games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
I stick to my African drum and indian smoke signals .
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-04-11, 18:09 by games keeper »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dev/null
|
I'm not sure how effective either of those means would be in modern times games keeper. Noise and air pollution probably hinder both quite a bit :angry:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
wel it still works for . reminds me that I have to send another smokesignal to my friend 10 miles away .. maybe I stick th house of the neighbours on fire again so that he can see the smoke .  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030410-38155224.htm
Here's a quote:
"We discovered that all what the information minister was saying was all lies," government worker Ali Hassan told the Associated Press in Cairo, where many turned off their television sets in disgust at images of U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital.
"Now no one believes Al Jazeera anymore," he said.
And in Yemen, homemaker Umm Ahmed watched the pictorial evidence of the collapse of Saddam's regime with tears streaming down her face.
"Why did he fall that way? Why so fast?" she asked. "He's a coward. Now I feel sorry for his people."
So state-run television, which by the way is the embodiment of everything the concept of freedom of the press stands AGAINST, is doing a good job of reporting? Oh so now "free" press just means someone owns it so it must be biased? Well, which is it? Multiple news sources to draw conclusion from, or spoon fed state-sponsored socialist bs? So much for supporting "democracy" I suppose... I also notice this claim of conservative bias in media didn't show up until AFTER claims of liberal bias reached a dull roar. Counter an assertion by accusing the other side of what you've been doing all along. I've heard this often said about liberals, perhaps this is an example of it. The Arabs in this Washington Times article seem to be in "shock and awe" not at American bombs, but because America has toppled Saddam without this big bloody battle everyone was expecting, and without house-to-house slaughter of thousands drawn out over months, ad nauseum, that was predicted over and over and over again by the media anchor desks. Iraqis are dancing in the streets in front of the cameras, tearing down statues of Hussein, hugging American soldiers, etc. Maybe, just maybe these people like this Ali Hassan are surprised because they've been LIED TO FOR YEARS. I read this little editorial against Fox, and I'm sorry, but it's slanted, it's biased, and its dripping with it. Don't even pretend to hide it. I'm not defending Fox here because for all I know they COULD be biased, but I also find it amusing that right now they're supposed to be the most watched news in the US right now. I also find it interesting that after Clinton was elected to two terms, and Al Gore almost elected to a term, that the American population is in 70% approval of this war (if you believe polls anyway) and that talk radio, which is undoubtedly conservative-slanted, and often times doesn't hesitate to admit this, has become insanely popular in a rather short period of time. Why would it get such a large audience if people didn't want to hear what is being said? Why would the same population that elected Clinton TWICE have a change in heart, and support Bush as they have? How do you explain this? Perhaps it's because the media actually has been dominated by liberal bias for a very long time, as has been claimed, and people are tired of hearing the same old stuff? Perhaps, perhaps not, but one cannot deny that the "Big Three" television networks and the major newspapers in the US no longer have an oligopolistic control over the flow of information thanks to the internet making news and information (and a lot of disinformation along with it) available to all, anytime, and anywhere where computers can access it (except Communist China of course). This freedom of the flow of information has allowed people to see many sides to situations in the world, instead of just the version available by Dan Rather or Peter Jennings when they sit down to go to dinner. This freedom to see for one's self, while maybe not nearly as profound, is akin to the invention of the very first printing press and the translation of the bible into vernacular languages so that people who wanted to see what it said for themselves were no longer dependant upon the Catholic Church to tell them what the book said and have to assume it to always be truth. So long as they could actually read, they could make up their own minds. When information is limited, centralized, and controlled, the minds of people and their ability to decide on what they wish and do not wish to believe are shackled. I believe that facts should flow freely, so long as they are no so dangerous as to needlessly put lives at risk. It is this control of information and the brainwashing that results that breeds terrorists and sustains tyrants in the first place.
Now regarding bias, here's a media article talking about media bias, and a book that a whistle-blower wrote just recently, among other things:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/enter...vin/2879898.htm
Here's another good one, lots of quotes from various news sources... (click the second link, direct linking to the page doesn't work for some reason)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Mar31.html
And here's a lid blown off of CNN.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/...&partner=GOOGLE
This is disgusting, remember "BUSH KNEW!" plastered all over the papers, accusing him of hiding things about 9/11? Where was CNN when the case was being made about Saddam to the UN? Now this comes out? Concern about his employees he says? What about concern for the people of Iraq? So are the papers going to show pictures of dead bodies, beat up reporters, and torture chambers, printing headlines like "CNN KNEW!" all over the place? I highly doubt it, but here is an admission from their CEO about the truth they were suppressing. What a cowardly and disgusting thing to do.
Oh yes, here's a good one. There was no bloodbath in Baghdad for the US forces because the regime "collapsed", or a "deal was made", ad nauseum. It couldn't POSSIBLY be because Saddam's army got it's ASS KICKED by a superior force:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200304...09-111832-7811r
And a quote from that one, from a Lebanese bank director:
"Let me remind the Americans. Those who are now greeting and kissing you in Baghdad are the same people who yesterday were burning Bush pictures and shouting support for Saddam," the bank director said. "Those same people, who were exhausted by wars and sanctions, will have another say when they will discover that the U.S. is an occupying force."
Whether or not the US becomes an "occupying force" for anything longer than the time it takes to establish some kind of rule of law and a self-sustaining Iraqi government remains to be seen. We'll have to wait and watch on that one, however the part about "shouting support for Saddam" just galls me. Did it ever cross this idiot's mind that it was BECAUSE THEY HAD A GUN TO THEIR HEADS AND WOULD BE SHOT IF THEY DIDN'T??? But then, if you watch Al-Jazeera you wouldn't know that, but ask the Iraqi's. They'll tell you. Saddam was in the streets kissing babies a few days ago, right? What about these children, hmm?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...on_030408163048
Iraqi's showing love for Saddam in yet another way:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../168/3qpqh.html
And how Saddam showed love for his people:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/...l.ap/index.html
Right. I'll take an Iraqi's word for how Saddam treated them over some arm-chair banker in Lebanon any day, or any other arm-chair idiot. Speaking of idiots, here's an interesting one about the BBC:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/stor...,922206,00.html
So the BBC is under fire from its own correspondants? Fair coverage from state-run media my cloaca! This is why state-run media ends up being nothing but unopposed propaganda. Propaganda is one thing, and is expected, but unopposed propaganda is lies allowed to flourish. At least the world has multiple media outlets, or you'd have everyone believing the kind of rubbish nonsense that Al-Jazeera and the BBC print as if it were hard fact. Some may say what Bush, Rumsfeld, etc, have been saying during the war was propaganda, but now that the major fighting is done, and Baghdad, while not totally secure yet, is occupied by US forces I'd say that what they have been reporting in their briefings over the last few weeks has for the most part accurately portrayed what has happened and what was going to happen. Government propaganda, or the truth? Have any of you thought, for even one tiny moment, that MAYBE Bush actually meant what he said when he said it? Did that thought even cross your mind at all? They say the truth is the first casualty in any war, and I seem to remember specifically that after Sunday, two weeks ago, the news was nothing but "set back after set back" and "US casualties are mounting", ad nauseum for an entire WEEK. Anything that seemed printable to make it look like the US was getting its guts ripped out over there was trumpeted all over the usual media outlets (CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NY Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, BBC, etc). US POW's were plastered all over Al-Jazeera, interrogated in front of the camera, and dead bodies shown in the hopes that the US would get squeamish and pull out like in Mogadishu. Did that happen? Is Saddam still in control of Iraq? Where is the Iraqi information minister NOW? "There are no American infidels in Baghdad!" Who's driving the tanks then, the French? Yet here it is, the end of this long hard road (3 weeks long, wow, what a quagmire, another Vietnam for sure) and here we go again. The battle plan obviously didn't work, there weren't enough troops on the ground, the thinly stretched uber-vulnerable supply lines were cut by the hordes of guerilla Fedayeen that the US Marines were obviously no match for, and Baghdad was a bloodbath for the US soldiers having to root out every single Republican Guard unit from inside every house in every city block, and it took six months to do it, right? That's what was being predicted two weeks ago, wasn't it? Believe what you will, but it sounds to me like some people in this world don't like dealing with reality when it doesn't suit their view on how reality SHOULD be.  [/color]
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-04-12, 04:34 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
their view on how reality SHOULD be. </font> i say stop the slaughter of smilies!! stop it i say! pho you evil dictator opressing smilies!  :lol: hehe, anyhow, yeah pho is spot on again.. i need to tell him to stop reading my mind..  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
please.. ive watched the bbc. . im so tired of hearing about the glorys or the european news media. there is no such thing as an objective media group and to believe one can excist is simply self delusion. just because a news group reports on the 1300 or so civillians that have been killed in the conflict so far more than it does the the three million excecuted by saddam in the last 25 years dosent make it obejective.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Atom235
|
I'm not defending Fox here because for all I know they COULD be biased They have stated themselves that they are pro-war, thus biased. No news channel should take sides in war or any other conflict. Fox News is as impartial as Iraqi Satellite news, although the content is less offensive and more sophisticated in terms of propaganda. but I also find it amusing that right now they're supposed to be the most watched news in the US right now. I never said TV-viewers were TOO bright. And here's a lid blown off of CNN. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/...&partner=GOOGLEThis is disgusting, remember "BUSH KNEW!" plastered all over the papers, accusing him of hiding things about 9/11? Where was CNN when the case was being made about Saddam to the UN? Now this comes out? Concern about his employees he says? What about concern for the people of Iraq? So are the papers going to show pictures of dead bodies, beat up reporters, and torture chambers, printing headlines like "CNN KNEW!" all over the place? I highly doubt it, but here is an admission from their CEO about the truth they were suppressing. What a cowardly and disgusting thing to do. Yes... well, I too thought that the "BUSH KNEW!" thing was out of the line. CNN hasn't performed as a good news channel should in the near history. This concerns BBC, too. They BOTH staged and spread PROPAGANDA news about Iraqii soldiers slaughtering Kuwaiti children. about "shouting support for Saddam" just galls me. Did it ever cross this idiot's mind that it was BECAUSE THEY HAD A GUN TO THEIR HEADS AND WOULD BE SHOT IF THEY DIDN'T??? But then, if you watch Al-Jazeera you wouldn't know that, but ask the Iraqi's. They'll tell you. Saddam was in the streets kissing babies a few days ago, right? There are three groups in Iraq: Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. I think that a part of the people who were in power (Shias) did indeed cheer to Saddam and a part of them didn't cheer to Saddam. The truth is that the only thing that binded Iraq is now gone. Civil war is a real threat right now. All these kinds of people who cheer to Bush and kick statues might be Sunni muslims, who were opressed by Saddam. We all know what kind of man Saddam is. He is no different from other dictators, but ... he did keep order in the streets and didn't let people to steal stuff from places (including hospitals), unlike this communist : "US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has denied Iraq was falling into chaos. "Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," he told reporters." from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2941733.stm Have any of you thought, for even one tiny moment, that MAYBE Bush actually meant what he said when he said it? Did that thought even cross your mind at all? Homo Sapiens Sapiens species have a tendency to LIE or make "good" things with other goals in mind. Most of his(or republicans, it's all the same) actions by far have been selfish and stupid(Kioto agreement, Patriotic Act 1). Why would I believe him now? Bush is a voice of the Republicans, who want to make US more like USSR was. Patriotic Act 1 makes it possible to listen ALL people, who are in the US right now. That includes tourists. Your computer and bank account information can be sniffed, and they can get information about the books you buy and loan. This was meant to last only to 2005. Now they want to continue it. What kind of FREE country could even CONSIDER these kind of actions? Freedom is indeed relative. US soldiers having to root out every single Republican Guard unit from inside every house in every city block, and it took six months to do it, right? That's what was being predicted two weeks ago, wasn't it? Believe what you will, but it sounds to me like some people in this world don't like dealing with reality when it doesn't suit their view on how reality SHOULD be. Answer to you questions lies here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2941727.stmMore stuff from this link http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200304...09-111832-7811r"Mishlawi, like the majority of Arabs, fears that Bush's ultimate aim was not to liberate Iraq but establish U.S. hegemony on the region. "The purpose is to establish Israel as a dominating power in the region on behalf of the U.S.," he said." It's still, however, unclear to me if this is the ultimate goal, but from what I've heard from the news, (Powells quote from GWB: "Iraq is a new tool for war against terrorism" AND the fact that US denied UN-lead Iraq) it might be the case. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-04-12, 15:47 by Atom235 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Actually it is the Shiite muslims in the south of Iraq who hate Saddam the most, and the Sunni that his Baath party were formed from, not the other way around. There's going to be a mix of opinions among Arabs regarding the US and what it's doing in Iraq. I'm also appalled at your assertion that somehow order in the streets under a tyranical dictator is better than what's going on right now, while you turn around and accuse the leadership of the United states of wanting to form its own tyrrany. Which is better then, tyrrany or anarchy? As for Rumsfeld being stupid, then how is it the US pulled off this action in three weeks with minimal casualties? This goes along with the myth that Bush is stupid that was propagated a while back. Yet... this operation was a success. It is unwise to underestimate someone's intelligence just because you do not like them or how they think. (sarcasm) Nine out of ten panzer divisions surveyed were in awe and quite jealous of this operation. The other ten percent admitted they were assigned to France. (/sarcasm) This was Blitzkrieg? and it worked. We all know who was in charge of this. I remember a lot of "senior Pentagon officials" naysaying this and that while it was going on, yet nobody ever had their names. They ALWAYS spoke under condition of anonymity. I guess they didn't want to risk being wrong. Pity.
As for people lying, sure, humans lie all the time, but I was referring to the day to day military briefings, and the threatened action towards Iraq if Hussein did not comply, and nothing else. I'll admit that it's entirely possible that they're lying about other things, I've stated before I do not trust politicians of either camp. That doesn't mean that they lie ALL THE TIME. So far, Bush said to the Taliban: "hand over Bin Laden or else". They didn't, "or else" happened. Bush said to Saddam "Hand over the weapons or else." He didn't, "or else" happened. I'll say one thing, when Bush threatens you had damned well better listen. That's what I meant about "saying what they mean". Let's keep it in context here. As for Iraq falling into chaos, well yes there's some rioting and looting going on, but I remember two years ago this was happening in downtown Cincinnati. I'm not surprised at all that people are making off with loot at a time like this. When you cage people and beat them like a cruel person does to animals, keeping them in constant fear, then expect them to behave no differently when set loose for the first time. This is just another push by the usual suspects to try to make the US look bad again like two weeks ago, that this is all somehow still a big failure, ad nauseum. They're working on it, and order will come with time.
I do think the Kyoto agreement is stupid, and should not have been signed on in the first place. As it stands by the US constitution any treaty not ratified by Congress is null and void. I believe Clinton signed the treaty, but the Congress had not ratified it yet, so Bush was within his rights to back out since foreign relations fall under the executive branch of the US constitution. All that treaty does to my knowledge is penalize rich industrial nations for producing carbon dioxide. You want to get less carbon dioxide in the air, plant more trees instead of cutting them down. Where is deforestation going on? How about the Amazon basin? Fleecing the US, which by the way is the usual goal of the United Nations, is not going to create less polution. What will create less pollution is a push forward in cleaner technologies. You can't invent water-to-hydrogen converters and hydrogen burning vehicles without money, without heavy industry to produce them, and without a consumer base to back up the markets. That is, unless you want a socialist state and believe communism is better than capitalism. Personally I detest the entire concept of money and economies, its quite unnatural, but history has written what socialism and Communism especally leads to, and it isn't a better world for all as people once thought. Capitalism isn't much better, its still based on greed, but at least what is yours is yours instead of having nothing, and the state owning everything. No, Kyoto was just another attempt to put a choke collar on the Super Power again because the rest of the world, especially the European Union, is jealous that they can't be. It's about hurting the US, plain and simple. The end result would not be a cleaner environment, just an outflow of money in the form of fines. Besides, its been reported recently in a Harvard study (to a lot of people's amazement) that the world right now is cooler than it was back in the middle ages. Wow, big surprise to me, I could have told them how damned cold it's been lately. The entire concept of the earth getting warmer is just fine to me, do you have any idea how hot the earth was back when dinosaurs were still ruling this world? Nice and balmy back in those times, and no pathetic human politics to deal with either. Polution is a horrible problem, yes, but carbon dioxide is NOT pollution anymore than methane gas from bovines is. If they think that cow farts hurt the environment somehow I'd love to see them try to measure how much methane was produced from a herd of apatosauruses...
And yes, I know all about the push to make the Patriot act permanent as well. I think that is a bad idea, and I do question the logic behind it. Historically, during WWII a lot of civil liberties were clamped down on because survival was at stake. Later they were relaxed. The same thing happened during the Cold War. Remember McCarthy? A lot of people are comparing the current hunt for terrorists to McCarthyism, when they were hunting for Communists. People will make mistakes, as they always have, but if this threat of terrorism is eventually eliminated from the world, then I would imagine these concerns - and the laws passed during this time - would be relaxed as well. We'll have to wait and see on that, but this threat IS a real threat, and unlike the "Evil Empire", as the Soviet block was referred to a while back, this threat is not quantifiable. The USSR was a tangible, obvious foe, with clearly marked borders. Terrorists are like an infection, spread throughout the whole world, infiltrating wherever they can. Regardless of why they are there, they are, and the only things clear about them is their intentions. I think the world is still trying to figure out how best to deal with it. So far Bush's policy of "blow the bastards up" seems to be working for the moment.
Mishlawi, like the majority of Arabs *SNIP*
That's what galls me about the press. How the hell do they know what the majority of Arabs think? Done a public opinion poll lately? Are cats going to start defining the opinions of the majority of house swallows now too? Perhaps most Arabs indeed think this way, but this kind of blatant assumption making by a reporter is no different than a news station taking a pro-war stance, isn't it? Funny, I thought the press was supposed to report facts, not state opinions, but then if that were true there wouldn't be an editorial page in every publication, now would there?
(Disclaimer: Since a lot of people on this board like to take things personally that are not meant to be taken personally, this next paragraph is completely general in every way, shape, and form, and I'm stating so now so that there is no lack of clarity in this whatsoever. If anyone takes offense to it, they do so at their own choosing, so please don't pester the bird about it.)
A lot of people are afraid that somehow the US is going to turn into a police state overnight because there's a "scary Republican" in the white house. I remember five years ago when an equal number of people were afraid that somehow the US was going to turn into a police state overnight because there's a "scary Democrat" in the white house. I seem to remember also having said this before in a previous rant. Paranoid people will be paranoid no matter who's in charge. Some people live their lives thinking there's Gestapo around every corner. To the panic-striken, gutless paranoid wimps in the world, I say this: Quit your whining, and grow a spine. If you're afraid of this, then go out, buy a gun, practice with it, and wait for that day to come. If it does, join the resistance that will surely spring up as a result, and actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT WHEN IT HAPPENS. If it doesn't, well, when you get old and have grandkids they'll have a nice heirloom. Until then, live your lives and try to find something meaningful to do with them? [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
dev/null
|
Which is better then, tyrrany or anarchy? Hehe, easy question  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Atom235
|
Actually it is the Shiite muslims in the south of Iraq who hate Saddam the most, and the Sunni that his Baath party were formed from, not the other way around. ummm.. whatever  I'm also appalled at your assertion that somehow order in the streets under a tyranical dictator is better than what's going on right now, while you turn around and accuse the leadership of the United states of wanting to form its own tyrrany. Which is better then, tyrrany or anarchy? Tyranny, of course. It prevents people from taking private property and cultural treasures and ensures general security. I must remind you, that the coalition forces MUST keep order in the streets, but there is no right for US to build up a tyranny there, cause Iraq is an independent state.' Yet... this operation was a success. Yes, but you haven't found any WMDs yet . So far, Bush said to the Taliban: "hand over Bin Laden or else". They didn't, "or else" happened. Bush said to Saddam "Hand over the weapons or else." He didn't, "or else" happened. I'll say one thing, when Bush threatens you had damned well better listen. When a chimp opens he's mouth and threats to attack, of course he means it. But generally (giving out money to develop hydrogen cars and battle agains HIV in Africa were slips of his mind) chimps can't do anything better than threat smaller states with weak armies and leaders, and take advantage of the current political sitouation there. That is, unless you want a socialist state and believe communism is better than capitalism. Personally I detest the entire concept of money and economies, its quite unnatural, but history has written what socialism and Communism especally leads to, and it isn't a better world for all as people once thought. Capitalism isn't much better, its still based on greed, but at least what is yours is yours instead of having nothing, and the state owning everything. No, Kyoto was just another attempt to put a choke collar on the Super Power again because the rest of the world, especially the European Union, is jealous that they can't be. It's about hurting the US, plain and simple. The end result would not be a cleaner environment, just an outflow of money in the form of fines. Besides, its been reported recently in a Harvard study (to a lot of people's amazement) that the world right now is cooler than it was back in the middle ages. Wow, big surprise to me, I could have told them how damned cold it's been lately. The entire concept of the earth getting warmer is just fine to me, do you have any idea how hot the earth was back when dinosaurs were still ruling this world? So Kyoto was a secret plan to choke United States out of jealousy? Now WTF? Paranoid people will be paranoid no matter who's in charge.. indeed . You do know that it's a lame excuse to continue polluting the envinment more heavier than Europeans, who HAVE ACTUALLY DONE something to the problem. You can use filters and make more efficient power plants, you know. And as far as I know, reducing pollution has nothing to do with Communism. BUT.. Europeans tend to have some strange belief that Nuclear Plants are bad, and must be taken down. I think it's a critical error, because you actually have to increase CO2 pollution by using other sources (mainly ?earth gas? and oil/coal). The amount of stupidy in Green Parties throughout the world is massive. About that globe warming.. it might not be a blessing for all of us. The Golf Current, which is a warm sea current that comes from just about Mexican Gulf, can turn away, stop, or change course. This particular sea current is resposible for warming Finland and other North European states. If this current suddenly stops, we will be in deep trouble. Finland, Sweden and Norway will become as warm as North Siberia. Some people have had a concern that global warming will interfere this sea current in a crucial way. I don't want that to happen. Then again, it's impossible to stop global warming, but something has to be done to ensure that it will stop in the future :blink: I remember five years ago when an equal number of people were afraid that somehow the US was going to turn into a police state overnight because there's a "scary Democrat" in the white house. Better Democrat that Republican. Europeans tend to like people who are commited to international politics and agreements. (Repubs tend to get intrerested in foreign politics only if something/someone is threating United States OR concerns an ally of US. And even in that case they usually dug up weapons and start fighting.) And yes, I loved Clinton because he did what mans got to do (Monica thingie) :lol: . Until then, live your lives and try to find something meaningful to do with them? Like playing gen? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-04-13, 12:08 by Atom235 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
When a chimp opens he's mouth and threats to attack, of course he means it.
But generally (giving out money to develop hydrogen cars and battle agains HIV in Africa were slips of his mind) chimps can't do anything better than threat smaller states with weak armies and leaders, and take advantage of the current political sitouation there.
yeaaah.. theyre slips of his mind because it debunks the theory that he's in iraq for oil only..  and if i recall, the last time clinton had anything to do with africa was when he pulled his wussy ass out of Somalia(i really think we couldve helped those people.. ).. but thats another discussion Yes, but you haven't found any WMDs yet . ehr, i thought chemical missiles/missiles wiht the ability to carry chemicals fell under WMD's, considering they cause a shitload of destruction(to people, maybe not buildings, but they do alot of destruction to people) About that globe warming.. it might not be a blessing for all of us. The Golf Current, which is a warm sea current that comes from just about Mexican Gulf, can turn away, stop, or change course. This particular sea current is resposible for warming Finland and other North European states. If this current suddenly stops, we will be in deep trouble. Finland, Sweden and Norway will become as warm as North Siberia. Some people have had a concern that global warming will interfere this sea current in a crucial way. I don't want that to happen. Then again, it's impossible to stop global warming, but something has to be done to ensure that it will stop in the future
weeee.. quotage(where was i?.. oh yeah) there really hasent been significant proof that we HUMANS are making the world warmer(or colder).. CFC's were PROVEN to destroy O 3.. but as yet, there isnt signifcant proof that humans are the ones changing the atmosphere.. the damn planet is huge, and we havent been using fossil fuels long enough to change anything(100 years of cars? puhLEEZE, theres no way in only 100 years we could spork up the entire atmosphere with only vehicles) ... it took over 1million years for the damned planet to cool down enough for planet the even support life... so i really cant beleive in our short 2000 odd years that weve screwed up the planet that much.. it IS getting worse, but ill be damned if anyones gonna say its the US causing it.. we arent the ones cutting trees down by the thousands(like pho said).. and we arent the ones setting oil fields on fire on purpose.. er.... what were we talking about again? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Atom, did you miss the part where I said that pollution is a BAD thing? I said that pollution DOES need to be curbed, that money needs to be invested in cleaner technologies and that stifling economies is not the way to do it. Kyoto isn't a "secret" attempt at gutting the US economy, it's a blatant one. Mankind has always suffered from a nasty case of jealousy when one person or group of people has more material wealth than another. In fact, it is such a problem that God saw a reason to write a commandment about it: "Thou shalt not covet", if you believe in that sort of thing. Politicians routinely use this envy and anger as a weapon to encite the poor and turn them against the rich, all the while insuring the rich they will still get to keep theirs. Divide and conquer, have you learned nothing of history? Keep people at each others throats and they ignore that you are the real threat to their liberties.
You also seem to mistakenly think that CO2 is a pollutant. Want to know what happens if you were to eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere? The planet DIES. Plants cannot exist without CO2, nor can the surface of the earth maintain its warmth. The assertion that mankind is somehow raising the entire temperature of the planet by emission of CO2 is absurd. I've been tracking solar activity for some time now, being a bird that likes hot things, and I've seen a staggering amount of unusual solar activity in the last two years alone. Eruptive prominances, coronal mass ejections on a fairly regular basis that are triggering the auroras to travel much further towards the equator than they should year-round now, and massive sunspots with beta-gamma and delta class magnetic fields capable of triggering massive solar flares, which some actually have. A cyclic increase in solar radiation is what causes the earth to warm, same as it always has. Under normal environmental conditions you would see an explosion in plant life and animal life in conjuction with it, but that's where mankind has really screwed up. CO2 emissions are nothing compared to what you've done to the surface of the earth. There is not enough area for plants to increase in strength and number as they could before in days of old. Deforestation, habitat destruction, and paving over what used to be living ground to build concrete and steel wastelands is what's hurting this planet the most. Combine that with the fact that industry loves to dump its waste wherever it can, usually in greener areas since people live in those concrete nightmares, and that's where the harm is being done. Don't mistake my viewpoint on this, I've told you all before I am not a Republican nor do I think like them. I'm a bird, I see things a lot differently than you expect me to, and I care about this earth a lot more than you give me credit for. Mankind has done quite a lot of damage to this earth, enough to encite me to great rage at times, but it is not through CO2 emissions. You need to find a better way to deal with pollution than stupid international treaties that accomplish nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
  
Posts: 3330
|
On another note, I think 'killing the planet' is a typical example of human arrogance. Oh sure, we may be able to mess this sphere up for ourselves (and/or all other creatures on it as of now) - but killing 'gaja'? no way.
This planet will be here after we have completely destroyed ourselves, still standing strong (as far as planets stand at all, anyway).
Just my 2cts as they popped up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Atom235
|
You also seem to mistakenly think that CO2 is a pollutant. Want to know what happens if you were to eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere? The planet DIES. Plants cannot exist without CO2, nor can the surface of the earth maintain its warmth. I know all that stuff, no need for lecturing this Atom. But the planet wouldn't die, or even be affected, if we simply replaced CO2 with Methane . That wouldn't make sense at all, though. CO2 isn't a pollutant, but I had no other words to describe it. Kyoto isn't a "secret" attempt at gutting the US economy, it's a blatant one. I can't agree with you in this one. Wanting to hurt the US economy is like stabbing yourself with a knife. A cyclic increase in solar radiation is what causes the earth to warm, same as it always has. Maybe, maybe not. CO2 emissions are nothing compared to what you've done to the surface of the earth. There is not enough area for plants to increase in strength and number as they could before in days of old. Deforestation, habitat destruction, and paving over what used to be living ground to build concrete and steel wastelands is what's hurting this planet the most. Combine that with the fact that industry loves to dump its waste wherever it can, usually in greener areas since people live in those concrete nightmares, and that's where the harm is being done. Don't mistake my viewpoint on this, I've told you all before I am not a Republican nor do I think like them. Well.. you do care about nature, therefore you are not a Republican (from what I have seen, words "Republican" and "green" don't like to co-exist). As for the deforestation.. I know it's horrible and must to stoped some way. In Finland I don't see that problem so close, cause we have forests all around us. Plus I haven't lived in a concrete and steel wasteland for a long time . You need to find a better way to deal with pollution than stupid international treaties that accomplish nothing. It was mainly meant for showing a little commitment to reducing pollutants, and would have been only a small burden to accomplish (Building a nuclear plant or two). The effects of this would have been minimal, of course, but that might have ensured that greater sacrifices can be in future . |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-04-15, 18:36 by Atom235 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
I still think they can be. In fact, I'm sure of it. that has to be the shortest pho response. ever. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-04-16, 02:44 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
? and he beats his own record! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-04-16, 06:06 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
abput that Co2,
I dont know how you coud get it away because you have to kill all live (yes even plants ) on earth to get it away .
if you could do this and would replace all theCO2 with O2 you would kill people even more because people would go up in flames where they stand.
(awesome dead but still )
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dicion
|
if you could do this and would replace all theCO2 with O2 you would kill people even more because people would go up in flames where they stand.
(awesome dead but still ) First off, And i'm not sure if you meant this or not GK, so i'll reply to both answers. 1) O2 is NOT FLAMMABLE. You CANNOT LIGHT O2 ON FIRE. eg, you cannot take Heat & O2 and make a fire.. you need some sort of fuel. "Well then why cant you smoke near it?" or "why does it say no open flame" etc... Because Oxygen is one of the 3 components of fire... 1) Fuel (Wood, paper, etc) 2) Heat (suprise!) (only required to start it, once started, self-maintained, unless acted on by some external force) 3) Oxygen! Now.. provided that 1 and 2 are equally met.. and the Fire is Started, the SIZE & RATE of the fire "Burn" is controlled by the 2 source items. 1).. well thats limited, but you can obviously tell what its limits are... Now Say you enter a 100% Oxygen Environment (compared to ~21% which is normal) That cigarette in your mouth would burst into a burning inferno of flame instead of a little bit of burning coals... Try it.. If you have access to pure oxygen or something, (try a chemisrty lab) light a Cigarette in 'normal' atmospheric conditions.. then drop, throw, etc, somehow provide it with a very oxygen rich environment. *POOF* Big ball o-flame. Now GK... Assuming you knew that... I'd have to say that belgium and france would all burst into flame first, as it seems that EVERYONE here smokes... maybe it's because of all the air pollution?? Gonna get lung cancer anyways... Which takes me here... sorry to rant.. But if the EU is SO CONCERNED with pollution... Then why are all the cars driving around here on DIESEL!!! Sure it's cheaper then Gasoline, but if you (europe in general) is gonna complain about other countries not spending enough on reducing pollution.. look in the mirror first. I lived in a city back home (Buffalo, NY) which had MUCH more population then Brussels, Belgium (which has ~1.5 million i believe) and i have to tell you.. the pollution here is 10x what it was in buffalo... true, buffalo did have more land area.. and i dont know the population density ststistics.. but still.. its horrible here. I was (trying to) run the other day here in a park, and I couldnt run more then 30 minutes.. my lungs were burning, i actually coughed up tar.. and i quit smoking 6 months ago, and run daily at work (i work about 80km(~50 miles) away from brussels, out in the farm land country..) and I'm in great shape.. so for the air to be THAT bad that i was coughing up black phlegm..... ok i'm done for now.. like i said, i'm not sure about alot of the statistics, this stuff is from my own observations here mostly.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
