist in the
Arabs mindset. To make agreements common ground has to exist....it doesn't.
> > ....it would
> > become just another 3rd world oppressive govt. most likely.
>
> It already is. They can't even agree amongst themselves.
But being able to disagree is healthy...could Iraqis who disagree with
Saddam exist in Iraqi or in Saude Arabia?
> > > > I don't pretend to know what an
> > > > 'omnipotent entity' does or thinks. You blame Israel for the
refugee
> > > > problem when they allowed the people living there at them time of
the
> > > > formation of the country, to stay.
> > >
> > > Gee, that's big of them. "Allow" people to stay on their homeland and
> > serve the invaders.
> >
> > Serve? No, allow them to stay and participate in the new State of
Israel.
>
> See how you'd like to "participate" with the side with the guns.
> Do you think Outsiders "participating" in a jewish dominated
> organisation (holding guns)is a viable proposition anywhere?
That is the way it is now. Pre 1947 it wasn't.
> > They chose not to and left some even joining the other arab States in
> > attacking the newly formed State of Israel.
>
> Bastards, trying to get their land back, the cheek...
If they wanted there land so bad why did they leave it?...does it have
anything to do with thinking the arab armies would run Israel into the sea?
> > > > You implyingly blame the US for aiding
> > > > Israel a country recognized by other sovereign countries.
> > >
> > > It wasn't recognised as a country by a whole bunch, and it only became
> > > an entity similating a country with mainly american aid.
> >
> > Of course it was recognized by other States. Yes, Israel did get aid
from
> > America, just like GB and the rest of the Allies got aid during the W
Wars
> > or they would be Axis satillites today.
>
> I refer to political pressure, as well as aid.
In free societies we have political pressure. Its something we deal with
and find it healthy.
> > > > Why doesn't the
> > > > other arab countries give some of their oil money to help the
refugees?
>
>
> > > They do.
>
> > Like the rich arab oil countries?
>
> Yes.
Why does the other countries and the UN have to support the refugees then?
Why can't they immigrate to other arab countries?
> > ...like Arafat who is stashing money in
> > European banks by the tons.
>
> Would you prefer him to put it in a jewish bank? There isn't a bank
> safe from the Israelis in Palestine.
No, I would prefer him spending the money to help the refugees. I see thats
not your main interest though.
> > > > Why
> > > > don't all of the arab countries let the refugees immigrate to their
> > > > countries...live there and get jobs.
> > >
> > > You mean aid the Israelis in removing them from their homeland?
> >
> > No, I mean just what I wrote....let the refugees live and work in their
> > countries.
>
> ...which is tantamount to helping the evacuation of Palestine and
> handing ALL OF IT to the Israelis on a platter.
And letting the Palestinians have decent lives. Above you said the State of
Israel was formed to get the Jews out of Europe. Whats the difference?
What should happen to the Jews and all improvements they have made in
Israel?
> > > > > > What are other arab countries doing to help
> > > > > > the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees
immigrate
> > to
> > > > > > their country.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
> > > >
> > > > Why are they classified as refugees then?
> > >
> > > Because they are refugees.
> >
> > True, but they wouldn't be if the other arab countries would let them
become
> > citizens and get jobs.
>
> See above and below. It's up to Israel to quit opressing them and to
> let them live in their home country.
If Israel never fired another shot what do you think would happen to the
Israelis? Lots of what is happening is the making of the terrorist
organizations....extreme measures for self defense.
> > > ...aren't they allowed to work and
> > > > become citizens?
> > >
> > > They are Palestinians, why should they want to be anything else and
> > > work in a foreign country?
> >
> > They can still be Palestinians and live and work in other States.
>
> ???
> better idea: The Israeli immigrants go back to where they just came
> from.
I'm sure some of them come from Israel. You would then have YOUR problem
you discussed above, Jews coming back to Europe.
> > How do
> > you know what they think of believe unless they had the opportunity to
work
> > and live in another country...they may just as well like this.
> > This is your assumption.
>
> Tell you what: I take your house and most of your posessions, you get
> out and live somewhere else or I shoot you, you might like it.
You are not describing the offer the Israelis made to the people living in
what is now Israel. They were told they could stay and participate. Any
pressure exerted was by fellow arabs who pressured them to leave because
they were going to push the Israelis back into the sea. That didn't happen
and now sour grapes. The refugees should be mad with their fellow arabs for
pressuring them to leave.
> Your ethics are FUBAR (that's: Fucked Up Beyond Al Recognition , a
> vietnam term, I believe)
Thanks for the compliment.
You blew off the point I made of how you only gave your false interpretation
of how Israel was formed.."THEY WERE FUCKING INVADED! Get real."...GB,
League of Nations and UN.
> The position NOW is that most Palestinians are refugees and are being
> opressed by Israelis who are gradually becoming a minority.
You could say that, but you could also say they were being oppressed by
their arab brothers who will not let them immigrate to their countries and
rich arab oil countries who will not furnish sufficient aid. That didn't
cross your mind did it?
> > > > How about living and taking
> > > > responsibility for ones own mistakes?
> > >
> > > Your ethics are totally FOBAR. What "mistake" do you mean???
> >
> > Sorry, I don't know what FOBAR means.
>
> (Typo, that should be FUBAR, see above explanation)
>
> > The mistake I'm referring to is the
> > Palestineans choosing to move rather that stay in the newly forming
State of
> > Israel because they thought the other arab State would over run Israel.
>
> See above
I didn't see anything above that addressed this. It is your contention that
at the formation of Israel, Israel rounded up all non Jews at gun point and
took them to the boarder and dumped them.
> > > > I've always understood ethnic cleansing as the destruction of an
ethnic
> > > > group of people not just expelling them.
> > >
> > > You understood wrong. Here is the dictionary definition:
> > >
> > > ethnic cleansing
> > > n.
> > > The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region
> > > or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.
> > >
> > Ok, my mistake.
> >
> > > > If just expelling people is your
> > > > definition your country is also guilty of it as they sent British
> > convicts
> > > > throughout the Empire.
> > >
> > > I'm not british, it's not "my" but the dictionary's definition, and
> > > no, deporting convicts is not ethnic cleansing because they are not an
> > > ethnic group.
> >
> > Ok, again you are correct and I agree.
>
> Thanks.
Its easy to admit mistakes.
> > > > > > Funny how you
> > > > > > > whine about illegal immigrants when they come to the US (and
they
> > > > > > > don't even come in tanks and bulldozers).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should any govt accept illegal immigrants? Why have legal
> > immigration?
> > Did
> > > > > > British citizens every complain about immigration when the
> > Commonwealth
> > > > > > countries were free to immigrate to GB?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure they did, it was part of the hypocrisy of colonialism (An
> > > > > additional factor being that GB is already densly populated and
now
> > > > > does accept numbers of refugees).
> > > >
> > > > Its easy to sit behind your computer and make judgments of past
actions
> > > > (colonialism) of countries with todays standards.
> > >
> > > Actually, I'm more interested in present actions and the continued
> > > support by the US of an apartheid racist regime engaged in ethnic
> > > cleansing . You're the one who brought up the past.
> >
> > True, I did bring up the past, but isn't the past where the problem
started.
>
> Sure, the perpetuated fallout from imperial injustices.
We pay the price and have to deal with them.
> > If the Palestinians had stayed and become citizens of Israel there
probably
> > wouldn't have been such a problem. You opinion about the US supporting
a
> > racist regime engaged in ethnic cleansing is noted.
>
> Clarify "noted".
I was recognizing your opinion that you think the US is supporting a racist
regime engaged in ethnic cleansing...not something I agree with. I
understand the Israeli position; that you try and limit the number of your
enemy living among you. I don't call that ethnic cleansing if its a
particular ethnic group that is trying to kill you....reality.
> > > > One of the best things
> > > > that ever happened in this world is the British Empire...the world
is a
> > > > better place to day because of it and its colonialism.
> > >
> > > The victims of it may well disagree with your speculation.
> >
> > The victims are few compared to good that was spread around the world by
the
> > colonial powers.
>
> Imperialism is unethical.
I agree that imperialism is unethical but there is some good that came from
the colonial powers...like India's civil service, Hong Kong before it
reverted back to China etc.
> > > > > Why doesn't the US accept more palestinian refugees instead of
giving
> > the
> > > > > Israelis the cash and weapons to drive them out?
> > > >
> > > > Yes and why doesn't the US take the whole worlds problems as its
> > > > responsibilities? I don't think the US has the responsibility to
make
> > the
> > > > whole world right
> > >
> > > It should get the hell out of Iraq and quit interfering in a range of
> > other countries then.
> >
> > It seems to bother you that Iraq could ignore UN resolutions for years
and
> > then when the US goes in an gets rid or of a real tyrant.
> > that did actually
> > get rid of one who ordered ethnic cleansing (killing) you protest.
>
> It's not up to the US to defy the UN either. It is up to the UN to
> decide when or when not force is used to enforce it's resolutions.
Look, I want to get one thing clear if nothing else is. The US will, I
hope, always act in its own interest and to hell with the UN. We in the US
are governed by our US Constitution and not by any UN Charter and should
always act in our interest. An organization that would put countries like
Libia and Cuba on the Human Rights Commission is not serious about human
rights or anything else. Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves what they
get.
> The US should get it's grubby hands out of the Iraqi pie of assets
> instead of divvying it up between Bu$hs cronies and let the UN take
> over.
Proof. Those Iraqis who had the boot of Saddam on their neck are happy with
what the US has done. They do want the US to leave which I think will
happen.
> > You also
> > call the Americans 'insular' but now complain that we are to involved in
> > other countries. Seems you only want the US at Europes beck and call
when
> > Europe gets in trouble.
>
> I want the US to obey and strengthen the world democracy of the UN.
You are not serious I hope. The UN is a beauracratic night mare. It is
supported by some of the most corrupt and dictatorial govts know to man.
> Action without majority concensus is a recepie for conflict.
So is inaction and appeasement....leads and has lead to war. A decisive
action lead by GB would probably stopped Hitler. Lets see how the new
European Union works...concensus.
> > > > ...this includes the taking/not taking of refugees. And as
> > > > for giving Israel money and weapons it is a choice for the US to
make.
> > >
> > > ??? I don't think you meant to post such a banal phrase. Try applying
> > > that same standard to other country's supports of causes.
> >
> > I did mean to post such a 'banal phrase.' One of the cardinal rules of
> > foreign policy is not to let other countries make your foreign
> > policy....this also means the UN.
>
> OK, it's not the business of the US to force other countries to change
> their foreign policies. Your hairbrained "cardinal rule" works both
> ways, see.
Sometimes force is the only thing other countries understand. Who do you
think the US is forcing?
> Another sign that you are not capable of democracy.
Your opinion noted.
> > This seems to bother you that the US can
> > make its own foreign policy without consulting the 3rd world tyrants in
the
> > UN. Does it?
>
> Are you calling the whole world tyrants? Pot meet kettle.
Read what I wrote....3rd world tyrants...not 'the whole world tyrants'.
> > > I doubt, presented by the facts, most americans would give Israel a
> > > penny.
> >
> > Well, we have a free media over here and they are opinions that cover
the
> > full range regarding aid to Israel like most foreign policies that the
US
> > persues.
>
> Bullshit. You even said yourself that your media is biased. It is, in
> fact, hugely pro Zionist biased.
I did admit our media was biased but not pro Zionist. There is a difference
you know.
> > > As it happens they only act on propaganda fed to them by the
> > > ziocon newslaundry. Hell, most of them don't even know that
> > > palestinians *are* refugees, never mind where Gaza is.
> > > I also doubt they know more poignant facts about the country they
> > > donate the largest aid, like Israel selling arms to apartheid South
> > > Africa while most of the world was boycotting it.
> >
> > So we Americans over here are all 'insular' hayseeds not having any idea
> > what our govt is doing huh? We should be at the stand by for a call
from
> > Europe or the UN to send whatever is needed around the world and how to
act
> > in the world from the same...Europe and the UN?
>
> You are becoming incoherent again.
In short we should take our cues from Europe and the UN on the correct
foreign policy.
> > > > Please furnish some proof that the US gives Israelis 'the cash and
> > weapons
> > > > to drive them out.' I want proof of the 'drive them out'.
> > >
> > > ??? Apart from selling weapons on, what else do you think they do with
> > > their arms aid?
> >
> > Well maybe use them for self defense...is that allowed?
>
> How about the US giving the Palestinians guns and tanks and
> helicopters to defend themselves. It's their land after all and they
> are getting killed at a rate of 3 to 1.
Look, Israel could completely dominate the middle east. If they US didn't
try and restrain Israel would have already won. I don't understand, even
with the US calling for restraint, how Israel can let so many of its
citizens be killed. If it comes down to a war of attrition the Palistinians
win...they simply have more people. Israel has to make them pay
dearly...that is reality.
> > > > I realize that
> > > > the US for its interest and the interest of the industrial world
> > supports
> > > > Israel because its the only semi democatic,
> > > > stable country in the middle
> > > > east
> > >
> > > "Interest of the world"?
> > > Israel holds the world record for ignoring UN resolutions.
> >
> > Wonder if that has anything to do with Israel ignoring resolutions that
> > would weaken the country and make it subject to attack.
>
> Bullshit. It's expanding. That's what all the new settlements are for.
> It's even disregarding the US road map on settlemnts.
When Barak met with Arafat in the US, Barak gave the Palistinians 90% of
what they wanted. And how did the Palistinians respond...by terrorist
activity. You will not recognize the fact that as long as there is an
Israeli state there will be conflict. I acknowledge that Israel is
disregarding some of the steps to the US road map to peace. You will not
recognize that the Palistinians are though.
> > Support of
> > > it has justifiably earned the wrath of countless millions of people,
> > > for it's injustices towards the Palestinians.
> >
> > I'm sure Israel is guilty of some transgressions but then again the
> > terrorist operating in Israel and around Israel do more horrendous acts.
>
> The bottom line is that Israelis kill 3 times as many palestinians.
I don't know, but I'll take your word for it. See above on attrition.
> > "The world" goes beyond
> > > the US.
> > > The big interest the "industrial world" has in it is that this tiny
> > > country, smaller than Nu Joisy with only a 5.3 million population, is
> > > that it is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world (no.5 in
> > > 2003).
> >
> > Israel may be one of the biggest arms exporters in the world but what
does
> > that have to do with right of the State of Israel to exist? You see all
the
> > 'dreadful' acts of Israel...arms exporting, ethnic cleansing etc. and
see
> > none of these same 'dreadful' acts of arab countries...how open minded
of
> > you.
>
> I've already told you that your ZioCon media doesn't show you the
> ISRAELI ATROCITIES being commited. Israel controls or destroys most
> channels of information coming out of Palestine. Talked to any
> Palestinians recently? I bet you talked to loads of Zionist supporters
> though.
I've talked to neither. Insular..<grin> Does the Palistinians commit any
atrocities?
> > > "semi-democratic"?
> > > Sharon is an indicted war criminal. (Hitler was also democratically
> > > elected, btw)
> >
> > So you are comparing Hitler to Sharon? Please give examples of death
camps
> > for the sole purpose of systematic killing of a race of people.
>
> Sharon was responsible for massacres of people in a refugee camps,
> amongst other things.
> Read about it in detail:
> http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml
I'm sure some of this may be true. Do you think the "Journal of
Revolutionary Marxism" from which this came has any bias? Footnotes by the
likes of Chomsky and Sontag. I think there is a slight bias here. And you
criticize the American media? Got any back issue of Tass or Pravda?
> > > "Stable country" ?
> > > Without continual yank support to prop it up, I would love to see how
> > > "stable" it really is.
> >
> > Lets just say Israel's govt is more stable than the govts of Europe
during
> > the 1940's when it was completely dominated by the Axis powers, and
England
> > was getting bombed constantly.
>
> Eeer, it's 2004.
And after Europe is baled out you can start carping again about Israel only
being held up by the US. Just answering your post about stability of govts.
Its ok when its Europe but not ok for countries Europe don't approve of?
>
> > It took US aid and MANPOWER to restore those
> > govts. So far no US troops have been sent to bail out Israel.
>
> How about bailing out the Palestinians, they are the ones who have by
> far the most of the suffering.
How about it arab countries, Europe and the UN?
>
> > > >....keeping the flow of oil to the rest of the world....you know like
> > > > the British navy keeping the sea lanes open. It was in GB interest
and
> > the
> > > > rest of the world.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but you are becoming incoherent.
> >
> > Sorry, The British Navy use to rule the oceans of the world making them
safe
> > for the rest of the world to trade...an interest to GB as well as the
world.
>
> ??? The british navy was fighting much of the world on the oceans,
> hardly "making them safe".
When the US broke from GB they no longer had the protection of the Royal
Navy from the Barbary Pirates and T Jefferson wouldn't pay tribute. So the
US used force. Just and example of the Royal Navy's protection and keeping
the sea lanes open. Britian depended on trade so the sea lanes had to be
kept open.
The Portugese, Spanish and French, to name
> but a few (and they all fought various pirates). Even your colony was
> a battlefield.
Nothing matched the Royal Navy for so long...up until the world wars.
>
>
> > >
> > > Mark K.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >[snip]
joseph irvin
Let see now the 70's we were told it was global cooling but now you are
saying it was a sign of global warming. Why weren't we informed? Seems
everything is a sign of global warming after the fact. Record cold weather
in the NE US is a sign also of global warming. How about a year when we
actually get to the global warming part.
> > Alar a toxic pesticide...the apple industry hurt....It was not
> > harmful
>
> ??? Most pesticides are harmful, what are you on about?
It was harmful. Harmful to the people who raised apples or had anything to
do with apples. They were hurt because of this junk science. I think Meryl
Streep was the celebrity scientist who testified before Congress. The
pesticide was found out to be safe....another greenie unfounded scare that
caused hardships on people.
>
> > ....the gas shortage of the 70's running out of oil didn't
> > happen...plenty of oil
>
> ??? So why is the US now so desperate to secure oil supplies? Oil is
> getting more scarce, it's a finite commodity.
There is plenty of oil. Its just being controlled. If and when the
shortage comes there will be a substitute....things continue to get better.
> > ....population explosion
>
> Population IS increasing. It is precisely because of such studies that
> china took measures to reduce birth rates.
Yes, I know. India is also. China limiting each family to one child with
the females expendable. India females are also expendable. The bigger
problem here is when all these males grow up with no possibility of a
wife....war war war.
> > ....world famine by the turn
> > of the century....didn't happen...plenty of food. The problem is the
> > distribution system if there is a problem. Do you see why I may be a
little
> > disbeleiving?
>
> Again, it was partly as a result of those warnings that food
> production increased. (Yet there were still famines)
Yes, it was distribution not a lack of food. Paul Ehrlich predicted massive
starvation by now. Lost his bet on natural resourses running out and he got
to pick the ones to bet on. This happened in the short span of l0 years.
Wonder why I still have a problems believing the greenies?
> > > whereas those who are, are the majority of scientists who
> > > overwhelmingly find it to be indicitavive of man made global warming.
> >
> > Just because the majority of scientists think that there is global
warming
> > doesn't make it correct. I'm in no way saying that there is no global
> > warming...there very well maybe.
>
> So IOW, you and the industrialist US administration think we should
> wait until the proof hits us on the head irreversably.
Want to tell me when this 'irreversably' time is? I'll give you a 10 year
window on each side of the year you chose. 20 year window to chose from.
> > There are scientist that believe that
> > there is no global warming/there is some global warming/the global
warming
> > if it is happening may not be as bad as predicted.
>
> There is no doubt that global warming IS happening (whatever the
> reason), even according to your Mr. Michael.
> You are also attempting to divert from the fact that the US is
> imposing about 20% (and increasing) of Co2 emissions on the whole
> world.
> The world has democratically and scientifically come to the conclusion
> that this is a danger to it and it's wildlife. The US is thereby
> undermining democracy, science and ethics.
No doubt that you and some other scientists believe global waraming is
happening. It could even be a majority. There are other scientist who say
they don't know because its based mainly on computer models. Others say
some global warming may not be so bad. Democratic conclusions on scientific
questions are not answers, but just votes that global warming is
happening...could the scientists vote out the law of gravity?
> > I'm open.
>
> No, you are advocating no action and the increase of Co2 emissions.
No, I'm asking for more scientific study on C02 and global warming. The
last 100 years of records on the weather is a blink of the eye of the eons
of years the Earth's weather. Its kinda bold of us to think we can
know/predict global warming or anything else concerning the weather with any
degree of accuracy.
> > You seem only
> > to think that it 'is', without a doubt....also it will be extremely
harmful.
>
> It already is harmful. You should inform youself better. (A more
> regular look at non-american media sources would help you there).
I read an article where extra C02 made orange trees produce fruit 1 year
earlier in a control group. Is that harmful. The rainforests are being cut
down at a high rate. Maybe more plant life may combat some of the C02. I
really don't know but I'm no scientist. There probably are alternatives or
different stratagies to deal with the problem. I don't know, I'm just
assuming you are right which I seriously doubt.
The operative word is *mostly*. This leaves some doubt and maybe
alternatives.
> > > You seem to think that it's worth gambling with the whole planet just
> > > to save a little inconvenience for a minority of well off people.
> >
> > You just said it, this (envir.) was a 'finely balanced complex chaotic
> > system' now you are implying that a minority of 'well off people' can
> > control it enough that they will not be affected. Something is wrong
with
> > your reasoning. They can control this system for their benefit?
>
> Your comprehension is the problem. It is the actions of these people
> and their ignorance or plain disregard of the consequences that are
> affecting the weather and the environment. From what you have written,
> you are a classical example.
And your assumptions are rediculous...that these 'industrialist/capitalist'
will destroy themselves and the Earth to make big $$$$$$$ unless they
conform to the greenies.
> > If they
> > kill all the people who buys there products they make cheaply by
polluting?
>
> ???
The industialist/capitalist destroying the Earth and all the people to make
money.
Good for you. Did you read about all the failed predictions of the
greenies?
> > You cannot generalize about all industrialists as being 'ethnically
corrupt.
>
> ( ITYM "ethically" )
Sorry.
> I sure can claim that the vast majority of industrialist are out to
> make as much money *as they can get away with* at the expense of the
> environment.
> That's why your industrialist pres has decimated US environmental
> laws, an act that damages the whole world.
Earlier you said these same people could stop before it became to harmful to
'them' (industrialist). Did you change your mind or are the industrialist
going to destroy the whole world just to make money? What good is money
then?
> > It is true some are and some are not. Take a look at some of the
'robber
> > barons' of the mid 1800's to early 1900's.
> > Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, etc. Vanderbilt left a University, and
his
> > home in Ashville, NC. Carneigie had disposed of almost all of his income
> > building 2811 free libraries and the purchase of 7689 church organs.
Lots
> > of these early industrialist were free to get wealthy and then start
large
> > foundations to help less fortunate. This was when there was not Fed
Income
> > tax or very little. These people were rich rich. Ford, H. Hughes, and
B.
> > Gates have continued this. Lots of very rich people feel obligated to
give
> > there wealth away.
>
> I'm not going to start discussing individual cases, the evidence of
> their wrongdoings is out there (and much of it never comes to light).
Just and example. "The evidence is out there, much of it comes to light."
You know and have the evidence but the whole US population is in the dark?
What a joke. Its out there but no one knows but the greenies and of course
the polluters.
You are losing credibility fast.
> > > Global warming: 1,240,000 google hits
> >
> > See above.
>
> See above.
I don't deny for one minute that global warming brings up the number of hits
you say. Look up global warming + cato or + haritage foundation.
Of course I do. Tell me how many lives have been lost to global
warming....death certificates please. I realize there are people that have
died because of unsafe environment. Americans died breathing in the dust
from mining shafts building the Boulder Dam, mining coal etc. Steps have
been taken to correct these things.
>
> > > > It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
> > > > still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
> >
> > > Of course, inevitably. But lets not accelerate that process by
> > > releasing millions of years worth of stored co2 into the atmosphere.
> >
> > We don't know that this is accelerating.
>
> Yes we do. (See 1,250,000 google links.)
See above, majority numbers doesn't equal scientific evidence.
> > There also could be some
> > beneficial effects. Effects do not always have to be negative.
>
> You are becoming repetitive. The benefits dwarf the damage. The
> changes alone wipe out whole ecosystems. I've seen some of it.
What eco-systems have the US industrialist wiped out on purpose or otherwise
with full knowledge that they were doing it?
Then I misunderstood. If you think it important start over.
> > Waiting for it
> > to burn down naturally doesn't assure me of living through such and
ordeal.
>
> The point is that if I am prevented from doing it, it's unlikely to
> happen at all.
Not at all. The environment has been cleaned up, not to your satisfaction.
Similarly, if we reduce/eliminate unnatural human Co2
> emissions, we elimante the human cause of changes.
Ok, what kind of cars stops C02 emissions that are feasible and within the
buying range of consumers?...Heavy equipment?...Utilities? Please be
specific.
>
> > Also buying insurance doesn't assure me of living if my house burns
down.
>
> Preventing me setting light to it eliminates the certainty of it
> burning down.
I don't understand, sorry.
> > > > ....what if its just
> > > > a pecularity of the Earths climate?..In the 70's it was global
cooling,
> > now
> > > > 30+ years later it global warming. Who knows without further study.
> > Also
> > > > third world countrie's industries wouldn't be held to the same
standards
> > as
> > > > the industrial countries. If one is serious about the Kyoto treaty
all
> > > > countries should be held to the same standards wouldn't you agree?
> > >
> > > The biggest polluters who profited the most from their actions should
> > > make the largest contribution.
> >
> > The biggest polluters usually pay a huge price for there pollution.
Look at
> > the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Any other company that pollutes if found
out
> > also pays.
>
> Hahaha! Again you quote one example. In the vast majority of cases of
> pollution , the perpetrators aren't even found, and when they are,
> they usually get little more than a slap on the wrist.
Sure I gave one example. You go on to say the majority of perps. aren't
found. You have that secret knowledge and no one else does? How did you
get that secret information. Thats the joke you should be laughing about.
You make general blanket statements with nothing to back them up but you say
so.
> Say, are you some kind of ex defence shyister? It sounds like you are
> used to defending criminals who are as guilty as hell.
No, I'm just an ordinary person who don't believe everything someones says,
or some group of people say. Especially if there is a difference of
opinion and one side (yours) has been continually wrong on your predictions.
>
> Mark K.
>
> > > >
> > > > > Mark K.
Mark K.
Yes, many americans say you don't even have that. What happens in
reality is that the candidates with the most campaign money and
backing from lobbys and industrialists stand the highest chance of
winning. In short, they present their candidates and they have power
over them.
> 97-0 against Kyoto is smashingly against ratification.
And there's the proof that you are dominated by industrialists.
Interesting that most of the rest of the world is in favour.
> As for
> the rest of the world they do not vote on treaties between the US and other
> countries.
??? Irrelevant.
> I'm sure that they are some people in the US that are for the
> Kyoto treaty though.
You bet. There'd be even more if you didn't have an industrialist
admin with a puppet media pushing their propaganda.
> > > > > Nations like China, Mexico, India, and Brazil
> > > > > were exempted from some of the stricter standards. The treaty
> wouldn't
> > > > > distroy any countries economy totally. I've read that it would
> cause
> the US
> > > > > economy to shrink anywhere from 20 to 30%.
> > > >
> > > > Again bullshit.
> > >
> > > Bullshit to what?
> >
> > The bit about "destroying economies" and "economies shrinking by
> > 20-30%".
>
> I wrote that the treaty would NOT destroy any country's economy totally. 20
> to 30% shrinkage is what I have read.
To which I replied that all the new green energy tech would create new
industries (namely in it's manufacture, sales, installation and
maintenance, not to mention that the money people save would be spent
on other stuff).
> This was from another article I read:
> Developed on the basis of spotty data and deeply flawed analytical models,
> the Kyoto treaty - if implemented - would produce only one certain result:
> severe harm to the U.S. economy. As Wall Street Journal columnist James
> Glassman has noted, "The U.S. could meet the Kyoto targets only by sharply
> increasing the price of fossil fuels.
The US has almost the lowest fuel prices in the world.
The prices of fossil fuels in the US should be increased to bring them
on par with the rest of the world and to discourage their wasteful
use.
(For example petrol and diesel prices in europe alone are double to
treble the US price. You are out of touch with the world.).
>. [T]he growth of gross domestic
> product in the U.S. would be cut by more than half as businesses moved
> offshore to escape the high tax." by Angela Antonelli former dir or Roe
> Institute for economic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation. And as I
> wrote before all countries are not held to the same standards. US companies
> would probably move off shore further damaging the US economy.
No, it just needs to adapt, like the rest of the world already is
doing, instead of relying on the fossil fuel industry.
> > > The main industry to suffer would be the oil and coal
> > > > industry (Bu$h's cronies).
> > >
> > > So the coal and oil industry don't count?
> >
> > As far as the health of the planet and everything on it is concerned, the
> fossil fuel industries count diddlysquat.
>
> Your opinion is noted. It seems its the 'green tech' car industry that
> counts for diddlysquat.
Ah, now here you begin to focus solely on cars, which is only one part
of the pollution and energy picture.
> > > Change to green energy methods would CREATE whole new industries.
> > >
> > > And it will as it matures but not now because the technology is not
> cheap
> > > enough yet.
> > > Price a hybred car now...well above the cost of an ordinary car
> >
> > I already explained to you that the price of green tech is kept
> > artificially high by the fossil fuel industries.
>
> This is all assumption. Industry is in the business of making money.
It also gets government subsidies. If the US fossil fuel dominated
administrations had provided similar subsidies to green tech R+D and
products , your roof would now be covered with clean cheap
photovoltaic panels and people would be spending their money with
other, cleaner industries.
> Give
> evidence of a 'fossil fuel industry' stopping a green tech industy from
> bring its product to market.
Energy Biz has been buying green tech businesses for decades (do you
need proof of that? They advertise it widely, while pretending to be
green.)
*How many green tech products can you actually see in use?*
> This is just a veriation of an old urban
> legend that the oil industry bought the patents up for an engin that would
> get x miles more than regular engines.
Funny how you repeatedly reminisce about the past instead of
concentrating on the present and future.
>
> > > ...the performance as compared to regular cars?
> >
> > Better acceleration.
>
> Car buyers have more than one standard for the performance of a car they
> plan to purchase...thats why there are so many different makes and models.
> I'm sure if the 'green tech' people had a competative car it would be on the
> market.
I already posted the link to the Daimler-Crysler-Mercedes "Smart" car
already popular in europe. If you checked out the link you'll find
that the only thing they plan to do in the US is to launch an SUV
version in a few years.
>
> > > Car companies are in
> > > business to make money,
> >
> > Car companies are under pressure by fossil fuel companies to keep
> > buying their pollutants.
>
> Another unsupported assumption.
I support it above and below. Just because you rely on your biased US
media presenting you with the info, doesn't mean you can accuse
others of making assumptions.
> Why has the gas milage increased in
> cars....didn't the oil companies have enough clout?
Funny how europe manages to use much more economical cars than the US.
> There are many
> different tastes in cars in the US...some like the smaller cars and some
> like the big cars...Hummers, and many in between.
What cars people "like" is mostly a result of advertising and gas
prices. Fuel economy is way down the list of priorities of US
consumers.
> > They "green" hydrogen car pushed by Bu$h is another one of those ploys
> > to make you think it's green when it actually needs fossil fuels to
> > make the hydrogen.
>
> What kind of car do you suggest? It has to be feasible and competitively
> priced with cars on todays market.
Again you seem to solely focus on cars and ignore the rest of energy
consumption.
> > > a novel concept to a 'greenie.'
> >
> > You have this irrational thing about "greenies", is that a term for
> > people you've been conditioned to instinctively discredit?
>
> I'm not trying to discredit anyone.
Try reading what you write (particularly what about people you have
termed "the greenies").
> You say that the oil companies are
> keeping 'green tech' cars off of the market with no proof but what you
> write. How about some proof of a oil company buying a 'green tech' company
> and then shelving its 'better car.'
I said fossil fuel biz buys up green businesses, not the car industry.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/2nd/oilgiant.htm
IT presents the car industry with the fuel they make available.
> > > > What happens in practice is that fossil fuel industries buy up
> > > > budding green energy businesses and patents and then increase the
> > > > prices of the green products to discourage people from buying them,
> > > > meanwhile pretending to be green.
> > >
> > > Oh, how devious one kind of energy company buying up another kind of
> energy
> > > company.
> >
> > YES! It is, when it is done mainly to stop a better and cheaper
> > technology from gaining acceptance.
>
> How about some proof then. Energy companies buy other energy companies all
> the time because it is economically advantagous for them to do so
Aha! By hampering competition (from green products, in the case of
green tech).
> and not
> because they want to kill progress.
Sigh, your arguments are becoming repetitive and circular.
> Why aren't these cars in Europe?
Europeans already use cars that are much more economical than the
americans.
> Europeans are dying to control the US economy.
Your attitude is unbelievable! The US dominates world economies.
Since europe is a bigger economy than the US they wish to stop being
dominated by the US one, not "dominate the US economy" (particularly
since it rapidly becoming a rogue country). Where do you get this
crap?
> > > I'm sure you realize that if 'green energy' is going to get any
> > > traction it will probably be by another, energy co./group of energy
> > > companies or some big investor (fossil) buying them and financing the
> R&D
> > > necessary to make it feasable.
> >
> > No.
> > It is already feasable.
>
> If it was feasable the cars would be on the market. The hybred cars now are
> more expensive and as long as they stay that way there will be a small
> market for them.
http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/jim/art13.html
> > It doesn't need a large energy co./group or fossil fuel investor to
> > get it off the ground. They are actually the very ones stopping small
> companies and quashing the green competition.
>
> Proof please.
http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/jim/art13.html
>
> > > (I have a friends who were in the
> > > > oil industry and are now in the solar energy biz. They now get their
> > > > main components from China, the best source for green products.)
> > >
> > > Why isn't it happening.....putting the fossil energy companies out of
> > > business?...you know the better mouse trap.
> >
> > I told you so, above. I'll repeat it for you again:
> > Fossil fuel companies buy up new companies and patents starting to
> > make green products which favourably compete with fossil fuels. They
> > then make sure these products either never see the light of day ore
> > price them too highly for acceptance and pretend they are being green by
> offering them for sale.
>
> Please give examples then. Foreign countries could built these so called
> 'green tech' cars. Why don't they. Give examples of a patent for one of
> these wonder cars that was sold to an oil company.
Again you focus solely on cars. It is widely publicised by the oil
companies themselves that they buy green energy businesses. Would they
do that if the technology wasn't feasible? Why don't they make it
available?
> As much as some
> Europeans are jealous of the US
Ah yes, another pathetic myth, that evil europe is somehow "jealous"
of the US.
> they would surely do it just to be one up on
> the US unless of course Europe is so backward they cannot come up with these
> wonder cars you write about....maybe they don't exist as feasible huh?
What a moronic argument, and already previously countered.
> > > > > > Even if some of the fears about global warming are just hysterical
> > > > > > nonsense, I don't really see what harm could come of all countries
> > > > > > looking at and finding ways to reduce pollution on this planet. We
> all
> > > > > > have to live here, after all.
> > > > >
> > > > > The US has been reducing pollution. The US is a lot less polluted
> than
> 20
> > > > > years ago. Things are getting better.
> > > >
> > > > Not on the Co2 front.
> > >
> > > Yes the C02 front in the US. City air is cleaner generally.
> >
> > ??? Co2 emissions in the US are increasing.
> > "City air being cleaner generally" has nothing to do with Co2
> > emissions.
>
> Explain exactly what the problem is then.
The Co2 emissions.
>
> > Funny how this daimler-chrysler-Mercedes car is selling in europe but
> > they haven't dared to sell it in the US, instead they will try to
> > launch an SUV version for the fatarses in 2006 :
> > http://www.smart.com/
>
> It probably wouldn't be a big seller in the US because of its size. It
> would be good probably for city driving only....surely not a car to take on
> a long trip or family car. Why doesn't Daimler-Chrysler sell one of those
> 'green tech' wonder cars...they surely have the big $$$$.
They are widely sold in europe already. In the US, however, they only
plan to launch an SUV version in a few years. Go check the site again,
they tell you.
And you again totally ignore the consequences of releasing millions of
years of stored Co2 into the atmosphere in a span of a few decades.
Your sole measly defence being that "it might be beneficial for some
but we don't know".
> Mr Ehrlich is the one under an
> illusion that we are running out of everything and we are overpopulating and
> that there would be global famine...now thats and illusion. But keep
> believing this stuff.
>
> > Quite frankly I'd be much more inclined to help "the greenies" you so
> > despise clean the world than the aid the filthy fat $elf-centred oil
> > $cum that you seem to be so impressed by.
>
> I hate no one. I just think the opinions of the doom and gloom people are
> wrong. They have proven themselves wrong so many times.
It rather depends on who you choose to label the "doom and gloom"
people (like the ones predicting gloom and doom of US industry if it
adopts greener measures).
> It was they, who
> in the 70's thought the world was cooling. Now its warming. You can only
> cry 'wolf' so many times before people stop believing you.
OK, use simple logic instead. Do YOU think that releasing millions of
years of stored Co2 into the atmosphere is safe? If you are unsure,
how about waiting until you are certain before releasing it?
>
> (The very same ones that
> > have placed all members of the yank green party on the "no-fly" list
> > as "potential terrorists", btw.)
>
> Wrong, its only the extremist who distroy other peoples property. The Green
> Party is alive and unwell in the US.
The whole of the US political establishment in the US is alive and
unwell, particularly and outrageously when they begin preventing the
representatives of other parties from travelling.
> > > > > Politicians and leaders of big business have breath the same air and
> eat
> the
> > > > > same food we do.
> > > >
> > > > They get large places where the air don't stink and they get the best
> > > > food.
> > >
> > > How do the 'industrialist' know when to stop polluting so as not to
> affect
> > > themselves?
> >
> > They don't. They have to be made to stop.
>
> To quote you: "They get large places where the air don't stink and they get
> the best food." This implies, 'they' (the industrialist) have enough
> control over the envir. to stop polluting when it affects them. You can't
> have it both ways.
They move to places where the weather is nice and they get the clean
food shipped from far away.
> Which is why "voluntary
> > compliance to environmental guidelines" as pushed by failed oilman Bu4h is
> such a joke.
>
> If they were popular or important enough they would be passed into
> law....tell the UN.
??? The US doesn't comply with other democracies like the UN.
And you want to do nothing until it's too late. Duh.
> > > > > Myth:
> > > > > The global population is growing faster than our ability to produce
> food
> > > > > Fact:
> > > > > Global fertility rates are falling dramatically, and with advanced
> > > > > technology, farmers are producing more food using fewer resources
> than
> ever
> > > > > before
> > > >
> > > > So we don't need GM crops after all.....
> > >
> > > We have plenty of food. In the US the problem is not a shortage of food
> but
> > > to much food.
> >
> > Yes....
>
> But no explaination after it was predicted that by the year 2000 there would
> be massive famine.
If things had continued the way they were, there would have been.
That's the whole point of such studies, to alter behaviour so the
disasters don't happen.
In fact your arguments doubly negate the necessity for GM crops.
> > > > > Myth:
> > > > > Solar- and wind-powered generators are a renewable, efficient, and
> less
> > > > > intrusive alternative to gas-, oil-, and coal-burning generators
> > > > > Fact:
> > > > > Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being
> depleted,
> > > > > and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more
> electricity
> > > > > than 13,000 windmills
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. It requires less than two thousand and IS renewable and
> > > > efficient, as would simply covering roofs in PV panels. It's also
> > > > cheaper long term, particularly large scale.
> > >
> > > In Calif on the big windmill farms they are having problems with
> > > birds...endangered species...flying into the blades. What's a 'greenie'
> to
> > > do?
> >
> > Repel birds, just like is done at airports..
>
> And it doesn't work.
Sure does. That's why they have them.
> There still are bird strikes and still birds are
> injested into jet engines.
Minimally.
> This could put greenies against greenies.
???
> > > > > Myth:
> > > > > Modern pesticides and fertilizers are increasing the rates of cancer
> in
> > > > > humans
> > > > > Fact:
> > > > > No study has ever shown that anyone has developed cancer from the
> legal
> > > > > application of pesticides, and environmental pollution accounts for
> at
> most
> > > > > 2 percent of all cancer cases versus 30 percent caused by tobacco
> use
> > > >
> > > > (The tobacco industry also argued for decades that there is no link
> > > between cancer and smoking.)
> > >
> > > And they are paying dearly for it also. I noticed the Fed govt wasn't
> sued
> > > for pushing tobacco in the military....C rations contained packs of
> smokes
> > > when I was in.
> >
> > The lesson is: err on the side of caution where chemicals are
> > concerned.
>
> That is your lesson. No matter what the human cost...jobs and lives.
Sigh, ok, so don't be cautious with chemicals then and see the cost of
that. Duh.
> You
> do realize that humans are part of the Earths ecosystem?
Yes, they are the top of the food chain and the only ones capable of
consciously choosing to destroy the planet, or not.
>
> > Right now people are gulping down the neurotoxin aspartame (thanks to
> > Rumsfeld), for another example.
>
> No, if they are gulping it down its because they chose to. Mr Rumsfeld has
> no power to force anyone to gulp down aspartame.
Sure he has, he was instrumental in it being certified "safe" by the
health department.
> It bothers you because its
> on the market and you don't like it. It bothers you that Americans have
> this choice
They don't have a clue about aspartame, so it's zilch to do with
"choice".
> and really wish that Europe through the UN or international
> treaties could force the US to do your bidding.
That comment is so pathetic that it's funny.
> The US is governed under
> the US Constitution and not the UN charter.
Neither. The US is run by lobbies and financers.
>
> > > > Of course all the other diseaeses, a plethora of as yet unknown
> > > > effects and the huge environmental impact aren't even mentioned:
> > >
> > > Whats also not mentioned is the people who smoke, by taxation are paying
> an
> > > unfair share of the medicare expenses and are dieing earlier. If
> everyone
> > > who smokes quit today the Soc Security system would fold faster. Who is
> > > scamming who?
> >
> > In GB they claim the opposite. Smokers allegedly use up more NHS
> > resources.
>
> Smokes are taxed heavily here by the Feds and States.
Here too, a packet of 20 costs over $7.
>
> > > > Pesticides have never caused a car accident, therefore pesticides are
> > > > safe, duh.
> > >
> > > You mean like alar that was used on apples. It was suppose to be such a
> > > toxic chemical. The only people hurt were the apple producers as they
> found
> > > later on it was safe. Did that affect the 'greenies'.....no. Or DDT
> that
> > > practically wiped out malaria and yellow fever a big killer in the 3rd
> > > world....Its toxic to the envir.
> > > We now have West Nile virus in this country on the rise. I'm guessing
> that
> > > if it gets to the epidemic stage we will be using DDT again. The
> 'greenies'
> > > position is, I'm almost certain that humans are expendable.
> >
> > No the green position is, most likely, combat WNV without harming the
> > rest of the environment.
>
> To hell with humanity as long as the envir. remains prestine. There is no
> middle ground with with the 'greenies', its there way or it wrong....even
> with such a track record.
Hahaha! Something tells me you are a prime example of the filthiest
generation of the filthiest country of the filthiest species that has
ever existed, and determined to remain so.
> > > > > See for yourself:
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/102-7574205-0387326?v=glance&vi=reviews
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am surprised that you even bothered to paste such a selection of
> > > > bullshit.
> > >
> > > I am also supprised that you failed to refute much of what I posted.
> >
> > I did refute virtually all of what you posted, you just added more
> > rubbish.
>
> Typical, I post rubbish you post the truth.
At least you got *that* right.
Mark K.
> >
> > Mark K.
> >
Mark K.
The hole in the ozone layer hadn't even been discovered in 1985. Time
may stand still for you, but not for science and the rest of the
world.
> Seems
> everything is a sign of global warming after the fact. Record cold weather
> in the NE US is a sign also of global warming. How about a year when we
> actually get to the global warming part.
It's a gradual process. You also purposely ignore the increasing
regularity of heat waves.
> > > Alar a toxic pesticide...the apple industry hurt....It was not
> > > harmful
> >
> > ??? Most pesticides are harmful, what are you on about?
>
> It was harmful. Harmful to the people who raised apples or had anything to
> do with apples. They were hurt because of this junk science. I think Meryl
> Streep was the celebrity scientist who testified before Congress. The
> pesticide was found out to be safe....another greenie unfounded scare that
> caused hardships on people.
You just said that it was harmful. You also seem to be unaware of the
huge worldwide increase of cancers and allergies in general.
> >
> > > ....the gas shortage of the 70's running out of oil didn't
> > > happen...plenty of oil
> >
> > ??? So why is the US now so desperate to secure oil supplies? Oil is
> > getting more scarce, it's a finite commodity.
>
> There is plenty of oil. Its just being controlled. If and when the
> shortage comes there will be a substitute....things continue to get better.
Like what?
>
> > > ....population explosion
> >
> > Population IS increasing. It is precisely because of such studies that
> > china took measures to reduce birth rates.
>
> Yes, I know. India is also.
So you have no argument then....
> China limiting each family to one child with
> the females expendable. India females are also expendable. The bigger
> problem here is when all these males grow up with no possibility of a
> wife....war war war.
...and try to change the subject.
> > > ....world famine by the turn
> > > of the century....didn't happen...plenty of food. The problem is the
> > > distribution system if there is a problem. Do you see why I may be a
> little
> > > disbeleiving?
> >
> > Again, it was partly as a result of those warnings that food
> > production increased. (Yet there were still famines)
>
> Yes, it was distribution not a lack of food. Paul Ehrlich predicted massive
> starvation by now. Lost his bet on natural resourses running out and he got
> to pick the ones to bet on. This happened in the short span of l0 years.
> Wonder why I still have a problems believing the greenies?
Never heard of this Ehrlich character. You shouldn't base your opinion
on single articles.
>
> > > > whereas those who are, are the majority of scientists who
> > > > overwhelmingly find it to be indicitavive of man made global warming.
> > >
> > > Just because the majority of scientists think that there is global
> warming
> > > doesn't make it correct. I'm in no way saying that there is no global
> > > warming...there very well maybe.
> >
> > So IOW, you and the industrialist US administration think we should
> > wait until the proof hits us on the head irreversably.
>
> Want to tell me when this 'irreversably' time is?
> I'll give you a 10 year
> window on each side of the year you chose. 20 year window to chose from.
Few of the effects are reversable in our lifetimes.
> > > There are scientist that believe that
> > > there is no global warming/there is some global warming/the global
> warming
> > > if it is happening may not be as bad as predicted.
> >
> > There is no doubt that global warming IS happening (whatever the
> > reason), even according to your Mr. Michael.
> > You are also attempting to divert from the fact that the US is
> > imposing about 20% (and increasing) of Co2 emissions on the whole
> > world.
> > The world has democratically and scientifically come to the conclusion
> > that this is a danger to it and it's wildlife. The US is thereby
> > undermining democracy, science and ethics.
>
> No doubt that you and some other scientists believe global waraming is
> happening. It could even be a majority.
It is.
> There are other scientist who say
> they don't know because its based mainly on computer models. Others say
> some global warming may not be so bad.
I'm sure you could even find a scientist who still insists the earth
is flat.
> Democratic conclusions on scientific
> questions are not answers, but just votes that global warming is
> happening...could the scientists vote out the law of gravity?
So when do you say a scientific conclusion is reached? Quantify the
amount of evidence you need to accept that human induced global
warming is a reality to *you*.
> > > I'm open.
> >
> > No, you are advocating no action and the increase of Co2 emissions.
>
> No, I'm asking for more scientific study on C02 and global warming.
Same thing. You are advocating no action and a continuing increase of
Co2 emissions until you believe a study.
> The last 100 years of records on the weather is a blink of the eye of the eons
> of years the Earth's weather.
There are plenty of other sources of information of past weather than
just human records. They are locked in ice, geology and plants, for a
start.
>> Its kinda bold of us to think we can
> know/predict global warming or anything else concerning the weather with any
> degree of accuracy.
How much accuracy do you need, exactly?
> > > You seem only
> > > to think that it 'is', without a doubt....also it will be extremely
> harmful.
> >
> > It already is harmful. You should inform youself better. (A more
> > regular look at non-american media sources would help you there).
>
> I read an article where extra C02 made orange trees produce fruit 1 year
> earlier in a control group. Is that harmful. The rainforests are being cut
> down at a high rate. Maybe more plant life may combat some of the C02. I
> really don't know but I'm no scientist. There probably are alternatives or
> different stratagies to deal with the problem. I don't know, I'm just
> assuming you are right which I seriously doubt.
IOW you only trust US scientists as far as anything that affects you
is concerned. The only suggestion I can make again to you is to read
more, of both sides of a story, internationally.
I would say that "mostly harmful" leaves no doubt about invoking a
course of action to prevent something.
> > > > You seem to think that it's worth gambling with the whole planet just
> > > > to save a little inconvenience for a minority of well off people.
> > >
> > > You just said it, this (envir.) was a 'finely balanced complex chaotic
> > > system' now you are implying that a minority of 'well off people' can
> > > control it enough that they will not be affected. Something is wrong
> with
> > > your reasoning. They can control this system for their benefit?
> >
> > Your comprehension is the problem. It is the actions of these people
> > and their ignorance or plain disregard of the consequences that are
> > affecting the weather and the environment. From what you have written,
> > you are a classical example.
>
> And your assumptions are rediculous...that these 'industrialist/capitalist'
> will destroy themselves and the Earth to make big $$$$$$$ unless they
> conform to the greenies.
And you are being simplistic. I say that Industrialists already have,
are and will continue to damage the earth as long and as far as they
are allowed to do so. That's the whole point of having environmental
legislation. As the worlds biggest polluter, the US doesn't have
enough (even less since Bush came to power).
Who exactly do you class as "The Greenies"?
>
> > > You cannot generalize about all industrialists as being 'ethnically
> corrupt.
> >
> > ( ITYM "ethically" )
>
> Sorry.
>
> > I sure can claim that the vast majority of industrialist are out to
> > make as much money *as they can get away with* at the expense of the
> > environment.
> > That's why your industrialist pres has decimated US environmental
> > laws, an act that damages the whole world.
>
> Earlier you said these same people could stop before it became to harmful to
> 'them' (industrialist).
They can. Environmental damage to a far away place they own is
irrelevant to them (until they incur financial penalties).
> Did you change your mind or are the industrialist
> going to destroy the whole world just to make money? What good is money
> then?
The process is gradual.
> > > It is true some are and some are not. Take a look at some of the
> 'robber
> > > barons' of the mid 1800's to early 1900's.
> > > Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, etc. Vanderbilt left a University, and
> his
> > > home in Ashville, NC. Carneigie had disposed of almost all of his income
> > > building 2811 free libraries and the purchase of 7689 church organs.
> Lots
> > > of these early industrialist were free to get wealthy and then start
> large
> > > foundations to help less fortunate. This was when there was not Fed
> Income
> > > tax or very little. These people were rich rich. Ford, H. Hughes, and
> B.
> > > Gates have continued this. Lots of very rich people feel obligated to
> give
> > > there wealth away.
> >
> > I'm not going to start discussing individual cases, the evidence of
> > their wrongdoings is out there (and much of it never comes to light).
>
> Just and example. "The evidence is out there, much of it never comes to
> light."
> You know and have the evidence but the whole US population is in the dark?
> What a joke. Its out there but no one knows but the greenies and of course
> the polluters.
Loads of people discover the damage, what are you on about?
Here on the english channel we regularly get birds covered in oil from
unknown tankers flushing their holds. Polluted waterways are another
typical example. The great lakes in the US also spring to mind. The
list goes on.
> You are losing credibility fast.
On what do you base this assumption?
>
> > > > Global warming: 1,240,000 google hits
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > See above.
>
> I don't deny for one minute that global warming brings up the number of hits
> you say. Look up global warming + cato or + haritage foundation.
I already know the minority argument from some of your industrialist
ruled country's organisations.
???
> I realize there are people that have
> died because of unsafe environment. Americans died breathing in the dust
> from mining shafts building the Boulder Dam, mining coal etc. Steps have
> been taken to correct these things.
Actually, the steps that industrialists take include shifting
production to countries where they can get away with unsafe practices.
> > > > > It is possible if all industrialization ceased the earth could
> > > > > still become hotter/colder. It did so during the ice age.
>
> > > > Of course, inevitably. But lets not accelerate that process by
> > > > releasing millions of years worth of stored co2 into the atmosphere.
> > >
> > > We don't know that this is accelerating.
> >
> > Yes we do. (See 1,250,000 google links.)
>
> See above, majority numbers doesn't equal scientific evidence.
What does, to you?
> > > There also could be some
> > > beneficial effects. Effects do not always have to be negative.
> >
> > You are becoming repetitive. The benefits dwarf the damage. The
> > changes alone wipe out whole ecosystems. I've seen some of it.
>
> What eco-systems have the US industrialist wiped out on purpose or otherwise
> with full knowledge that they were doing it?
Don't pretend to be ignorant, you must be joking.
Just the pollution of waterways alone should keep you busy for a long
time.
I already showed you one example in the Smart car link and pointed out
that
>...Heavy equipment?...Utilities? Please be
> specific.
I already told you that in other posts
It's not secret.
Seeing it in real life, reading about it and watching numerous
documentaries. Try it, unless your media doesn't report pollution over
there.
When pollution is found, it is usually difficult to find the
perpetrators, never mind bring them to justice. Even when there are
laws are in place they are often inadequate to be an effective
deterrant.
> Thats the joke you should be laughing about.
> You make general blanket statements with nothing to back them up but you say
> so.
The joke is that you seem to be unaware of pollution. I don't know
where you live to google up some local examples for you that you'll
grudgingly believe. Give it a go.
Here is one small aspect of what you need to look for:
http://www.lenntech.com/Water-Pollution-FAQ.htm
(Interesting that even clean discharged water slightly warmer than
ambient water kills fauna).
> > Say, are you some kind of ex defence shyister? It sounds like you are
> > used to defending criminals who are as guilty as hell.
>
> No, I'm just an ordinary person who don't believe everything someones says,
> or some group of people say. Especially if there is a difference of
> opinion and one side (yours) has been continually wrong on your predictions.
Somehow I think that these people have more of a clue than you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3409653.stm
Could it be because their government isn't made up of directors of the
fossil fuel and war industries?
Mark K.
> >
> > Mark K.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mark K.
joseph irvin
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:50:19 GMT, "joseph irvin"
> <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> I agree with this. We (non-Muslims) are 'in their way' of Allah and
> >> they cannot suffer their world being soiled and disgraced by
> >> non-Muslims such as us. It's why I hate Islam even more than I hate
> >> Catholicism. Historically speaking, no religion has ever been more
> >> dangerous to man and womankind than that of the pedophile Muhammad's
> >> Nation of Islam.
> >
> >I kinda of agree with this, but can we be sure that all Muslims are
> >fundamentalist and extremist or even hold these beliefs. What bothers me
is
> >that the so called moderate Muslims are, for the most part, silent in
> >condemning the terrorism committed by Muslims. This could be because of
> >fear which I understand. Other Muslim countries govts hardly ever
condemn
> >terrorist actions. These are reasons I kinda of agree. The Muslim's
> >religion definitely has to be brought into the 21st century. The
Catholic
> >religion doesn't bother me, my brother converted to Catholicism.
>
> Just contributing my own gas emissions to this thread;-)
Thats good, the more people that participate the better IMO.
> You're right...the majority of religious people of all
> denominations/dominations seem to have a healthy handle on what
> religion is really for.
I agree with this. Religion was an important part of the settling of this
continent and important in the formation of the different colonial govts.
The Dec of Independence, an important document in our founding presupposes a
Supreme Being.
What I was really referring to is some of the
> awful events which have occurred in the past, thanks to fundamental
> zealots, particularly those representing Islam and Catholicism.
Well, I guess as long as there is religion there will be zealots. If they
remain peaceful I think they at least should get there say. What really
causes problems is when people think they don't get to express their
views...extremism, IMO, falls on deaf ears for most Americans.
With
> the possible exception of Scientology (among other strange cults), one
> religion is about as good or bad as the other, imo.
I guess everyone thinks their religion is the correct one, but thats ok.
Religion does a lot of the 'heavy lifting' in a society. It stress that
individual should control there appetites/passions. The more this happens
the less laws needed. The less religious we become the more laws that have
to be enacted to control society. G. Washington noted the importance of
religion in his farewell address.
> >> Within Israel, Palestinians have few if any rights...not even by
> >> marriage to a Jewish/Israeli citizen. Sounds to me as if there might
> >> be a pretty illegitimate and flawed governmental framework in place...
> >
> >What I was talking about above was during the time of the formation of
the
> >Jewish state. People living there would be able to remain and become
> >citizens of the new State. Things now are hard on non-Jewish people
living
> >in Israel but you have to understand they are living in a garrisoned
> >state...non Jews are all suspected. I imagine it would be the same way
in
> >any country that has suffered the terrrorism that Israel has suffered.
Look
> >at how the Japanese in the US were treated after Pearl Harbor... how
Lincoln
> >responded after the beginning of the Civil War. A first responsibility
of a
> >government is to perpetuate itself and protect its people....this is
Israels
> >way of doing this.
>
> I do understand this. When 911 happened in your country, I was one of
> those most in favor in this newsgroup of sending all Muslims off of
> the continent and bombing the crap out of most of the Middle East. How
> extreme is that??
Lots of people have extreme first reactions. I think it only natural. When
the Fed govt bldg was blown up in Oklahoma City I immediately though it was
arab terrorist. Lots of time we just don't think, but most people want to
do what is right.
Lol Compared to those feelings and considering the
> daily fear which Israeli civilians must be feeling, they are actually
> being very cool-headed about it all. I also admired Israel very much
> for their restraint when Saddam was firing missiles at them during the
> Gulf War and they did nothing in retaliation.
I agree with this also. I guess people can get accustomed to anything.
After 911 I thought there would be more terrorist attacks in America.
America is so target rich....shopping malls, sporting events, concerts,
holiday celebrations not to mention all the other stretegic cites. I
mentioned the above because it seems, by the targets attacked in Israel,
that the terrorist go after civilians. WTC I & II were civilian targets. I
have to give our Fed govt credit, in my opinion, they have reponded well by
keeping civilians safe. Maybe to good a job, people don't seem to worry
about terrorist attacks anymore.
> >Did America *send* 'professional entertainment' to South Africa or were
> >American entertainers free to travel to South Africa to work?
>
> They were free to go there and were paid handsomely for their
> appearances in South Africa. Even once the rest of the entertainment
> world had openly condemned S.A. and refused to perform there, some
> very big names, such as Frank Sinatra continued to go. My point though
> was that an American of Jewish descent was one of the most outspoken
> entertainers against that regime and quite instrumental in effecting
> real change for the better. I'm a big fan.
I guess the Americans of Jewish descent had felt the sting of discrimination
or at least someone in their family or someone they knew. Experience is a
good teacher. As far as Mr. Sinatra goes; in a free society people are also
free to be jerks if they chose.
Mark K.
Temporary visitor are hardly going to point out to the locals how out
of touch they are. They sure report it when they get back though.
> >
> > ...To which I say that the vast majority of all people who ever
> > migrated TO the US did so for financial opportunities. And it is the
> > main reason why american culture is also famous for it's "culture of
> > greed", because it is so deeply embedded in the psychy of the country.
>
> Is greed something that is only common in America. Do you know any history?
Sure.
> GB built an empire that the sun never set on. Was that just for the hell of
> it. Spain was hauling gold out of the Americas by the boat load. Ever
> heard of mercantilism?
Sure.
> Was this greed or benevolence by European countries? Same thing with most
> of the European powers.
Sure.
> You assume that all greed is bad.
Greed sure is bad to the victims of it.
> Going after
> wealth doesn't always mean people being exploited. The better mouse trap
> most time makes someone/or people wealthy. B Gates may/may not be greedy
> but it made the world better.
Gates is greedy. The managers he employs are even worse.
> We know what happens when people aren't free
> to pursue their callings but are told by the State what is best for them.
You are digressing. The point is that the greediest emigrate/emigrated
to america and form the bloodstock.
>
> > > > > As for the media we do IMO have a slanted
> > > > > one just like the British media is slanted.
> > > >
> > > > The US "media" is now more akin to a ziocon propaganda machine.
> > >
> > > Your opinion is noted...some proof would be helpful.
> >
> > The Murdoch media empire.
>
> I don't know is Murdoch jewish?
Yes.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Murdoch2.html
> How much imput does he have into the actual
> news opinion expressed.
Lots. He strongly pushes the zionist line.
> How about the Washington Times it is or use to be
> owned by the Rev Moon, a Korean. He had almost no imput into what was
> printed.
Owners decide on what their input is.
> The NY Times and Washington Post express other points of view.
> Naming the Murdoch media empire doesn't give examples of the "ziocon
> propaganda machine", it only tell what you think it is. What is 'ziocon
> propaganda?'....the jewish view of the middle east?
Anything that props up the ZioCon cause.
> Why shouldn't 'ziocon
> propagand machine' have an opinion?
Because when it dominates over balanced reporting a whole population
are prevented from ever learning the reality of a situation. The US
re. Palestine is a classic case. Israel kills about 3 times as many
Palestinians, most of whom are refugees. How many reports of Israeli
atrocities and injustices are actually shown in the US?
How many hundreds of millions have been spent solely on the jewish
holocaust memorials and museums, while ignoring other holocausts?
>
> > Controlling positions in media companies being occupied by a largely
> > disproportionate number of pro-zionists.
>
> Well thats your opinion, and it may have some weight at certain times in
> decision making. Positions in the media change. You mentioned earlier how
> uninformed the American people were on middle east affairs and now you are
> saying they influence and are influenced by the media.
They are kept ignorant of the reality.
BTW Have you ever heard of "The Project For The New American Century"
?
>
> > "Greg Dyke, BBC director-general, has condemned US media coverage of
> > the Iraq war and accused American broadcasters of "swapping
> > impartiality for patriotism".
> > http://www.people-link.org/news/showupdates.php?upid=759
>
> Well I guess that is a trait the Europeans would not recognize, to support
> your military when its involved in a military conflict. Fox News (Murdoch
> ziocon propaganda machine) TV broadcasters even went so far as to wear
> Ameican Flags on their jacket lapels....whats this world coming to. They
> should be neutral.
Exactly.
The purpose of the news media is to provide an impartial report of
events to enable the public to form an accurate view based on all
available facts.
> Was the British media neutral during the world wars?
No.
We are in 2004 now.
> > But the best way to see for yourself is to actually begin to read
> > non-american news sites on the web regularly, the BBC one is a start:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/
> > If you want to balance your view, you have to read both sides of a
> > story (eg. Fox and Al Jazeera, CNN and Pravda). Then you should get a
> > clearer idea of how slanted your media is.
>
> I got my side of the news on Pan Am over Lockerbe, the Marine barracks in
> Lebanon, Kobar towers, USS Cole, 2 embassy bombings in Africa, bombing the
> World Trade Center, and the flying 2 air craft into the towers, from US
> television and newspapers. Al Jazeera's said the flying the air craft into
> the WTC was a jewish plot. I think I, and most American have a pretty clear
> view on what is going on in the world.
Obviously not.
They show you an atrocity and immediately tell you who to blame. 911
in particular is a huge can of worms.
> > One recent small example would be that the tests on shells found by
> > danish troops propagandised as containing blister agent have now shown
> > that they actually don't. Most americans have not been made aware of
> > that fact.
>
> And the mass graves, torture and rape rooms, they are all bogus also.
What about them? They sure don't show that Iraq was an imminent threat
to the USA or that it had any connections with Al Quaeda, the main
reason pushed for going there, remember.
> > > > > We also have many other means
> > > > > of communication like 'talk radio'. We also have the internet and
> are
> able
> > > > > to find out what is going on in the world.
> > > >
> > > > Though few actually use it for that purpose.
> > >
> > > I don't know the number of people who listen....what difference would it
> > > make thought?....all US media according to you is "ziocon propaganda."
> >
> > No, MOST us media is strongly pro-zionist BIASED. Occasionally they
> > have to let some snippets through or they would loose credibility. The
> > reason the US-Israel centric media doesn't have much cred in europe
> > (nay the world)is because we have a more diverse media (despite
> > scumbag Murdoch's efforts to the opposite) which actually reports some
> > of the injustices suffered daily by the Palestinians.
>
> You know, I really don't care how much credibility we have with the
> Europeans. The Europeans you speak of could care less about the welfare of
> the Ameican people.
They americans are not exactly needy, are they?
> The US has been the one Europe always runs to when it
> gets in trouble and now that the US needs help hardly any want to help.
Bullshit.
> Of
> course there are exceptions. You are sitting behind your keyboard now
> writting because Americans came to Europe to bail you out.
Do you actually read what I post? It was the russians that primarily
bailed europe out, in both wars.
Here is the WW2 european theatre casualty map, look at it this time:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
> > > > > Its seems the in the past
> > > > > century the only time that lots of Americans traveled was going to
> Europe to
> > > > > help win two World Wars
> > > >
> > > > "Help" being the operative word. Most of the human price, and
> > > > defeating of the German military in WW2, was actually done by russia.
> > > >
> > > > > ....we were more 'in touch' then.
> > > >
> > > > Since much of the travelling is done by the military, even that view
> > > is slanted.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because the military go to potential and actual conflict zones or live
> > grouped in US camps/stations, not with the local population or in
> > peacetime. They mostly aren't of the type interested in broadening
> > their cultural horizons much beyond rifle range or the local brothels
> > and bars.
>
> Why don't you just say barbarians.
Why should I say that?
Now follows your rant about something I haven't said:
> These are the same barbarians that are
> always bailing Europe out because they lack the guts/forsight to act until
> it to late....remember Neville Chamberlain's peace in our time when he came
> back from Germany....appeasement the European way. A lot of Americans lost
> their lives because France and England didn't stop Hitler before be became
> to strong
Funny, even Bush's grandaddy had close ties with the nazis. Bush minor
has business ties with the Bin Ladens.
> ....Nazism and Facism another of the gifts from Europe to
> civilization...but Americans are to 'insular.'
Sure are, they have an insular MENTALITY. You are one example.
>
> > > Americans cannot do anything right can they?
> >
> > Not much. (See "particpating in world affairs with an insular
> > viewpoint")
>
> Its because of Americans you can have your particular view point. You don't
> read to much history do you?
It's precisely because I check out facts that I know that it is russia
who actually deserves by far the biggest credit for defeating the
Nazis.
> > > What the view that
> > > Americans have to bail Europe out of their messes?
> >
> > The US actually did much less "bailing" in europe than they boast
> > about , and what they did certainly wasn't out of altruism. They entered
> both
> > wars late and did so because of the fear that the enmey would
> > eventually come over an get their ass. They decided that it was better
> > to fight abroad rather than get their own country trashed.
>
> Why didn't the French and English stop Hitler before he became dominate?
> Call it fear or whatever but it was in the US interest to do something
> France and Britian were afraid to do...stop Hitler when he invaded
> Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Actually the US entered both wars late.
> Hitler went through France like Sherman went through the South. Yes, the US
> did 'decide to fight abroad rather than get their own country
> trashed'....not like GB and France who chose to get their countries and
> people trashed because they had rather appease.
Since it took massive russia to stop 90% of the german army, what
choice do you think they had?
> I see by your opinions you
> still haven't learned that lesson...appeasemen leads to more appeasement and
> eventually having to fight. You are so lucky that the US is taking on this
> burden...notice M. Kadafi stopped bombing bars after the US bombed him.
> Remember France wouldn't let US planes use their air space.
Good on them, stop all rogue countries who defy UN resolutions.
(That rather reminds me of Bush's first little tantrim with the
chinese, for tackling a yank spyplane).
> Ms Thatcher had
> a lot more moral fortitude.
She got thrown out for the lack of it.
> > While some
> > of the actual soldiers may have believed they were out to save europe,
> > the real reasons were different.
>
> The real reason was because Americans have guts and believe in freedom and
> are responsible for their own freedom.
> Europe knows the US will probably
> come to their aid.
You live in the past
This is 2004 and Europe knows that you are now a power crazed rogue
country.
You have many similarities with pre-war nazi germany and it took Bush
and chums only 2 years to get you there.
Here's that apt quote from Goering again:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack
of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country." - Herman Goering
> Europe insisted on having US troops, not UN troops in
> Europe after WWII so if the Russians came accross the boarders there would
> be US troops to draw us into the fray. Europe couldn't even defend itself
> for the better part of the 20th century without US help.
Your regime has changed to one openly striving for domination of the
world.
>
> > > > > Maybe the US
> > > > > doesn't share Europes world view and chose not to travel.
> > > >
> > > > Insular mentality.
> > >
> > > Mr K. you cannot have it both ways. You argue that Americans are
> 'insular'
> > > in their mentality but condemn us for participating in world affairs?
> >
> > "Participitating" in world affairs with an insular mentality isn't
> > exactly a recepie for success and popularity. QED Iraq etc..
>
> It was in 1917 and 1941. It depends on who's at risk doesn't it. Europeans
> wanted all the help they could get then from this country with its 'insular
> mentality.'....as opposed to they European appeasement mentality.
You constantly appease racist Israel, you even attacked Iraq for it
(and counting).
> Popularity contests never has won any country its freedom.
You're not into democracy then.
>
> > > What
> > > if the US would have been 'insular' in 1917 and 1941? You probably
> wouldn't
> > > be sitting behind that keyboard now.
> >
> > Here are the casualty figures for WW1: Russia tops the list. US only
> > fought the last year of it.
> > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8054/casualty.html
>
> True, the US did fight the last year because it was a stand off. The US
> made the difference. It was a European war. Why did/should the US even be
> involved? Your mind set is that the US should be here on call for Europe.
To stop it being overrun itself at a later stage, I even have an old
WW1 poster depicting a gorrilla with a spiked german helmet attemting
to step across the atlantic. "Stop this mad brute" was the slogan.
> > Here are the casualties for WW2: russia tops the list (also note where
> > most of the german army died, their crack troops)
> > http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
>
> It seems you do not understand warfare.
It seems you do not understand valor.
> The object is to inflict the most
> damage on your enemy and not to see how many of your own troops can be
> killed.
Eer, the us killed 90% of the german army, you seem to be either be
blind or obtuse.
> The US did this and did a good job of it. Again it was a European
> war and if France and GB had of acted before Hitler became to strong it
> probably could have been avoided.
Might have, could have, what if... Bullshit. There is no way that
France and GB could have beaten Hitler without russia.
It might well be that the same situation is now arising in the case of
another rogue country out to set up an empire: america.
How about if the mexicans won AND had the backing of a superpower?
That's the position the Palestinians have always been in. In fact it
is rather brave (despite the desperate excessive methods of a small
few) that even after 90 years they are still resisting being ruled by
outsiders.
> > > > > By the way some Israelis were 'in
> > > > > touch', the ones living in Germany before the 2nd WW. Look how
> these
> 'in
> > > > > touch' Israelies are treated in France today.
> > > >
> > > > Clarify.
> > >
> > > The Jewish people living under German domination were killed. Today,
> the
> > > renewal of antisemitism in France.
> >
> > Ah yes, the ZioCon campaign to malign the "Old Europe".
> > Any "antisemitism" in France is totally dwarfed by the
> > anti-arab/muslim racism in the US.
>
> I'll admit the US is not perfect, but we haven't had Jewish temples burned
> down and Jews attacked in the streets because they were Jews.
You've had plenty of attacks on muslims, some have even been killed.
> There is
> hardly any anti-arab/muslim racism in this country,
Dream on. Go check out some other popular usenet groups like
soc.culture.usa for a start.
If I even looked mildly arabic, I would think thrice before attempting
to even book a flight in the US. The persecution of arabs and anyone
"un-american" isn't just perpetrated by a few nutters, but by the
administration itself.
> even in light as to what
> has happened. If you think so give some proof then I will respond.
> I noticed you didn't respond to my charge of anti-semitism in France, but
> instead blamed the US.
In France they are in the process of banning signs of religion in
schools. The banning of Muslim headscarves is a big bone of
contention.
>
> > Criticising Israel and NaZionism isn't "antisemitism" btw (a misnoma
> > if ever there was one, Israelis aren't semites).
>
> So criticism in France is burning down Jewish temples, attacking Jews on the
> streets just because the are Jews?
No, such acts are racist and done by a racist minority. Criticising
Israel isn't.
> Believing that Israel is the biggest to
> threat to peace in the world isn't anti-semitism?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Amazing, you just tried to demonise as an evil act the mere criticism
of one country's murderous policies .
With that you have proved how conditioned you are to support Israel
regardless of anything they perpetrate.
> > > > > > > You forget that over 4 million refugees
> > > > > > > > are one cost of the fantasy which proclaims that "God" gave
> Palestine
> > > > > > > > to the Israelis, and fuck the indigenous inhabitants.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wasn't Israel, a country promised by the Balfour
> Declaration...the
> > > > > > > declaration taking its name from British Foreign Secretary
> Arthur
> Balfour?
> > > > > > > Was GB in any way responsible?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > Are you implying that when people talk about "the promised land",
> they
> > > > > > mean by Britain, rather than by an alleged omnipotent entity?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't imply anything. I stated a fact.
> > > >
> > > > I'm stating the fact that Israelis allege and believe that an
> > > > omnipotent entity promised Palestine to them. That's the reason they
> give
> > > for wanting to live there.
> > >
> > > So what if they did believe that an omnipotent entity promised them
> > > Palestine?
> >
> > ??? They are obviously totally batty!
>
> What is batty about that? Its batty for Israelis to have religious beliefs
> but ok for Muslims to have religious beliefs.
It's totally batty to invade a whole country and to oppress a whole
population on the basis of a religious belief.
You can believe anything you like *as long as it doesn't actually harm
others*.
> > > GB had a big part in the process of the formation of Israel.
> >
> > Sure, they wanted them out of europe.
>
> And that is not anti-semitism?
It is.
>
> Their Bolshevism had recently
> > ruined russia.
>
> And it was an on and off relationship between Hitler and Stalin.
> By the way Russia was a feudal society before the
> Revolution...Bosshevism wasn't the answer I'll agree.
Likewise.
>
> > > Israel alone didn't have the power to become a State.
> >
> > Exactly. It's a totally artificial construct.
>
> Well then you should be blaming GB, the League of Nations,
I do.
> and the UN, not
> Israel. European countries had a hand in drawing the maps of lots of
> countries in the middle east, Africa, and Asia. Musta done a poor job huh?
> Europe is at fault. How about some blame there?
Absolutely.
Now it is the US perpetuating that mistake, with far bigger potential
consequences. It's 2004, remember, things change.
>
> > > It is a State today
> > > and recognized in the world as a legimate State.
> >
> > Only under the pressure of the US and previously Britain.
>
> So what, that is what was best at the time. Its easy to sit behind your
> computer and complain...welcome to the real world.
You are the one constantly bringing up the past, it is only the
present situation that can be dealt with.
> > > What do you suggest...take
> > > Israel by force and tell the refugees here is your land back?
> >
> >
> > Disarm israel as much as possible (of nukes particularly, fallout from
> > which would damage the whole world), stop giving it arms aid, make it
> > obey UN resolutions. Let UN troops keep the peace until both sides
> > come to an agreement.
>
> Obviously your BBC has been telling you that Israel doesn't exist in the
> Arabs mindset.
Obviously you have been conditioned to poo poo the news service world
renouned for it's impartiality.
> To make agreements common ground has to exist....it doesn't.
You forget the geneva deal reached by palestinians and Israelis
independent of their present leaderships.
>
> > > ....it would
> > > become just another 3rd world oppressive govt. most likely.
> >
> > It already is. They can't even agree amongst themselves.
>
> But being able to disagree is healthy...could Iraqis who disagree with
> Saddam exist in Iraqi or in Saude Arabia?
Yet the US strongly supports the Saudis (while it was Saudis who
allegedly played a big part in 911, not Iraqis)
>
> > > > > I don't pretend to know what an
> > > > > 'omnipotent entity' does or thinks. You blame Israel for the
> refugee
> > > > > problem when they allowed the people living there at them time of
> the
> > > > > formation of the country, to stay.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, that's big of them. "Allow" people to stay on their homeland and
> > > serve the invaders.
> > >
> > > Serve? No, allow them to stay and participate in the new State of
> Israel.
> >
> > See how you'd like to "participate" with the side with the guns.
> > Do you think Outsiders "participating" in a jewish dominated
> > organisation (holding guns)is a viable proposition anywhere?
>
> That is the way it is now. Pre 1947 it wasn't.
We live in the now.
>
> > > They chose not to and left some even joining the other arab States in
> > > attacking the newly formed State of Israel.
> >
> > Bastards, trying to get their land back, the cheek...
>
> If they wanted there land so bad why did they leave it?...does it have
> anything to do with thinking the arab armies would run Israel into the sea?
Probably. As it happened the arabs failed. What's that got to do with
Palestinians wanting to remain on, and return to their land without
being constantly attacked by the heavily armed Israeli outsiders?
>
> > > > > You implyingly blame the US for aiding
> > > > > Israel a country recognized by other sovereign countries.
> > > >
> > > > It wasn't recognised as a country by a whole bunch, and it only became
> > > > an entity similating a country with mainly american aid.
> > >
> > > Of course it was recognized by other States. Yes, Israel did get aid
> from
> > > America, just like GB and the rest of the Allies got aid during the W
> Wars
> > > or they would be Axis satillites today.
> >
> > I refer to political pressure, as well as aid.
>
> In free societies we have political pressure. Its something we deal with
> and find it healthy.
You only find it healthy when it benefits you (which is most of the
time), look how you whine when countries effectively disagree with you
(france springs to mind)
>
> > > > > Why doesn't the
> > > > > other arab countries give some of their oil money to help the
> refugees?
> >
> >
> > > > They do.
>
> > > Like the rich arab oil countries?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Why does the other countries and the UN have to support the refugees then?
The UN is an international organisation with the clout to do so
effectively.
> Why can't they immigrate to other arab countries?
I've already told you a number of times, go read again below.
> > > ...like Arafat who is stashing money in
> > > European banks by the tons.
> >
> > Would you prefer him to put it in a jewish bank? There isn't a bank
> > safe from the Israelis in Palestine.
>
> No, I would prefer him spending the money to help the refugees.
Palestinians do spend money on helping Palestinians.
> I see thats
> not your main interest though.
????
>
> > > > > Why
> > > > > don't all of the arab countries let the refugees immigrate to their
> > > > > countries...live there and get jobs.
> > > >
> > > > You mean aid the Israelis in removing them from their homeland?
> > >
> > > No, I mean just what I wrote....let the refugees live and work in their
> > > countries.
> >
> > ...which is tantamount to helping the evacuation of Palestine and
> > handing ALL OF IT to the Israelis on a platter.
>
> And letting the Palestinians have decent lives.
So why don't you take the Israeli intruders instead?
> Above you said the State of
> Israel was formed to get the Jews out of Europe. Whats the difference?
Very little, with the exception that the jews actually WANTED to go
there because their omnipotent entity allegedly told them to.
> What should happen to the Jews and all improvements they have made in
> Israel?
(They destroyed much of Palestinian infrastructure. The improvements
are to their own sectors.)
The US are their biggest (nay only) allies, It would probably be
cheaper to take them to the US than giving them billions of arms aid
every year. (At least it would stop the selling american weapons tech
to China).
> > > > > > > What are other arab countries doing to help
> > > > > > > the refugee problem?...most will not even let the refugees
> immigrate
> to
> > > > > > > their country.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, some of the refugee camps are in neighbouring countries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are they classified as refugees then?
> > > >
> > > > Because they are refugees.
> > >
> > > True, but they wouldn't be if the other arab countries would let them
> become
> > > citizens and get jobs.
> >
> > See above and below. It's up to Israel to quit opressing them and to
> > let them live in their home country.
>
> If Israel never fired another shot what do you think would happen to the
> Israelis? Lots of what is happening is the making of the terrorist
> organizations....extreme measures for self defense.
If there is no injustice, violent organisations loose support.
>
> > > > ...aren't they allowed to work and
> > > > > become citizens?
> > > >
> > > > They are Palestinians, why should they want to be anything else and
> > > > work in a foreign country?
> > >
> > > They can still be Palestinians and live and work in other States.
> >
> > ???
> > better idea: The Israeli immigrants go back to where they just came
> > from.
>
> I'm sure some of them come from Israel. You would then have YOUR problem
> you discussed above, Jews coming back to Europe.
Would that be a problem now? Interestingly many muslims and jews live
side by side in europe.
>
> > > How do
> > > you know what they think of believe unless they had the opportunity to
> work
> > > and live in another country...they may just as well like this.
> > > This is your assumption.
> >
> > Tell you what: I take your house and most of your posessions, you get
> > out and live somewhere else or I shoot you, you might like it.
>
> You are not describing the offer the Israelis made to the people living in
> what is now Israel. They were told they could stay and participate.
The offer by a small minority of outsiders to a large majority to
participate in the running of their own country sounds like an insult,
good on them for not cowering to colonialists.
> Any
> pressure exerted was by fellow arabs who pressured them to leave because
> they were going to push the Israelis back into the sea. That didn't happen
> and now sour grapes. The refugees should be mad with their fellow arabs for
> pressuring them to leave.
How about being mad for not being able to return home, that's where
they want to be. Not the arabs fault they failed in throwing out the
invaders..
> > Your ethics are FUBAR (that's: Fucked Up Beyond Al Recognition , a
> > vietnam term, I believe)
>
> Thanks for the compliment.
I'm hoping you re-discover ethics.
They were invaded. It's only invaders that call it "colonising". It's
ethically flawed.
>
> > The position NOW is that most Palestinians are refugees and are being
> > opressed by Israelis who are gradually becoming a minority.
>
> You could say that, but you could also say they were being oppressed by
> their arab brothers who will not let them immigrate to their countries and
> rich arab oil countries who will not furnish sufficient aid. That didn't
> cross your mind did it?
Because it's bollocks. The Palestinians don't want to live somewhere
else.
I do, that's why I said the Israelis should gradually return to where
they came from.
Unless Israel accelerates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
substantially, that is exactly what will eventually happen. The
apartheid wall only delays the agony.
> I acknowledge that Israel is
> disregarding some of the steps to the US road map to peace. You will not
> recognize that the Palistinians are though.
Sure they are. I'm giving you the Palestinian case, since almost no
one in the US will. Considering how many constantly opressed
palestinians there are, it is hardly surprising that there are a
handful who take extreme actions. I'm sure if you were in their
position, you would be fighting the Israelis (and somewhat more
effectively).
>
> > > Support of
> > > > it has justifiably earned the wrath of countless millions of people,
> > > > for it's injustices towards the Palestinians.
> > >
> > > I'm sure Israel is guilty of some transgressions but then again the
> > > terrorist operating in Israel and around Israel do more horrendous acts.
> >
They don't, Israel actually commits more horrendous acts (at a rate of
3to1), they just do it in uniform.
> > The bottom line is that Israelis kill 3 times as many palestinians.
>
> I don't know, but I'll take your word for it. See above on attrition.
>
> > > "The world" goes beyond
> > > > the US.
> > > > The big interest the "industrial world" has in it is that this tiny
> > > > country, smaller than Nu Joisy with only a 5.3 million population, is
> > > > that it is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world (no.5 in
> > > > 2003).
> > >
> > > Israel may be one of the biggest arms exporters in the world but what
> does
> > > that have to do with right of the State of Israel to exist? You see all
> the
> > > 'dreadful' acts of Israel...arms exporting, ethnic cleansing etc. and
> see
> > > none of these same 'dreadful' acts of arab countries...how open minded
> of
> > > you.
> >
> > I've already told you that your ZioCon media doesn't show you the
> > ISRAELI ATROCITIES being commited. Israel controls or destroys most
> > channels of information coming out of Palestine. Talked to any
> > Palestinians recently? I bet you talked to loads of Zionist supporters
> > though.
>
> I've talked to neither. Insular..<grin>
lol
> Does the Palistinians commit any
> atrocities?
Less than a quarter.
>
> > > > "semi-democratic"?
> > > > Sharon is an indicted war criminal. (Hitler was also democratically
> > > > elected, btw)
> > >
> > > So you are comparing Hitler to Sharon? Please give examples of death
> camps
> > > for the sole purpose of systematic killing of a race of people.
> >
> > Sharon was responsible for massacres of people in a refugee camps,
> > amongst other things.
> > Read about it in detail:
> > http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml
>
> I'm sure some of this may be true. Do you think the "Journal of
> Revolutionary Marxism" from which this came has any bias? Footnotes by the
> likes of Chomsky and Sontag. I think there is a slight bias here.
Probably. It tallies with other sources though, including Israeli
ones. They did sack him from his job as defence minister for it.
> And you
> criticize the American media? Got any back issue of Tass or Pravda?
I quickly picked the first source I came across for you. You can read
about Ariel Sharon's crimes from a large variety of sources.
> > > > "Stable country" ?
> > > > Without continual yank support to prop it up, I would love to see how
> > > > "stable" it really is.
> > >
> > > Lets just say Israel's govt is more stable than the govts of Europe
> during
> > > the 1940's when it was completely dominated by the Axis powers, and
> England
> > > was getting bombed constantly.
> > Eeer, it's 2004.
>
> And after Europe is baled out you can start carping again about Israel only
> being held up by the US. Just answering your post about stability of govts.
> Its ok when its Europe but not ok for countries Europe don't approve of?
Don't get what you are on about. It's 2004 and the US and Israel are
the biggest threats to world peace.
(Have you heard about The Project For The New American Century ?)
> > > It took US aid and MANPOWER to restore those
> > > govts. So far no US troops have been sent to bail out Israel.
> >
> > How about bailing out the Palestinians, they are the ones who have by
> > far the most of the suffering.
>
> How about it arab countries, Europe and the UN?
How about it USA?
> >
> > > > >....keeping the flow of oil to the rest of the world....you know like
> > > > > the British navy keeping the sea lanes open. It was in GB interest
> and
> the
> > > > > rest of the world.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but you are becoming incoherent.
> > >
> > > Sorry, The British Navy use to rule the oceans of the world making them
> safe
> > > for the rest of the world to trade...an interest to GB as well as the
> world.
> >
> > ??? The british navy was fighting much of the world on the oceans,
> > hardly "making them safe".
>
> When the US broke from GB they no longer had the protection of the Royal
> Navy from the Barbary Pirates and T Jefferson wouldn't pay tribute. So the
> US used force. Just and example of the Royal Navy's protection and keeping
> the sea lanes open. Britian depended on trade so the sea lanes had to be
> kept open.
For the brits. Other colonial empires did the same and they fought
each other.
>
> The Portugese, Spanish and French, to name
> > but a few (and they all fought various pirates). Even your colony was
> > a battlefield.
>
> Nothing matched the Royal Navy for so long...up until the world wars.
Whatever. Let's concentrate on the future, hey?
Mark K.
> > > > Mark K.
> > > > >[snip]
Zen
<j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
You're a very fair person and I'm really enjoying your posts. Hope
you'll stick around here for a while!
Mark K.
Now why is it that one doesn't hear such comments as yours eminating from the US?
Mark
Zen
wrote:
>Zen <r...@home.com> wrote in message news:<i4pj00tdl8ejjf7j4...@4ax.com>...
>> On 17 Jan 2004 17:40:00 -0800, mark...@postmaster.co.uk (Mark K.)
>> >Sharon was responsible for massacres of people in a refugee camps,
>> >amongst other things.
>> >Read about it in detail:
>> >http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml
>>
>> Read this some time ago as well. Truly awful stuff and Sharon is a
>> truly evil man, imo.
>
>Now why is it that one doesn't hear such comments as yours eminating from the US?
>
>Mark
Well, quite honestly, I don't really think that it's a matter of fear
or paranoia as it is mostly apathy and ignorance on Americans' parts.
Political issues are very hit hit and miss in the U.S., as far as I've
always been able to tell. I prolly knew more about their political
history at age 10 than most of the folks in this newsgroup know even
now.
If more Americans were to actually be bothered enough to learn about
some of the villainous, war-mongering cretins who have been in charge
of their country over the last 50 or so years then maybe they might
also have the knowledge and the capacity to extend some of that same
feeling of outrage to some of the war criminals whom have led some
other countries just as wrongfully...such as Sharon's Irael.
For the time being, however, Americans mostly have their hands full
just trying to figure out why most of the rest of the world hates Bush
Inc. so damn much. At the rate things are going there these days, I
really do see a time when other countries may have to give them their
historical facts back to them once the 'war on terrorism' smoke has
finally cleared...just as post-Stalinist Russia requested from the
Free World after the fall of communism.
joseph irvin
Yes, money has become a big part in elections in this country. I don't
object to that so much as it not being publicized. I think there should be
a web cite one could go to and see where a particular candidates money comes
from. Industrialist as well as labor and environmentalist also give money
to candidates...ever heard of the Siera Club?
> > 97-0 against Kyoto is smashingly against ratification.
>
> And there's the proof that you are dominated by industrialists.
> Interesting that most of the rest of the world is in favour.
Wrong, I doubt big labor which supports candidates in this country would go
for the job loss Kyoto would bring. It was a smashing victory because its
unproven and speculation. We figured that out, sorry you haven't.
> > As for
> > the rest of the world they do not vote on treaties between the US and
other
> > countries.
>
> ??? Irrelevant.
It doesn't seem irrelevant to you, but the Kyoto treaty is irrelevant to the
American people....97-0
>
> > I'm sure that they are some people in the US that are for the
> > Kyoto treaty though.
>
> You bet. There'd be even more if you didn't have an industrialist
> admin with a puppet media pushing their propaganda.
Most papers are for your side in this country. Only papers like the
Washington Times or I think its the NY Post does one get the conservative
opinion. Even with that Kyoto failed.
> > > > > > Nations like China, Mexico, India, and Brazil
> > > > > > were exempted from some of the stricter standards. The treaty
> > wouldn't
> > > > > > distroy any countries economy totally. I've read that it would
> > cause
> > the US
> > > > > > economy to shrink anywhere from 20 to 30%.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit to what?
> > >
> > > The bit about "destroying economies" and "economies shrinking by
> > > 20-30%".
> >
> > I wrote that the treaty would NOT destroy any country's economy totally.
20
> > to 30% shrinkage is what I have read.
>
> To which I replied that all the new green energy tech would create new
> industries (namely in it's manufacture, sales, installation and
> maintenance, not to mention that the money people save would be spent
> on other stuff).
Green tech is creating new jobs but the technology is still to expensive to
be used wide spread. Even the new hybred cars are thousands $'s more that
regular cars. People aren't going to pay that kind of money. When green
tech gets competitive it will be successful. I know you want to use the
force of govt to protect people from themselves huh?
> > This was from another article I read:
> > Developed on the basis of spotty data and deeply flawed analytical
models,
> > the Kyoto treaty - if implemented - would produce only one certain
result:
> > severe harm to the U.S. economy. As Wall Street Journal columnist James
> > Glassman has noted, "The U.S. could meet the Kyoto targets only by
sharply
> > increasing the price of fossil fuels.
>
> The US has almost the lowest fuel prices in the world.
Oil has a price, everyone pays the same price. The reason its less
expensive in the US is that is not taxed as high as Europe.
> The prices of fossil fuels in the US should be increased to bring them
> on par with the rest of the world and to discourage their wasteful
> use.
Thank you for your opinion but we don't think so. Want the force of the
govt to protect people from themselves again?
> (For example petrol and diesel prices in europe alone are double to
> treble the US price. You are out of touch with the world.).
I think its great. Europeans put up with that stuff. Its one way to help
support the welfare state.
> >. [T]he growth of gross domestic
> > product in the U.S. would be cut by more than half as businesses moved
> > offshore to escape the high tax." by Angela Antonelli former dir or Roe
> > Institute for economic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation. And
as I
> > wrote before all countries are not held to the same standards. US
companies
> > would probably move off shore further damaging the US economy.
>
> No, it just needs to adapt, like the rest of the world already is
> doing, instead of relying on the fossil fuel industry.
That is my worst night mare, that the US would become like Europe...massive
top heavy bureaucracies...you have another one coming also the European
Union...soon everyone in Europe will be working for the govt. What does the
govt produce....nothing. Where will the money come from to support the
govt?
> > > > The main industry to suffer would be the oil and coal
> > > > > industry (Bu$h's cronies).
> > > >
> > > > So the coal and oil industry don't count?
> > >
> > > As far as the health of the planet and everything on it is concerned,
the
> > fossil fuel industries count diddlysquat.
> >
> > Your opinion is noted. It seems its the 'green tech' car industry that
> > counts for diddlysquat.
>
> Ah, now here you begin to focus solely on cars, which is only one part
> of the pollution and energy picture.
I focus on everything. You bring up an area to focus on then.
> > > > Change to green energy methods would CREATE whole new industries.
> > > >
> > > > And it will as it matures but not now because the technology is not
> > cheap
> > > > enough yet.
> > > > Price a hybred car now...well above the cost of an ordinary car
> > >
> > > I already explained to you that the price of green tech is kept
> > > artificially high by the fossil fuel industries.
> >
> > This is all assumption. Industry is in the business of making money.
>
> It also gets government subsidies. If the US fossil fuel dominated
> administrations had provided similar subsidies to green tech R+D and
> products , your roof would now be covered with clean cheap
> photovoltaic panels and people would be spending their money with
> other, cleaner industries.
Myself, I generally think govt subsidies are wrong. No, my roof would be
covered with photovoltic panels if was less expensive than other sources
offered. I don't know much about photovoltaic panels. Don't they operate
of off sun light? If so what happens if there is a prolonged cloudy period?
I don't know. It seems to me if they were better, people would install
them. Does the majority of Europe have them?
> > Give
> > evidence of a 'fossil fuel industry' stopping a green tech industy from
> > bring its product to market.
>
> Energy Biz has been buying green tech businesses for decades (do you
> need proof of that? They advertise it widely, while pretending to be
> green.)
> *How many green tech products can you actually see in use*
I don't really see any problem with energy companies buying other energy
companies. What is the problem?..they take the earth shattering inventions
and shelve them so they can make more money?...not hardly.
> > This is just a veriation of an old urban
> > legend that the oil industry bought the patents up for an engin that
would
> > get x miles more than regular engines.
>
> Funny how you repeatedly reminisce about the past instead of
> concentrating on the present and future.
What was that quotation. People that fail to remember the past are
condemned to repeat it...or something like that....don't keep making the
same mistakes over and over.
> > > > ...the performance as compared to regular cars?
> > >
> > > Better acceleration.
> >
> > Car buyers have more than one standard for the performance of a car they
> > plan to purchase...thats why there are so many different makes and
models.
> > I'm sure if the 'green tech' people had a competative car it would be on
the
> > market.
>
> I already posted the link to the Daimler-Crysler-Mercedes "Smart" car
> already popular in europe. If you checked out the link you'll find
> that the only thing they plan to do in the US is to launch an SUV
> version in a few years.
How about posting some death rate stats on small cars vs. large cars in
accidents? From what I've read you stand a better chance of surviving in a
larger car than a small one especially the ones like you posted that are
sold in Europe. The price of fuel in Europe is what causes people to opt
for the smaller cars there.
> > > > Car companies are in
> > > > business to make money,
> > >
> > > Car companies are under pressure by fossil fuel companies to keep
> > > buying their pollutants.
> >
> > Another unsupported assumption.
>
> I support it above and below. Just because you rely on your biased US
> media presenting you with the info, doesn't mean you can accuse
> others of making assumptions.
"Car companies are under pressure by fossil fuel companies to keep buying
their pollutants." This is supported now where, by anything but your
opinion. How about some documents from oil companies telling car companies
to make less efficient engines or something on that order. "As Walter
McManus of J.D. Power & Associates told the Detroit Free Press this week,
'the fuel savings of hybrid cars like the Prius are not worth the upfront
additional cost of $7,000 per vehicle. You have to drive the car for 20
years for it to pay off." The Weekly Standard, Jan 19, 2004. You will not
get people in this country to lay out that kind of extra $'s for green tech.
As I said before most green tech is not competative.
> > Why has the gas milage increased in
> > cars....didn't the oil companies have enough clout?
>
> Funny how europe manages to use much more economical cars than the US.
No, its self explanitory. Taxes on fuel, as you have said, are a lot higher
than in the US. Prices per gallon of gas is at least double what a gallon
cost in the US....below $2.00 in US about $4.00/5.00 per gallon in Europe.
All this an Europe is still just as just about as dependent on foreign oil
as the US.
> > There are many
> > different tastes in cars in the US...some like the smaller cars and some
> > like the big cars...Hummers, and many in between.
>
> What cars people "like" is mostly a result of advertising and gas
> prices. Fuel economy is way down the list of priorities of US
> consumers.
Advertising may or may not be the reason people in the US opt for larger
cars...we still have free choice. If big cars didn't sell car companies
wouldn't make them. I can tell it really bothers you that people in the US
aren't taxed enough to force them into smaller cars. Its the force of the
heavy taxation that puts Europeans in the small cars, IMO. Heavy taxation
distorts markets.
> > > They "green" hydrogen car pushed by Bu$h is another one of those ploys
> > > to make you think it's green when it actually needs fossil fuels to
> > > make the hydrogen.
> >
> > What kind of car do you suggest? It has to be feasible and
competitively
> > priced with cars on todays market.
>
> Again you seem to solely focus on cars and ignore the rest of energy
> consumption.
You chose the industry then. Cars seemed the easiest example.
> > > > a novel concept to a 'greenie.'
> > >
> > > You have this irrational thing about "greenies", is that a term for
> > > people you've been conditioned to instinctively discredit?
> >
> > I'm not trying to discredit anyone.
>
>
> Try reading what you write (particularly what about people you have
> termed "the greenies").
Take my word for it, I mean nothing derogatory by the term. Its convenient.
> > You say that the oil companies are
> > keeping 'green tech' cars off of the market with no proof but what you
> > write. How about some proof of a oil company buying a 'green tech'
company
> > and then shelving its 'better car.'
>
> I said fossil fuel biz buys up green businesses, not the car industry.
> http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/2nd/oilgiant.htm
>
> IT presents the car industry with the fuel they make available.
By the story it looks like the oil companies are doing just what I said
continuing the R&D to make green tech less expensive and available. As you
can see green tech (hydrogen fuel cells) aren't quite there yet. Remember
me saying I saw nothing wrong with fossil energy companies buying other
energy companies? You said it was to take the green tech. off the market
and keep and drive up the price of fossil oils.
> > > > > What happens in practice is that fossil fuel industries buy up
> > > > > budding green energy businesses and patents and then increase the
> > > > > prices of the green products to discourage people from buying
them,
> > > > > meanwhile pretending to be green.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, how devious one kind of energy company buying up another kind of
> > energy
> > > > company.
> > >
> > > YES! It is, when it is done mainly to stop a better and cheaper
> > > technology from gaining acceptance.
> >
> > How about some proof then. Energy companies buy other energy companies
all
> > the time because it is economically advantagous for them to do so
>
> Aha! By hampering competition (from green products, in the case of
> green tech).
Go the above web cite you posted...the fossil energy companies are R&Ding
the green tech. That is not hampering competition. If hydrogen fuel cells
are ready for use on the market give some prices of the cars that are
available. Above I gave examples of the hybred Prius costing $7000 more
than a comparable fossil fuel car. How about some documentation? Why isn't
hydrogen cars popular in Europe if they are comparable?
> > and not
> > because they want to kill progress.
>
> Sigh, your arguments are becoming repetitive and circular.
Maybe repetitive just like yours. Point out a circular argument I've made.
> > Why aren't these cars in Europe?
>
> Europeans already use cars that are much more economical than the
> americans.
Not hydrogen cars like the article your pointed out. Its smaller regular
cars. Heavy taxation is the reason they opt for the smaller cars. See
above. Keep raising the taxes of fuel in Europe and the hybrid cars will be
feasible there soon.
> > Europeans are dying to control the US economy.
>
> Your attitude is unbelievable! The US dominates world economies.
The US is competitive and it didn't get there by taking cutting edge green
tech. of the market.
> Since europe is a bigger economy than the US they wish to stop being
> dominated by the US one, not "dominate the US economy" (particularly
> since it rapidly becoming a rogue country). Where do you get this
> crap?
Heavy taxation and your welfare states is why Europe is going down hill. It
has nothing to do with the US. But your whinning excuses are noted. Wait
until the European Union gets rolling another whole new bureaucracy to be
supported on the backs of the Europeans.
> > > > I'm sure you realize that if 'green energy' is going to get any
> > > > traction it will probably be by another, energy co./group of energy
> > > > companies or some big investor (fossil) buying them and financing
the
> > R&D
> > > > necessary to make it feasable.
> > >
> > > No.
> > > It is already feasable.
> >
> > If it was feasable the cars would be on the market. The hybred cars now
are
> > more expensive and as long as they stay that way there will be a small
> > market for them.
>
> http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/jim/art13.html
Just more whinning is all I got from the article. Same bull you are
spouting. Electric cars??? These batteries have some of the most caustic
chemicals known to man. If a battery powered car got into ordinary car
accident this could become a hazardous spill site closing down traffic....no
thanks. Keep them in Europe. $5.50 a gallon for fuel in Europe...what
chumps.... need money to gear up for the European Union bureaucracy?
> > > It doesn't need a large energy co./group or fossil fuel investor to
> > > get it off the ground. They are actually the very ones stopping small
> > companies and quashing the green competition.
> >
> > Proof please.
>
> http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/jim/art13.html
Sorry, whinning isn't proof. If you think it is print the part you think is
proof?
> > > > (I have a friends who were in the
> > > > > oil industry and are now in the solar energy biz. They now get
their
> > > > > main components from China, the best source for green products.)
> > > >
> > > > Why isn't it happening.....putting the fossil energy companies out
of
> > > > business?...you know the better mouse trap.
> > >
> > > I told you so, above. I'll repeat it for you again:
> > > Fossil fuel companies buy up new companies and patents starting to
> > > make green products which favourably compete with fossil fuels. They
> > > then make sure these products either never see the light of day ore
> > > price them too highly for acceptance and pretend they are being green
by
> > offering them for sale.
> >
> > Please give examples then. Foreign countries could built these so
called
> > 'green tech' cars. Why don't they. Give examples of a patent for one
of
> > these wonder cars that was sold to an oil company.
>
> Again you focus solely on cars. It is widely publicised by the oil
> companies themselves that they buy green energy businesses. Would they
> do that if the technology wasn't feasible? Why don't they make it
> available?
And I never denied that fossil energy companies bought green tech companies.
I even explained they had the $$$'s to advance the green tech. The
technology isn't feasible NOW but could be with more R&D. Just what I've
been telling you over and over....Not to you, the fossil energy companies
were buying the companies and taking the green tech off the market. That
was your story. I take that as an admission I was correct.
> > As much as some
> > Europeans are jealous of the US
>
> Ah yes, another pathetic myth, that evil europe is somehow "jealous"
> of the US.
Average Europeans are driving around in those little boxy cars while average
Americans own cars their families can fit comfortably into. Still you
continue to tell us what we should be driving.....sounds like sour grapes to
me. <grin>
> > they would surely do it just to be one up on
> > the US unless of course Europe is so backward they cannot come up with
these
> > wonder cars you write about....maybe they don't exist as feasible huh?
>
> What a moronic argument, and already previously countered.
Moronic? Why not refute it. Show some of the wonder cars Europe green tech
are producing. If you call those little boxy cars Benz-Chrysler is making
that is not counter, its funny. They do, I'm sure they get good gas milage.
They wouldn't sell in the US as you have admitted. I could sit in the back
seat if they have one and drive them. Another green tech wonder from
Europe.
> > > > > > > Even if some of the fears about global warming are just
hysterical
> > > > > > > nonsense, I don't really see what harm could come of all
countries
> > > > > > > looking at and finding ways to reduce pollution on this
planet. We
> > all
> > > > > > > have to live here, after all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The US has been reducing pollution. The US is a lot less
polluted
> > than
> > 20
> > > > > > years ago. Things are getting better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not on the Co2 front.
> > > >
> > > > Yes the C02 front in the US. City air is cleaner generally.
> > >
> > > ??? Co2 emissions in the US are increasing.
> > > "City air being cleaner generally" has nothing to do with Co2
> > > emissions.
> >
> > Explain exactly what the problem is then.
>
> The Co2 emissions.
Kinda criptic. Look at this web cite:
http://www.cato-institute.org/pubs/pas/pa329.pdf Notice how the 1990 temps
estimates were made and how they've had to be revised downward. There are
other opinions out there, read the whole paper.
> > > Funny how this daimler-chrysler-Mercedes car is selling in europe but
> > > they haven't dared to sell it in the US, instead they will try to
> > > launch an SUV version for the fatarses in 2006 :
> > > http://www.smart.com/
> >
> > It probably wouldn't be a big seller in the US because of its size. It
> > would be good probably for city driving only....surely not a car to take
on
> > a long trip or family car. Why doesn't Daimler-Chrysler sell one of
those
> > 'green tech' wonder cars...they surely have the big $$$$.
>
> They are widely sold in europe already. In the US, however, they only
> plan to launch an SUV version in a few years. Go check the site again,
> they tell you.
Wonder why they don't sell them in the US if they are such a hot seller in
Europe? They are just smaller cars. Is there any new green tech in them?
There is no market for small boxy cars in the US....they uncomfortable,
cannot carry many people and are unsafe in accidents. I'm sure Europe green
techs can come up with something better than that.
Any new an useable green tech will be welcomed in the US. It has to be
reliable and priced right.
> > It was they, who
> > in the 70's thought the world was cooling. Now its warming. You can
only
> > cry 'wolf' so many times before people stop believing you.
>
> OK, use simple logic instead. Do YOU think that releasing millions of
> years of stored Co2 into the atmosphere is safe? If you are unsure,
> how about waiting until you are certain before releasing it?
How about looking at it like this. The weather records have been kept at
most for 150 years. Weather has been around for billions of years. Just
say weather has been around a million years and accurate records have been
around 200 years. Put 200 over 1,000,000 you have a statistical sample
.00002 to make these predictions. As any statistician how accurate he can
predict with a sample that small (.00002). Now to be more accurate put 150
yrs over 3,000,000,000. and that is still giving you a big advantage because
accurate weather records haven't been kept for 150 years.
> > (The very same ones that
> > > have placed all members of the yank green party on the "no-fly" list
> > > as "potential terrorists", btw.)
> >
> > Wrong, its only the extremist who distroy other peoples property. The
Green
> > Party is alive and unwell in the US.
>
> The whole of the US political establishment in the US is alive and
> unwell, particularly and outrageously when they begin preventing the
> representatives of other parties from travelling.
Who are *they* and who are they preventing from traveling and where are they
keeping them from traveling from. I don't understand
> > > > > > Politicians and leaders of big business have breath the same air
and
> > eat
> > the
> > > > > > same food we do.
> > > > >
> > > > > They get large places where the air don't stink and they get the
best
> > > > > food.
> > > >
> > > > How do the 'industrialist' know when to stop polluting so as not to
> > affect
> > > > themselves?
> > >
> > > They don't. They have to be made to stop.
> >
> > To quote you: "They get large places where the air don't stink and they
get
> > the best food." This implies, 'they' (the industrialist) have enough
> > control over the envir. to stop polluting when it affects them. You
can't
> > have it both ways.
>
> They move to places where the weather is nice and they get the clean
> food shipped from far away.
So as I've said before this implies controling the environment..weather...as
usual with no proof.
> > Which is why "voluntary
> > > compliance to environmental guidelines" as pushed by failed oilman
Bu4h is
> > such a joke.
> >
> > If they were popular or important enough they would be passed into
> > law....tell the UN.
>
> ??? The US doesn't comply with other democracies like the UN.
True if they spout the rediculous stuff you have been talking about.
Give me a date when its to late. Obviously you have some inside information
others don't have.
No one has proved a disaster is going to happen. Its all speculation so
far. If a disaster is going to happen and you know tell me. Tell me when
its going to happen.
> > > > > > Myth:
> > > > > > Solar- and wind-powered generators are a renewable, efficient,
and
> > less
> > > > > > intrusive alternative to gas-, oil-, and coal-burning generators
> > > > > > Fact:
> > > > > > Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being
> > depleted,
> > > > > > and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more
> > electricity
> > > > > > than 13,000 windmills
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullshit. It requires less than two thousand and IS renewable and
> > > > > efficient, as would simply covering roofs in PV panels. It's also
> > > > > cheaper long term, particularly large scale.
> > > >
> > > > In Calif on the big windmill farms they are having problems with
> > > > birds...endangered species...flying into the blades. What's a
'greenie'
> > to
> > > > do?
> > >
> > > Repel birds, just like is done at airports..
> >
> > And it doesn't work.
>
> Sure does. That's why they have them.
I really don't know or keep up with things like that but I've read articles
in the last 2 months about such happenings. I also have friends in the
airline industry that I've talked to....bird strikes still occur on take
offs and landings. True you cannot stop all bird strikes but 'greenies' are
hard to please.
> > There still are bird strikes and still birds are
> > injested into jet engines.
>
> Minimally.
Ok. Is that acceptable?
> > This could put greenies against greenies.
>
> ???
Some greenies really love animals as opposed to the ones who want fossil
energy to disappear. I think most greenies believe that earth would be
better off without humans...humans are the ones messing up the
environment...of the human race it is the Americans who are responsible.
Me, those electric car batteries have some of the most caustic chemicals
there are. Wait until all those batteries have to be disposed of and car
accidents. I know recycle. Recycling isn't free, it cost money....another
cost for electric cars.
> > You
> > do realize that humans are part of the Earths ecosystem?
>
> Yes, they are the top of the food chain and the only ones capable of
> consciously choosing to destroy the planet, or not.
True. I'm not worried about American industry destroying the planet.
> >
> > > Right now people are gulping down the neurotoxin aspartame (thanks to
> > > Rumsfeld), for another example.
> >
> > No, if they are gulping it down its because they chose to. Mr Rumsfeld
has
> > no power to force anyone to gulp down aspartame.
>
> Sure he has, he was instrumental in it being certified "safe" by the
> health department.
I cannot argue. I don't know. Have any death certificates with cause of
death, aspartame. Have any ones health records that list sickness due to
aspartame consumption. Rummy's a pretty smart guy...he would probably take
all that aspartame and sell it to Europeans as hair spray or tooth paste.
<grin>
> > It bothers you because its
> > on the market and you don't like it. It bothers you that Americans have
> > this choice
>
> They don't have a clue about aspartame, so it's zilch to do with "choice".
See above. Why don't you phone or e-mail the Federal Drug Administration.
I'm sure they would like to hear from you. Is aspartame legal in Europe?
> > and really wish that Europe through the UN or international
> > treaties could force the US to do your bidding.
>
> That comment is so pathetic that it's funny.
Well, glad to give you a laugh. I've noticed you like to clip post without
noting it. Why? You say my comment is so pathetic and only post part of
what I said. Lots of posts look rediculous taken out of context. Or
clipped and not answered like they never existed. I don't do this, wish you
wouldn't.
> > The US is governed under
> > the US Constitution and not the UN charter.
>
> Neither. The US is run by lobbies and financers.
You must have some evidence then. I've recognized that lobbist have lots of
clout in the Fed govt but, run by them, no. Accusations are easy to make,
backing them up with proof is harder. Please give proof and not someone
elses opinion.
> > > > > Of course all the other diseaeses, a plethora of as yet unknown
> > > > > effects and the huge environmental impact aren't even mentioned:
> > > >
> > > > Whats also not mentioned is the people who smoke, by taxation are
paying
> > an
> > > > unfair share of the medicare expenses and are dieing earlier. If
> > everyone
> > > > who smokes quit today the Soc Security system would fold faster.
Who is
> > > > scamming who?
> > >
> > > In GB they claim the opposite. Smokers allegedly use up more NHS
> > > resources.
> >
> > Smokes are taxed heavily here by the Feds and States.
>
> Here too, a packet of 20 costs over $7.
Taxation, distorting the market.
Yep. Until some gives me some credable evidence otherwise.
>
>
> > > > > > See for yourself:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/102-7574205-0387326?v=glance&vi=reviews
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am surprised that you even bothered to paste such a selection of
> > > > > bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > I am also supprised that you failed to refute much of what I posted.
> > >
> > > I did refute virtually all of what you posted, you just added more
> > > rubbish.
> >
> > Typical, I post rubbish you post the truth.
>
> At least you got *that* right.
Even the blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.
> Mark K.
>
> > >
> > > Mark K.
> > >
Mark K.
Yes....
Again, we agree.
Mark K.
Mark K.
things to do today. Yank climate policy is a crock of $hit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3390901.stm
Scorching world of climate politics
By Roland Pease
The White House's top climate advisors are like foxes "guarding the
chicken coop", an anonymous source at the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has told the BBC.
George Bush questions some of the science of global warming
The criticism comes just days after the UK Government's Chief
Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, condemned the Bush administration
for "failing to take up the challenge of global warming".
The EPA source was responding to questions from the BBC's Climate Wars
programme about the way the White House's Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) censored passages on global warming in a major EPA
report last year.
Claiming that senior members of the council had close ties with the
oil industry - one as a former lawyer who had represented the
industry, another as a former executive of the American Petroleum
Institute - the insider said there was a mind-boggling conflict of
interest.
They basically wanted to sow confusion into the debate
Jeremy Symons, National Wildlife Federation
A private row between the Council and the EPA came to light last
summer when a leaked memo revealed that the CEQ was trying to force a
rewrite of EPA advice on climate change in its annual report.
"The White House has made major edits to the climate change section of
the EPA's Report on the Environment, indicating that 'no further
changes may be made'," wrote the memo's author.
According to Jeremy Symons, a former EPA climate adviser whose current
environmental organisation - the National Wildlife Federation -
received the leaked memo, the CEQ's intention was to include
controversial new research undermining claims about global warming,
and to remove text approved by the US National Academies of Sciences
reinforcing those claims.
"They basically wanted to sow confusion into the debate," Jeremy
Symons told the BBC.
Climate polices must not damage the US economy, the White House
believes
Although the sceptical report, by two Harvard astronomers, has found
favour in Washington political circles, reportedly all the way up to
the Oval Office, it is widely rejected by climate scientists.
Meanwhile, James Connaughton, the director of the CEQ plays down the
significance of last summer's debate with the EPA.
Citing the "hundreds and hundreds of pages" published elsewhere by the
US Government on climate science, James Connaughton says "this issue
turned over differences of opinion over one or two sentences about how
to summarise what the scientists have to say," adding "that's the
give-and-take of the governmental process."
The BBC's source at the EPA argues that the agency should never have
succumbed to the White House pressure.
"Any sense of political controversy and there's a reticence to talk
about it. People fear for their jobs... I think it comes down to
that."
'Quality' data
In the end, the EPA chose to say effectively nothing on climate
warming, in a 450-page report that covered just about every other
conceivable threat to the environment.
The episode marks a historical low in EPA staff morale, according to
Jeremy Symons.
Our lawsuit contended that the national assessment was based on
non-objective, biased, and laughably inadequate science
Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute
"EPA staff objectives are really quite simple - to get good
information out. That's been in conflict with the spin the White House
has wanted on environmental measures."
But it is not just in political circles that climate science has come
under the spotlight.
The threat of a court case has led to the partial repudiation of a
second official document, The National Assessment On Climate Change,
which now carries a "health warning" on its online version.
The warning, which says the report was not subjected to "data-quality"
guidelines, was part of an out-of-court settlement the US
administration reached with a conservative think tank, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute (CEI).
According to the CEI's Director of Global Warming, Myron Ebell, the
lawsuit against the study was based on new legislation, the Data
Quality Act, intended to prevent government agencies from publishing
sub-standard science.
'Laugh test'
The climate change assessment wouldn't "pass the laugh test!" he told
the BBC. "Our lawsuit contended that the national assessment was based
on non-objective, biased, and laughably inadequate science."
Professor Eric Barron, of Pennsylvania State University, one of the
report's authors, says that neither he nor his colleagues were
consulted about the out-of-court settlement, reached late last year,
or about the wording of the health warning.
Although finding the web statement more of an irritant (and even
somewhat comical in effect) than a serious affront, Professor Barron
does see a darker side.
"You do have to worry when you get to the point where [people] don't
want to know something, and don't want it to be investigated because
[they're] worried about the answer. What the CEI was attempting to do
was very much in that scope."
With the CEI threatening further suits, former EPA staff predicting
more leaks over internal arguments, and the US administration becoming
increasingly isolated over international climate policy, the science
of global warming looks set to grow politically ever hotter.
Climate Wars, with reporter Gerry Northam, was broadcast on BBC Radio
4, on Tuesday 13 January, at 2002. It is repeated on Sunday 18 January
at 1702.
Mark K.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3411053.stm
Earth 'entering uncharted waters'
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
Uncharted waters: Surprises could be in store (Image: Anne Jennings)
The Earth has entered a new era, one in which human beings may be the
dominant force, say four environmental leaders.
In the International Herald Tribune, they say the uncertainty,
magnitude and speed of change in many of the Earth's systems is
without precedent.
The four, who include Margot Wallstrom, the European environment
commissioner, say uncertainty cannot excuse inaction.
They believe humanity may cross some critical thresholds unawares,
setting off changes which cannot be reversed.
Change at a gallop
The other authors are Professor Bert Bolin, founding chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Professor Paul Crutzen,
winner of the 1995 Nobel prize for chemistry; and Dr Will Steffen,
director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP).
There are significant risks of rapid and irreversible changes
IHT authors
Their article, The Earth's Threatened Life-Support System: A Global
Wake-Up Call, marks the publication of an IGBP book, Global Change And
The Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure.
They write: "Our planet is changing fast. Change is a fact of life,
but in recent decades many environmental indicators have moved outside
the range of variation of the last half million years...
"It is the magnitude and rate of human-driven change that are most
alarming.
"The human-driven increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is nearly 100
parts per million and still growing - already equal to the entire
range experienced between an ice age and a warm period such as the
present.
"And this human-driven increase has occurred at least 10 times faster
than any natural increase in the last half million years."
They envisage the possibility, beyond 2050, of "rapid regional climate
change, as would be caused by changes in ocean circulation in the
North Atlantic, and irreversible changes, such as the melting of the
Greenland ice sheet and the concomitant sea-level rise of six metres".
No compass
The authors write: "The Earth has entered the so-called Anthropocene -
the geologic epoch in which humans are a significant and sometimes
dominating environmental force.
"Records from the geological past indicate that never before has the
Earth experienced the current suite of simultaneous changes: we are
sailing into planetary terra incognita."
They argue for a precautionary approach, partly because natural
systems can flip very rapidly from one stable state to another.
The writers say: "We are unsure of just how serious our interference
with Earth system dynamics will prove to be, but... there are
significant risks of rapid and irreversible changes to which it would
be very difficult to adapt."
Dr Steffen told BBC News Online: "It would take about a millennium for
the Greenland ice sheet to melt. But we could reach the trigger point
that makes the process unstoppable within the next century.
"The book makes the point that this is global change - it looks at the
range of effects, at how they're happening simultaneously, and at how
they're reinforcing each other.
"It's a synthesis of the science, the best consensus - and it honestly
acknowledges the unknowns."