|
Uhh...
Apr 18, 2002 14:45:31 GMT -5
Post by Gnom on Apr 18, 2002 14:45:31 GMT -5
[rant]
Has George W. Bush completely lost his mind?
From the BBC website:
--Desribing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as "a man of peace", Mr Bush said Mr Sharon had begun his promised withdrawal and it was being done "quickly".--
A..man..of..peace ? ? ? ?
He's talking about a man who, if there was any justice in the world, should be a condemned war criminal twenty years ago already and whose handiwork is the horrible scene that keeps showing up at Jenin refugee camp as I type.
US is friends with Israel, yes, but I have difficulty understanding what is worth of a friend who blindly supports you when you're doing something that is utterly, horribly wrong and does great damage to your own cause as well? Statements like above show such a lack of judgement, perspective and sense of justice that it, coming from the man it does, is just frightening. [/rant]
*phew*
Now than I brought the subject up... What are your thoughts about the Middle East mess?
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 18, 2002 14:51:17 GMT -5
Post by StolenThunder on Apr 18, 2002 14:51:17 GMT -5
I'm only going to comment on a small part of recent history here... But what was the point of Colin Powell's visit...?
"The word 'ceasefire' really cannot be applied at the moment" - Or words [probably fewer] to that effect...
The US [and the UK] should really stop messing around. Powell's supposed rescue mission was a farcical affair.
The Israelis should pull out of Palestinian territory.
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 19, 2002 7:49:23 GMT -5
Post by UltimateTrekker on Apr 19, 2002 7:49:23 GMT -5
My opinion on the Middle East is to get out NOW. Why bother. It's a messy messy thing. Us moving our guns in there doesn't seem to me as any help. Granted, there might be some more peace, fewer innocents lost. But in the long run, what do we hope to accomplish over there? Some seem to think that we can waltz in there and stop 2000 year old holy wars. News flash... NO we can't. We can pause them, but the second we turn our backs, they start fighting again. Why spend our cash and risk our people for those who dont' want us there in there first place. Send food, medicine.. fine. Good. But guns and bullets? Maybe I'm just naive, MORE guns doesn't seem like a logical conclusion.
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 19, 2002 14:37:20 GMT -5
Post by Gnom on Apr 19, 2002 14:37:20 GMT -5
Sending in US troops and guns is not an option: after US so supporting the Israelis the Palestinians are not likely to respond very well to their presence. What would they do there anyway? The only thinkable 'guns' getting involved would be UN peacekeepers. There's one thing US needs to do and do it quickly: as unconditionally it's been supporting Israel, it now needs to condemn Sharon's policy and actions. As long as US keeps turning a blind eye on Sharon no matter what he does, there's no chance for any progress. Every time Bush gives Sharon a proverbial pat on a shoulder there's a potential suicide bomber or couple born in one of those refugee camps. The idea that Arafat would be in control of them is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 19, 2002 15:32:10 GMT -5
Post by Mentat_Tir on Apr 19, 2002 15:32:10 GMT -5
Keep your eye on the oil, folks. The US Senate today shot down the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic. That means our economy is still relying on the Middle East and it will be for a looong time. There's no doubt that the US needs a friend in the Middle East...especially if we're going to go after Iraq again. If Bush needs to smile and call Sharon his best friend and stroke his ego, he'll do it.
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 20, 2002 4:03:07 GMT -5
Post by Christina on Apr 20, 2002 4:03:07 GMT -5
I thought the US got most of its oil from Venezuela? Oh, but they went on strike, didn't they......
As for the Middle East.
Years ago I had this crazy idea that if Jerusalem was made an autonimous city of World Importance, or some such designation that took it out of political control into some sort of historical / cultural control or role instead, maybe things might be a little less fraught about whose Capital City it ought to be.
And did Sharon think rolling his tanks into another 'country' and killing its citizens (guilty or not) really would bring peace? Whoever could have set him such an example? I can't imagine.
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 20, 2002 7:33:13 GMT -5
Post by Gnom on Apr 20, 2002 7:33:13 GMT -5
There's no doubt that the US needs a friend in the Middle East...especially if we're going to go after Iraq again. If Bush needs to smile and call Sharon his best friend and stroke his ego, he'll do it. If Bush plans going after Saddam again, he'd have to humour the Arab countries rather than Sharon. Otherwise he's likely to put a match in the powder keg that is the whole Middle East. Besides, supporting Sharon so blindly is counterproductive in his war against terror [as are talks like the infamous 'axis of evil' speech].
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 22, 2002 8:42:06 GMT -5
Post by UltimateTrekker on Apr 22, 2002 8:42:06 GMT -5
Oil... yes we are dependant. Bush's answer was to drill in our own soil (in National Parks no less) and then we'd need domestic oil drillers too... but that's OK, Bush is from Texas and I'm sure he has plenty of "friends" ready to "volunteer" to take those contracts.
But, digression...
The Gore answer (and my answer) is STOP USING OIL. Granted, we are dependant on them now... so we need to get OFF oil and into renewable. So, we play friendly for now, get our selves OUT of dependancy. Bush's plan make American jobs, and cheapens oil prices. So, for 50 years he is remembered as great... until we run out here as well and the country (so dependant on oil) goe into economic upheaval, but he'll be dead (or Reaganized) by that point, so what does he care.
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 22, 2002 14:28:08 GMT -5
Post by StolenThunder on Apr 22, 2002 14:28:08 GMT -5
To get off of oil, though, is incredibly difficult. The technology just does not exist at the moment to make it practical. Nuclear power is by far the better option, but there are too many negative connotations attached to the word 'nuclear' to let it go anywhere. [Even though it is one of the safest and least polluting means of energy creation... ] As it is, the Earth's oil reserves will most likely have been exhausted in 70 or less years time, so something has to happen, whether we like it or not.
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 22, 2002 14:43:09 GMT -5
Post by UltimateTrekker on Apr 22, 2002 14:43:09 GMT -5
exactly. Granted, we CAN'T get off it now, but if we don't work at it NOW, soon it will be too late... just in time for us to be old with no SS anymore.
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 26, 2002 13:00:14 GMT -5
Post by Christina on Apr 26, 2002 13:00:14 GMT -5
To get off of oil, though, is incredibly difficult. The technology just does not exist at the moment to make it practical. Did you hear about the government U-turn on fuels - from encouraging engine manufacturers to develop hydrogen burning engines as they have been over the last decade or so with promises of the infrastructure to support it, to the current position of 'make more efficient petrol/diesel engines instead'? Companies like Mercedes who were doing the research and development are 'gob-smacked' at the shortsighted about face............
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 26, 2002 17:51:59 GMT -5
Post by Gnom on Apr 26, 2002 17:51:59 GMT -5
Nuclear power is by far the better option, but there are too many negative connotations attached to the word 'nuclear' to let it go anywhere. [Even though it is one of the safest and least polluting means of energy creation... ] Nuclear power may be one of the least polluting [arguably, as there is still no satisfactory way to deal with nuclear waste] means, but I would call it safest, not while the human factor is involved. Incidentally, it's sixteen years from the Chernobyl bang today, and it's far from being history. You can dispute about the safety standars of the place compared to those of the modern ones how much you like, but the truth is this ball of rock cannot bear many disasters like Chernobyl, and even with the most modern of nuclear plants, the possibility of something unexpected happening exists. Especially at this day and age. No, I don't think nuclear power answers the question as how the mankind will power itself now and in close future. In the lack of better option, it may be most realistic option for oil [as well as other fossilic fuel] for now, but it's not a simple matter [and definitely not something to casually roll yours eyes for, young man! ]. While the nuclear physicist are still busy with that fusion reactor... I'm for recurrent energy sources. I do realize they are not an option everywhere and may not be the large scale solution [Indeed: those would be some sun panels you'd need to get one of those gas-guzzling monsters move out on the driveway that our friends across the The Pond are so oddly fond off... ] but whenever and wherever they are they should be utilized much more than they are now. To adress the topic... The Israeli swear they have clean conscience with what took [is still taking...] place on the West Bank. Why do they keep stalling the UN 'fact-finding' team, then?
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 27, 2002 1:34:28 GMT -5
Post by Elric3960 on Apr 27, 2002 1:34:28 GMT -5
Nuclear power may be one of the least polluting [arguably, as there is still no satisfactory way to deal with nuclear waste] means, but I would[NOT] call it safest, not while the human factor is involved. Incidentally, it's sixteen years from the Chernobyl bang today, and it's far from being history. You can dispute about the safety standars of the place compared to those of the modern ones how much you like, but the truth is this ball of rock cannot bear many disasters like Chernobyl, and even with the most modern of nuclear plants, the possibility of something unexpected happening exists. Especially at this day and age. You forgot about Three Mile Island, my dear, which is nearly 100 miles away from where I live BTW. Remember "The China Syndrome?" It became more popular after TMI happened, I believe. Possibly for the same reasons that Iraq did the same thing regarding the inspection of their chemical plants for biological weapons. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a few well-placed lies and a rock-and-a-hard-place relationship with a country that's obsessed with being The World's Policeman and despising the job while it's doing it!
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 27, 2002 3:05:09 GMT -5
Post by Christina on Apr 27, 2002 3:05:09 GMT -5
It's amazing what you can accomplish with a few well-placed lies and a rock-and-a-hard-place relationship with a country that's obsessed with being The World's Policeman and despising the job while it's doing it!What facinating words in emphasis! The way it gets reported over here, the US loves to be the new British Empire, telling everyone how to live, eat and what TV to watch......................
|
|
|
Uhh...
Apr 27, 2002 4:26:53 GMT -5
Post by Gnom on Apr 27, 2002 4:26:53 GMT -5
You forgot about Three Mile Island, my dear, which is nearly 100 miles away from where I live BTW. Remember "The China Syndrome?" It became more popular after TMI happened, I believe. Forgive me, I was thinking the incident that was immediately threatening my blueberries with Cesium 137, but there you go... Didn't people's interest in disaster movies increase after last September, too? That's why I think it's polite to refer to countries as ' it's rather than ' you's...
|
|