DFW, TX but it's all the same. As for Bush "not giving a **** about the environment" that's not true. I love how just because his priorities aren't quite far left, he must be extremist right. Pardon him for thinking that maybe it would be smarter to get the economy back on its feet after the mess clinton made instead of pleasing all the happy-go-luckies who would rather starve than shoot a rabbit. The same laws are still being enforced and many companies are doing their own cleaning because people lap up the idea that they're a clean company. For instance, we have an electricity provider here that costs a bit more, and has the worst customer service I've ever talked to, but tons of people use them, because they don't pollute. And it's not like he's sitting up on his throne vetoing logical clean bills. Just because he's not willing to shut down 90% of the american industry for some eco-nuts doesn't mean he doesn't give a ****.
/me kicks hornets nest again heelan what i meant by nasty evil bloke is he tortures ppl i dont care where ppl are from torture is EVIL and wrong no excuses and Ubermich i dont like the fact the us pulled out of the (sorry for the spelling ive just got back from pub after exams) kioto treaty among other things also i agree with a point in another thread about the fact that our own government wont give us access to inspect our own weapons so how can we expect iraq to let us inspect theirs surely they have as much right to weaps of mass destruction as we do even if i dont like sadam i can see that if the uk or us get a leader that is a bit extreme the **** will hit the fan
The kyoto treaty asked us to do two things. 1) stop being productive 2) give more money to other countries How is that supposed to work, now? Instead, we could run as normal, and give more money to countries smaller than the US who are polluting 3x as much. (Not saying that we will give more money, but we could plausibly.) No self-respecting american would ask a brit to give up their livelyhood for something that doesn't exist. So we don't expect anyone to ask the same of us.
1) stop being productive... Only because the US are not prepared to spend any money on upgrading their facilities to meet clean air standards cos the economy is sucking royaly 2) give more money to other countries... You mean by trying to buy Brazils pollution quota so that you can cause even more polution than you do already? Damn - you guys are meant to be the worlds role models Also don't forget about the 30% import tax that they imposed on steel. Thats shafted an awful lot of people in one foul swoop... Us Brits pay for the privelage of having clean air - so it does effect our livelyhood. Also in relation to your earlier point about a war bringing off recession... They are forecasting at the moment that a short sharp war would be just the tonic that the world economy needs. It's no wonder everybody is itching to get it on...
The US DOES spend money upgrading facilities. Every year factories and vehicles are checked and refitted with whatever it takes to meet clean air standards. Just because we don't use someone else's standards doesn't mean we don't use any. And when was the last time you had no money, but decided to let someone tell you to spend thousands of dollars to put a new roof on your house? The Kyoto treaty called for "developed" nations to give money and technology to less 'eco(freak)-friendly' nations. If we don't have money to begin with, then we're supposed to spend more money on ourselves and even more on other people... I don't see how 0 + -1 + -2 = 2 Exactly what I've been saying. Although I don't think it will cure anything, the longer people don't talk about the economy, the better off we are. It's kind of like a bad bug bite. As long as you don't think about it, it won't itch. But if you do think about it, it begins itching, you scratch it, then it gets worse.
US, the largest provider of Weapons of Mass Destruction How do the United States know that Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction. After the gulf america sold iraq some weapons of mass destruction and now America is looking for a war with Iraq. So if they sold Iraq so many weaposn he should still have some. No doubt America will manufracture some evidence to incriminate Iraq. America still has the largest supply of Nuclear weapons and so maybe Bush should be disarming. (When i say America i mean Bush so please do not be offended)
interesting 1st post (welcome to the boards) but apparently there has been military satellites taking pics of ppl shipping stuff out of places hrs b4 inspectors get there but i agree mostly with u at 1st it was hes got weaps of mass destruction(WOMD cant be bothered to type it again) now ppl r saying he hasent proven hes destroyed his WOMD soon it will be ****** this for a game of soldiers we want a ruck. some ppl have tried to inspect the uks WOMD and got turned away at the gates why should Iraq be inspected if we arent unfortunately sadam is evil but i think all countries with WOMD should be inspected just incase someone evil manages to get power
Re: US, the largest provider of Weapons of Mass Destruction Err.... After the Gulf War America and the other western countries have sold Saddam absolutely nothing of military value. Before the Gulf War some equipment was sold to iraq by America to help them fight the war against iran, though the support America provided was low level compared to the equipment supplied by France and Russia. IIRC the majority of equipment for Saddams chemical and biological arsenal came from German and Czech companies, whilst major military bits of kit like tanks, SAMs, aircraft or so on were from France and Russia. Americas support was small in comparison to these countries, indeed no 'big ticket' or large and significant military equipment actually came from America, most of the help was in the form of technological support, training, some level of funding and things such as landmines. Americas contribution to Iraqs military is actually pretty insignificant compared to what Iraq got from France, the USSR and what chemical equipment it bought in separate dual use deals with Germany and the Czechs, yet the US is the one most derided for selling Iraq weapons, which is curious, though then again they're the ones making the biggest hoohar over Iraq now. As for the US manufacturing evidence, its possible, but do not assume that the evidence is untrue immediately because there are many signs that still point to iraq having WMD (and these signs are ones tlaked about by the UN as well, so its not just America who has questions that need to be asked) - it is IMHO a case of some evidence being fabricated and talked up, but also a fair portion of it being genuine. As for Bush's nuclear weapons, America *is* disarming to an extent of reducing its nuclear stockpile since the cold war, rather than building up its forces, so I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Besides, the reason America says Iraq should disarm yet America ignores other countries with WMD is because, as part of the Gulf War ceasefire terms, *Iraq agreed it would get rid of its weapons*, yet it seems to be unwilling to comply with this. Had America known Iraq would probably not comply, the Gulf War might have finished with the troops going all the way to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam....... Erm, someone saw the Mark Thomas 'UNTHOM weapons inspector' program then? So you don't the fact that the 'inspectors' got turned away is something to do that they are not official, well trained UN inspectors sanctioned by international law, rather a bunch of semi-ignorant civilians with an obvious agenda? Why should the UK let a bunch of left wing, disarmament protestors in to look at their military sites? If they were UN sanctioned, with an official mandate to visit such facilites then fine, if they were turned away it would mean something, but the fact that a few *civilians* with no official business under international law to visit these site are turned away means precisely nothing IMHO..... My 2p
i just think that all countries should be inspected if one is even tho sadam is evil imo to ensure that there are no double standards wtf is the mark thomas thing? i heard about it from schnews
Ah sorry, I thought the program might be where you got the idea about inspections in this country being forbidden from. The Mark Thomas thing was a program on channel 4 (or was it 5? I can't remember now tbh) where this guy called Mark Thomas and a few other people tried to go and inspect weapon sites in Britain and America. Some of the program was quite good and showed up some valid points, but other parts were a sham. This is the guys own site, makes a few mentions of the program.... http://www.mtcp.co.uk/ I would agree with you there, but surely double standards would be the case if people were allowed to inspect weapon sites without any UN mandate to do so, and were just untrained civilians with no expertise in the field.....this was the case in the program, which tried to compare the inspections going on with Iraq as the same as those that nobody could do in the US or UK. The difference being, the Iraqi inspections have a specific UN mandate and employ trained and selected expert personnel - this was not the case in the Mark Thomas program where the 'inspectors' in the UK and US were turned away - they were just some random civis with CND badges, and a camera, and no legal right or basis to be allowed to inspect the sites, so the fact they were turned away is not indicative of anything - the military should not (for security if no other reason) be letting in any notional 'weapons inspectors' without any legal mandate....
but i think the point in the people going to try to inspect the weapons was not to be allowed in but to highlight the issue that we are not inspected. god knows whats under development at the moment and what would happen if economy etc went tits up and we got an extremist in power or another prime minister + party who just went round kicking the **** out of protestors or starting wars like fauklands (sorry i dont think i spelled that right) did you know that after the fauklands war there was an international airport built which is hardly used but £2,000,000 could have been given to each resident instead of building the airport. now that just takes the ****
Maybe that was there point, but then judging by the reaction of those in the program and others who have tried to inspect sites, they have read so much into not being allowed access its untrue. The Mark Thomas program earlier even went so far as to basically say 'since they are not letting us in to this research facility, one must assume they have something to hide' which is reading way way too much into it...... With regards to the Falklands War, we didn't start it, the Argentinians did, by invading the islands that were british sovereign territory, but I see what you're saying regarding starting wars with apparently little or questionable justification :S and with iraq we'll see if this is the case soon I imagine....(Feb 14th report - if they have been deceiving the inspectors for the umpteenth year, then what....there are few options with Iraq that haven't been already tried unsuccesfully to try and get it to disarm, so what does everyone think should be done if that is case?) AFAIK the new airport built after the Falklands war on this island is often used btw, 1435 flight (RAF Tornados to defend the island) along with a few transport aircraft, a search and rescue equipped helicopter and Hercules........
but 2000000 quid per person its a rediculous ammount and i wasnt talking bout the tv program i heared about it from a news letter that was at uni called schnews and from what i gathered from that i thought it was just to raise the point as for iraq i dont know what should be done but war is bad and doing nothing is bad so i dont know and from what ive been told the uk was planning to pull out of the Falklands before argentina attacked and the people in the Falklands didnt mind unfortuantely im far from an expert in this area and i may have been mis informed (always a pain) but it still annoys me that even if iraq didnt have WOMD that the us would still have attacked
i think war is wanted to get the economy running again a working example was after the first world war the world economy was in shambles the best way out was war becuse it got everybody into production and everybody tried to work for the"war effort" when ammerica joined the second world war it was ver beificial the indusrty was running so smoothley an aircraft carrier could be buit in one day and people did not starve the economy basically was running on 100% efficaincy this is why bush and other countries want war they can kickstart their econnomy in this rescession and stop the economy going as bad as it did in 1929ect basically this is what couldl get the world out of finacial difficulties although i disagree with it
Econimies and war It is correct George Bush Snr could not run the economy and so therefore Bush Jnr needs to prove it is not hereditary. War is a good time for the US economy and WW2 is an excellant example of this. America grew large becoming a major superpower after WW2 as they did not do as much as many nations and the only really impingement was Pearl Harbour. Now as the world prepares for a war with Iraq, Maybe Britan and America should listen to Russia, Germany and France. I disapprove completely with a war on Iraq however i would be more against it if it was not following UN backing. The nations signed the charter of the UN so that the world may ressolve conflict peacefully. Why can't War Mongering Bush just wait for UN backing, however i suppose that would take time and the economy is getting desperate. Presidential elections coming up and all that.
anybody heard of the new proposal put forward by germany and france including 4 times as many inspectors backed by un troops do you think this is a reasonablr proposal? i think most of iraq has been searched and not much has been found i do not see that anymore action is nescessary although what could be done is a checkup of iraqs weapons dossier published in december where all iraqi weapons were published if all/some weapons were checked up on mabey then inspectors whould stumble on something else although i doubt it
So do dozens of dictators around the world. I'm not saying torture is right, but it isn't a reason to go to war. If we really cared we'd be attacking half of Africa right now. But we're not, we're selling them weapons and giving them aid. There is more to the Iraq situation, and it's a mixture of politics and oil. Potent. In a perfect world, nobody would have weapons of mass destruction. It's not though, and I don't see why Saddam can't have them when Israel can. Oh wait I can see. Israel isn't a threat to the west. Phew, that's ok then.
heelans right we should be at war with ireland, africa, israel, america, france (why not), etc etc etc
i personally dont think war wiht every one is a good idea (no war would be great) but torture among other things is inexcusable no matter who does it thats my point
well since u label urself as a rebellious American Teen and you oppose the war on Iraq, Make Love not War, on friday the 14th, participate in the MCSPJ (Montgomery County Students for Peace and Justice) rally thats gonna go down at four corners (next to blair high school). After that we are having an anti war concert at the Washington Ethical Society. During the school day massive flyering and distribution of arm bands is going on across teh county. for more info check out www.mcspj.org . I hear Spooj is slang for jizz. is it? thats not coo for our reputation man!
