![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#61 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,534
|
Quote:
There's a good result for truth, justice and sanity. With any luck the late coolworx qualifies for a Darwin award. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Springfield MA
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
LOL... I wasn't disappointed. I knew that I'd open myself up to that lefty compassion. But seriously, Boong, does anyone here TRULY want to argue that the Sadman was living up to the terms of Gulf War I? Or the plethora of UN resolutions that followed? Speaking of the UN... how do you folks (that support it) take this motley band seriously? The idea that a handful of representative democracies can hammer out meaningful world reforms sitting across the table from dictatorships and theocracies is pure lunacy. Anything that would be worth fighting for is verboten, and the few issues that can make the "least common denominator" grade, become so watered down and corrupted as to be useless (and often expensive). I'd like to see a World court of only Democracies. You wanna join? Let your people free. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 | |||||
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,534
|
Quote:
You used the word "flouted", but I really can't square that away with what I know about the situation. I would like to know what specific examples of non-compliance you describe as "flouting" the "terms" (whatever they are, cease-fire, UN resolutions etc). Quote:
Simple : It is the best option that is available at present. I don't think that waging wars of aggression on third world countries is a valid option. Reading the echoes of belligerent Whitehouse anti-UN propaganda posted by folks like yourself suggest to me that you don't understand what the UN actually is and is not. 1) The UN is a forum for discussion and concensus. It is *not* an instrument of any particular nation's foreign policy. 2) The UN has no forces of it's own, it is entirely dependant on it's members to enforce International Law. The UN was setup as an alternative to waging war, so bitching about it because it refuses to endorse waging a war of aggression on a third world country in direct violation of International Law is stupid. Quote:
The UN has been instrumental in putting off the Third World War and resolving disputes that could have blown up into wars. Sure it doesn't have anything like a 100% record, but it's better than nothing IMO. I'd rather people were jawing around a table than launching nukes at each other. Quote:
The problem I have with your viewpoint is that you see Violence as being the only viable option. By contrast I detest violence and I prize peace. Any alternative to violence is a good thing in my book, and the UN provides that alternative. Quote:
The US is systematically eliminating any mode of co-operation with other nations. That path leads towards violence being the only method of dealing with the US. More is the pity. ![]() Apologies for the fuzzy post. Contemplating some rather bad news at the moment, specifically : The folks who run the world think that there is less than 20 years of oil left. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#64 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Springfield MA
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
Well... the most blatantly obvious is shooting at US planes monitoring the no-fly zones. Then there were those occasions when SH kicked out inspectors. And probably the most egregious, was the VERY FIRST first act of defiance following the Gulf War... the systematic slaughter of the Shiites in the southern Marsh regions. The World (including a "Bush the first" led US) are culpable in that butchery, because as soon as it was happening (1992ish) we should have (as a collective World) taken out Saddam. BTW, I respect that you love peace... who in his right mind doesn't? But it is the height of folly to trust pacifism to be your shield against reality. I thought the World learned this once too many times in the late 1930's... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Springfield MA
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
This is bad news? Given the forum in which we are currently jousting, I consider that a joyful herald of more bicycle lanes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: metro dc USA
Posts: 3,394
|
In the immortal words of Darjevon, "Let's plow some new ground here". See below:
"Nobody wants to go to war. We trust our leaders to shed blood in our name only when absolutely necessary. But the facts revealed by the Downing Street Memo force us to ask ourselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary? More than two years after the start of the Iraq War, Americans are just learning that our government was dead set on invasion, even while it claimed to be pursuing diplomacy. Please join us in demanding that we get to the bottom of this issue." Excerpt from memo: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Mind you, this occurred well before Bush's war, in the summer of 2002. I knew this from the moment he took office because I'm not naive http://downingstreetmemo.com/
__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. George Carlin US comedian and actor (1937 - ) Last edited by davidmc : 29-05.-2005 at 12:04 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 | |||||
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,534
|
Quote:
IIRC that didn't happen. What did happen is that they scanned the planes with radar. Quote:
I keep seeing that brought up, but I haven't found original sources for that, do you have original sources for those claims ? The most often quoted sources are Bush/Blair administration related, and I don't trust them as far as I could throw them. Systematic slaughter would be pretty easy to prove. It is generally accepted that he put down a Shiite up-rising though, but there is not much evidence to suggest he conducted an operation as large as the US assaults on Fallujah last year. Quote:
There was little support to do that, Bush Snr was smart enough to back off rather than rush in with his cock hanging out. Quote:
That is *not* what I or the UN are doing. Quote:
Some folks learn, some are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Case in point the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, followed by the Bush administration invading Afghanistan, then invading Iraq. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#68 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,534
|
Quote:
Oil is involved at many stages in the production of bikes. There will be fewer more expensive bikes of poorer quality in the distant future. Stuff like cheap import will stop. Raw materials will be *much* harder to come by and vastly more expensive to process... Short term, perhaps it'll be good news, looking at T+5 years I don't see much cause for celebration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: metro dc USA
Posts: 3,394
|
Quote:
You're scaring me ![]()
__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. George Carlin US comedian and actor (1937 - ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#70 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Springfield MA
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
Ohh well, I guess I'll just have to revert to backpacking [Ya, I know... I'll have to wear buckskin moccasins, and store my water in stomach bladders - thanks to the dearth of petro-plastics] Of course your doom and gloom assessment assumes the free market won't find alternatives... I'm flexible to these "end of civilization" scenarios ;-) Last edited by coolworx : 29-05.-2005 at 12:46 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#71 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: metro dc USA
Posts: 3,394
|
Quote:
backpacking rules I've done @ 500 miles of the AT . I, quite possibly, prefer it to biking. That's just between you & myself, of course Our little secret. Wait a second. This was supposed tp be a private IM. Oh well ![]()
__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. George Carlin US comedian and actor (1937 - ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: metro dc USA
Posts: 3,394
|
Quote:
I' ve heard a rumour that the U.K. is going to stop importing bikes. Have you been appraised of this ![]()
__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. George Carlin US comedian and actor (1937 - ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,534
|
Quote:
A lot of stuff has to change within the next decade and I don't believe that the "Free Market" can address it because it is growth fixated at a time when production capacity will crash. The "Free Market" as we know it is highly dependant on cheap transport. Globalisation just ain't a viable option in that scenario, stuff will need to be produced locally for local consumption. I sincerely doubt that the "Global Free Market" as pushed by the Neocon loons is viable in a zero oil scenario. I don't think that it can adapt quick enough so it will die, if indeed it ever actually existed. Heavily urbanised areas may even become unviable because they are entirely dependant on cheap transport (for food) and cheap energy (for stuff like water). The skillsets that society needs will change drastically too, that is a pretty tall hurdle to jump within 20 years. There are all kinds of fiddly little details such as medicine, cleaning products (imagine a world with no washing machines - eeek !) that will need to be sorted out. Some Third world nations are better set up to handle such a transition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#74 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,534
|
Quote:
News to me. Sounds kinda unlikely too. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 4,816
|
I'll agree with you one one point here. Much as I oppose the whole war in Iraq, abuses of Iraqi prisoners and Moslems in general, I fear there is a tendency to over demonise western countries, particularly the U.S.
Now I know Limerickman always made it clear he doesn't have any axe to grind against Americans in general, but only targets the Bush Administration and the wrongs that have been committed and this is the point I take too. However, it seems to me that lately there's a BBC/type inspired ideology in this country that blames the west for everything and would have us all believe Moslems are totally innocent victims of predatory, greedy, corrupt westerners. I was furious to learn Indonesia recently jailed a young Australian girl for 20 years in jail. Her crime: She got caught with a package of cannabis. Her parents were hysterical with grief and the Australian Prime Minister publically stated there was nothing he could do. Now here is the point: Leaving to aside some of the wrongs committed by western governments, I seem to recall U.K. and Australian people donating thousands of pounds to help Tsunami victims in Indonesia. Millions of dollars were raised, planes and helicopters flew out together with aid agencies. We grant asylum to people from Indonesia and other countries, often treating asylum seekers better than old war veterans. Yet, here is a typical case of so-called justice when a westerner gets into a pickle overseas: 20 years in jail and a possible death penalty. She was tried in a kangaroo court for a trivial offence that should have got her 2 years max (cannabis isn't the same as coke or heroin). Contrast that in the U.K. where a young Afghan teenager was awarded over 10 thousand pounds stress compensation because he had been arrested by the police but was too young to prosecute. So, if an Australian, American or Brit finds himself in difficulty overseas or breaks immigration laws, there is hell to pay. Foreign nationals over here, however, who get caught with a bag of dope are more likely to be offered free massage stress relax and compensated 10,000 pounds. Something is very wrong when we are being brainwashed into thinking Moslem countries are angelic, just and fair while western countries are supposedly evil and that a westerner doesn't deserve the same kind of respect overseas, as others take for granted over here. Quote:
|
|
|
|
|