|
Post by tommynt on Jun 25, 2006 20:51:48 GMT -5
exactly gogf, I think a main reason is that resources are limited and go due to wrong judgement not into the real important things like a wolrd in which grandchildren can live
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 25, 2006 20:53:09 GMT -5
whip 1 % can be a damn lot
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 26, 2006 8:08:46 GMT -5
The U.S. is making steady improvement through technological innovations to produce more with less waste. And that's why USA is a biggest polluter on earth, both in absolute numbers and per capita. China and India will be the major pollution pumpers for the next few decades at least but somehow it's all the U.S. fault. See above. Per capita their pollution is nothing, and even with their population their absolute pollution is lower. I hope you'll get some more hurricanes like Catrina on your ass. Then MAYBE you'll think about a climate changes that IMHO cause them. So far it's fair - biggest polluter on earth suffers the consequences of his actions. Too bad it's still not enough. All not friends of the U.S. and western society. The question we need to ask ourselves is, how can we get the scientists to stop predicting dome and gloom and start coming up with practical ways to improve the situation. And get entrepreneurs to invent the solutions. For that, you need to spend money on it instead of financing wars all over the world.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jun 26, 2006 22:16:50 GMT -5
The question we need to ask ourselves is, how can we get the scientists to stop predicting dome and gloom and start coming up with practical ways to improve the situation. And get entrepreneurs to invent the solutions. This pisses me off and it's one of the things I really detest about the current folks in Washington. Every other sentence decries reporters and scientists for producing depressing, pessimistic news. How can anyone take this seriously?
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 26, 2006 22:39:07 GMT -5
I don't have a lot of time to write so I will address one thing now and maybe the rest later.
When you say the U.S. is the greatest polluter you have to compare that to what we produce vs other nations not per capita. What percentage of the worlds goods and services compared to what percentage of pollution we expel would be a better comparison. Can you get a couple of sources on those figures and get back to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 27, 2006 0:23:08 GMT -5
I don't have a lot of time to write so I will address one thing now and maybe the rest later. When you say the U.S. is the greatest polluter you have to compare that to what we produce vs other nations not per capita. What percentage of the worlds goods and services compared to what percentage of pollution we expel would be a better comparison. Can you get a couple of sources on those figures and get back to me. Nah what's the point? USA still consumes far more than it produces. So, real USA pollution is even bigger because pollution produced during production of other goods USA consumes should be counted as well. It's total pollution caused by USA citizens.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 27, 2006 4:51:02 GMT -5
necro just face the truth - US people got the image of dumb selfish fat and short term thinking for a good reason
u pollute world like mad and invade countries if there s a threat to your oil supply - you and your leader care nuts about the rest of world and the world itself
(when saying u, all, US people i m allways talking about the majority not about a single person)
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jun 27, 2006 6:22:06 GMT -5
Tommy,
Do you remember the first Iraq war? The one with the first Bush in office. If the US was only motivated by oil to go to war, then why did the US not grab the oil after the first war? They liberated Kuwait, extinguished the oil field fires, and went home.
|
|
|
Post by skidbladnir on Jun 27, 2006 8:10:38 GMT -5
errr Whip, why do you think there even WAS a first Gulf War? why was the whole international community so quick to retaliate, when it usually takes months/years before it does something (and when it does, always with many countries disapproving) ?
exactly because of that : to secure the oil supplies
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 28, 2006 23:52:13 GMT -5
The latest posts have caused me to question many things. I'll try to keep it to pollution only matters(I see how easy we can get off track)even though I have many off topic ponderings as well.
1. Tommy, would you tell us your nationality and what actions your country has taken and the achievements it's accomplished to receive the adulation of all other and be belove around the globe? This information could help America with it's decision make process.
2. Let's say for the sake of argument that the U.S. has made the wrong decision and blunder ever matter concerning CO2 and/or pollution in general. Why would that stop another from putting resources to solving the problem. If an affordable car was built that produced little emission and a high MPG, even us dumb fat people might buy it. Or if a high-tech factory was built that could trap all emission and produce no air pollution, I'm sure others would adopt and/or buy said technologies. Why not show the short term thinkers how to strive ahead and develop for the future? Why not take this opportunity, of what you consider disappointing U.S. behavior, to become a world leader. This leads to my next question.
3. Why is it easier to sit back and complain about what another does and not get off your butt and try to discover solutions.
4. Do all think that the only solution to world emissions and pollutants is for the U.S. to consume less?
5. Is it the in thing to do or considered cool in the wealthier EU nations to try to take the U.S. down a peg and wish for an American defeat to humble the nation?
6. Do other nations think that if the U.S. begins to fail that their fortunes will rise?
I get the sense that 5 and 6 are a definite yes everywhere I look.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 29, 2006 4:11:57 GMT -5
I m German and we do a nutload to cut pollution - we got very strict laws on max pollution from factories - basiclly every fact needs some filters. our car taxes are dependent on co2 the car produce so basiclly u cant afford a car with lot of emissions very high polluting cars are even forbidden we got refunds on like everything - thats why our steets and landscape look more nice as they do in most other countries our government support new techologies like solarpowered stuff (there are no english words for some things as u guys just dont know am ) or biofuel made out of canola for example imo we do even too much - all that costs lot of money. but to keep our world livable every nation gotta help and the nations like EU USA and Japan just go ahead as they got most money to afford all this stuff. We in Germany for sure dont want USa to fall as we need consumers for our products and u guys consume like crazzy
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Jul 6, 2006 23:18:29 GMT -5
I worry about Americans, it seems there are a large group of them who follow politics like they do a football match. They have die hard supporters of political parties that will always support their "team" (even so far as saying "go Condi Rice!" before any policy announcements have been made). Here in Australia we have what's called a democracy with many different political parties (not just 2) and we change our vote depending on which one offers us the best deal. It's a good system. Would you like us to liberate you?
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Jul 6, 2006 23:46:20 GMT -5
Tommy, Do you remember the first Iraq war? The one with the first Bush in office. If the US was only motivated by oil to go to war, then why did the US not grab the oil after the first war? They liberated Kuwait, extinguished the oil field fires, and went home. And why did America only liberate Kuwait when there was also a major war in Rwanda? It was because they wanted to secure their oil supplies. Besides, without the 13 years of sanctions between the gulf wars Americans would of had to battle a resonably well equiped Iraq back then (remember Iraq kept most of its forces in reserve in the Kuwait campaign). I remember back in 1987 the Iraqi air forced f-cked up the USS Stark quite nicely with no loss to the Iraqis. Imagine what a full strength army would do. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_stark
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jul 11, 2006 2:41:15 GMT -5
I worry about Americans, it seems there are a large group of them who follow politics like they do a football match. They have die hard supporters of political parties that will always support their "team" (even so far as saying "go Condi Rice!" before any policy announcements have been made). Here in Australia we have what's called a democracy with many different political parties (not just 2) and we change our vote depending on which one offers us the best deal. It's a good system. Would you like us to liberate you? Good. I finally have time to address this juvenile load of drivel. Since I am the only one to mention Secretary of State Rice, it must be directed at me. I suppose I can rebuke with a equally kindergarten comeback. No you are. I have of late been interested in understanding this being anti-America is so acceptable. Maybe it always was but I just now am mature enough to notice and follow it. And your die-hard fan analogy seems to make much sense. Here, we have the most powerful country in the history of mankind and all the members of the other countries tell the country they're doing it all wrong. This country with the most powerful economy, with no others even running a close second, is somehow foolish for acting in such a manner as they do. This country also has the most powerful military the world has ever witnessed, which keeps the world relatively stable, due to the fact rogue nations understand that they may have to deal with said nation if they put that stability in jeopardy. Yet others laugh how stupid this #1 nation is. The notable nation also has flocks of people trying to get into the country to improve their livelihood, so many that there's an internal struggle of how to not lose the countries identity from this massive influx of foreigners. Yet others would argue that this nation should change and be more like themselves. That sounds exactly like a die-hard fan who supports their poorer performing team no matter what. Oh, they'll lament that the other team just got lucky or some such nonsense and explain all the mistakes of the winning team. But a rational observer would try to adopt the best aspect of the winner to improve. I hate to copy you, pertaining to the sports team analogy, but it just fits so perfectly into the puzzle I was trying to solve. If your own team can't be improved, try to bring the other down to your level. First off, we have several parties as well, besides the Democrats and Republican. There is the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party the Reform party and I'm sure many others. These groups have moved the major parties from time to time. The Dems or Republican usually co-oped any decent ideas that fit into their platform and the smaller parties never gain any traction. But they still have influence. I will not speak for all Americans, for I have no idea what motivates all of them. I can only try to explain how I make my decision for you to understand why I write what I do. 9 out of 10 times I hear a democrat talk, I think to myself, what an idiot, I don't agree with that at all. Only maybe 3 out of 10 times I think that after listening to a Republican speak. I have read about other parties and most I totally disagree with or they just seem ho hum to me. Now I ask you, who should I vote for? It's not that I'm supporting my party whatever they say. It's that I find myself supporting the Republican party because they say and do what I prefer more often. See now why I called it juvenile? I seem to be talking like a simpleton trying to explain it, how one would teach a slow. And now for the misquote. I could probably let it go if you didn't put quotes around it. Putting quote on both side of a statement is done only when said statement is exact. If your going to indicate what you think the indent is or paraphrase it, then quotes are not necessary. Here is my exact Quote. "P.S. Condi Rice president 2008!!!with strong majority congress is a done deal as things look now. Don't change your stripes libs, you doing great." That is my prediction of what will occur if the democrats don't change drastically. No policy announcement made you say? I have heard Ms. Rice give easily over a hundred speeches and interviews. IMO, she would make an excellent leader of the free world. Why you would think that is a go team comment is beyond me. That is my personal choice at this moment and who I would vote for if there are no other facts known and the election was today. There are many other candidates the base would prefer over Condi Rice, so that's definitely not totting the party line. I predicted her as the U.S.'s next president because I believe that if she decides to run and the voters see and learn more about her, Secretary of State Rice is a lock to be Americas next president. Maybe next post I'll give you an in dept lesson in the two party American system compare to other countries, but if more is written I fear people will see the length and decide its too much effort to read. I should, since you all seem to like talking about America more than staying on topic and discussing Al Gore's movie. But I don't mind. I love America and could discuss it's characteristics all day. My guess, notagoodname, would be that you don't think to much of Mr Howard. Would you mind telling me if you are a supporter of him or not?
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jul 11, 2006 22:19:07 GMT -5
Tommy, Do you remember the first Iraq war? The one with the first Bush in office. If the US was only motivated by oil to go to war, then why did the US not grab the oil after the first war? They liberated Kuwait, extinguished the oil field fires, and went home. And why did America only liberate Kuwait when there was also a major war in Rwanda? It was because they wanted to secure their oil supplies. Besides, without the 13 years of sanctions between the gulf wars Americans would of had to battle a resonably well equiped Iraq back then (remember Iraq kept most of its forces in reserve in the Kuwait campaign). I remember back in 1987 the Iraqi air forced f-cked up the USS Stark quite nicely with no loss to the Iraqis. Imagine what a full strength army would do. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_starkAmerica didn't secure their oil supplies, more like help make the world oil supplies more secure and stable. Is it that you are completely ignorant of how world commodity markets work or do you feel that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are selling us oil at cut rate prices directly? From what I've read of your posts so far, my guess you're just not that intelligent. Or possible just stuck on stupid spinning you're broken record of anti-Americanism. If Rwanda bothers you so much, what is stopping the Australian military form restoring order to the nation. I'm sure your country would receive kudos from the entire world, or at least should, for doing so. This last paragraph is of real interest to me. It gives Notagodname utter glee to find out a U.S. naval ship was damaged and 37 American crew members died. I bet you must jump for joy every time there are news reports of a roadside bomb going off and killing a few U.S. solders. Maybe we'll set a new record for the number of military personal killed in Iraq next month and you and your friends can throw a party to celebrate. (the other "teams" misfortune) I suppose next time, before we go to war with another nation, the U.S. should see to it that their enemy is fully equipped for battle. The only smart thing to do now, according your logic, is to start giving North Korea all the high tech weapon system they can handle . Sorry, Americans aren't quite that dumb yet. Do you have even an ounce of common sense twirling around in that head of yours. I'm still anticipating your answer to the question about if you like and/or support Mr. Howard. From everything I have read Mr Howard seems like a smart respectable leader that I like. Since you are so backward, I would think you have nothing but contempt for the man. Am I right?
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Jul 12, 2006 1:38:41 GMT -5
This country with the most powerful economy On total GDP that is correct. On GDP per person that is incorrect. On total exports that is incorrect. On GDP growth rate that is incorrect. On trade balance that is incorrect (in fact US has the worst trade balance). On foreign debt that is incorrect (in fact the US has the largest foreign debt). This country also has the most powerful military the world has ever witnessed. The US military is the most expensive military in the world. This is due to the fact that the US military is often used as a political tool to give jobs in certain electorates and to give contracts to certain companies (no-bid Haliburton contracts for example). We here in Australia have purchased some US military equipment in the past, the Sea-King helicopters. The US military equipment proved itself to be unreliable. After a crash in 2005 the Australian Navy has now declared all US made Sea King helicopters unfit to fly. www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1337625.htmThe Australian governement has purchased European MRH-90 helicopters to replace them. Of course the US Marine corp still uses the Sea King helicopter that is considered by 'lesser' armies as unfit to fly. Not surprising though considering how your politicians are allowed to collect donations from the armaments industry. I suppose next time, before we go to war with another nation, the U.S. should see to it that their enemy is fully equipped for battle. The only smart thing to do now, according your logic, is to start giving North Korea all the high tech weapon system they can handle. No i was just pointing out the reason America was too scared to invade Iraq completely the first time. You would have had to take on a full strenght Iraqi army that didn't have the handicap of 13 years of sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jul 12, 2006 1:43:47 GMT -5
Does this only go for a CTON, or would this strat. be usefull in a Moden teamer.
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Jul 12, 2006 1:56:33 GMT -5
I'm still anticipating your answer to the question about if you like and/or support Mr. Howard. From everything I have read Mr Howard seems like a smart respectable leader that I like. Since you are so backward, I would think you have nothing but contempt for the man. Am I right? He is actually the member for my electorate (Ryde, NSW) and i've met him twice now, he is a nice bloke, he currently does walks every morning from Kirribilli house (where he lives) as he is trying to get fit. The prime minister has no more power than any other ministers in Australia except that he is our nominated figurehead so he is actually a pretty ordinary bloke. For some Australian humour see the video of "John Howards greatest walks" here www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/video/default.htm?program=chaser&pres=20060609_2200 He does support the war himself, although he is one of many Australian politicians who do. Personally it isn't the only issue i vote on, we need better quality roads and transport around here which the federal government hasn't been spending enough on although i do like the fact that John Howard has supported giving more money to public healthcare and education (we have universal healthcare here and one of the best public education systems, it's great). Tell me what do you think of George Bush. Have you ever spoken to him personally?
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Jul 12, 2006 1:59:55 GMT -5
Does this only go for a CTON, or would this strat. be usefull in a Moden teamer. Yeah cutting off resources isn't that useful in a free for all as the opponent could just get their resources from somewhere else. The sanction strategy requires a naval blockade and the spending of huge amounts of diplomatic capital to pull off. In the modern age you can end up causing the opponent to run out of spare parts, forcing them to build infantry as their best unit, works really well.
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jul 12, 2006 2:02:35 GMT -5
I suppose next time, before we go to war with another nation, the U.S. should see to it that their enemy is fully equipped for battle. I think its very scary that you talk about a next time, as if going to war was something Your country needs to do all the time.
|
|