these are some things Mr bush Jr said at the UN i wanted to post this earlier but i forgot

1)he said Irak tryed to assasinate a former US president
answer:why didn't he mention that he was his father so it's personal
what about CIA assacination plots against Castro in CUba and Khoumayni in Iran
they are foreign presidents too

2)Bush said that Irak attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990

answer : did you remark the iranian delegation laugh and smile about Bush hypocrisy in UN
because who visited Irak in 1983
(Ramsfeld) he was the envoyee of reagan to sadam to tell him that USA support him millitary and morally against Iran !
Bush Sr was also head of CIA in 80s

3)he said Irak isn't a democracy hence USA wan't to save the poor Iraki people

answer : i agree but there no single arab democracy for instance i stated in a previous post about not voting in Moroccan parliamentary ellections
i was right Moroccan chosed a majority from socialists and the King just ignored their decision and set up a prime minister ho dosn't belong to any party and chalanged the public choice what Marguerite Tutweller said about it (THE US AMBASSADOR) it's a good choice and congratulated the king for choosing his prime minister so where is support for democracy
unless democracy in american standards isn't people choice .
Similar examples are not hard to find in other regions of the world .

4)he said we will show evidence about Irak having Mass Murder Weapons

answer : show them ,and i guess USA has no Mass Murder Weapons
who is the only country that effectively used nukes?

5)Irak used Chemical Weapons against his own people:

answer : yeah your right but USA was aware of it and USA,germany and France helped him to build his chemical infastructure since he used the same chemical weapons against Iranian troops .
what about secret human experience on native americans made by US gov in 1960s


Conclusion Bush Jr wants to attack Irak because his DAD told him to do so
GOOD BOY

The only reason Iraq isn't a democracy is because we say it isn't. Because it is arguable that most Iraqis want Saddam (even if the election was rigged, there is no proof that he would not gain a majority anyway...and he would), especially when you remember that GWB's brother in Florida helped him gain power through corruption (ie. cheating) therefore USA isn't a democracy.

Besides, don't forget that Bush has named the new leader of Iraq after the war... General Tommy Franks! And not a single Iraqi was asked!

yes your right however i wan't to know the other point of views about it
i guess my post now i s so rational that the GREAT NOX didn't answer it

waiting for more active responses
or i'll take it for a victory
"no one can give me counter examples!!!?"

It is time to pull out our mental foils and prepare for a duel.

Answer to point one:
Castro and Khumayni where both fascist dictators. Castro tried to get Nuclear Weapons and it is more than likely that he would have used them. During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro was begging Kruschev to let him launch a perliminary attack and wipe out those capitalist pigs. Castro might have calmed down over the years, but in his prime he was a threat to U.S. security. Khumayni also set up a radical Islamic state that hated the west. He was represive of his people and is not what I would call a leading member of the "global community."

Answer to point two:
You are viewing history as static instead of dynamic. We made deals with Saddam at that time becasue he was the lesser of evils. The same is true of Bin-Ladin. We armed him to fight the Soviets becasue at the time he was the lesser of two evils. Now Osama has made himself a threat so we fight him now. This is the same with Iraq.

Answer to point three:
This is not the reason we are going to war with Iraq, it is merely another justification about why Saddam is an evil man who does not deserve additional benefits of doubt.

Answer to point four:
What? By the time we have absolute proof, most likely we will have a smoldering crater where a city once stood. This war is a preventative strike. If Saddam gets Nukes, he will most likely give them to some terrorist to use against us. We don't have to worry about France getting pissed and giving Al Qaeda a nuke to use against us. Yes, we do have nukes, they are what make me sleep well at night. And your last charge of us using them is complete bullshit. If you would have rather lost a million men and many more Japaneese in an invasion of Japan, then you are an idiot. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke the Japaanese of the kamikazee mentality. They were willing to die to the man? Fine. We were willing to kill all of them. When they realized that it was in our power to do so, they surreneder.

Answer to number five:
I would really like to see a link to that and the phrase Chemical infrastrucute means little. It is also important to note that both sides gassed each other in the war, but Saddam turned those weapons on his own people when he wanted to instill order.

quote:

---

Originally posted by princecharmant1980:
these are some things Mr bush Jr said at the UN i wanted to post this earlier but i forgot

1)he said Irak tryed to assasinate a former US president
answer:why didn't he mention that he was his father so it's personal

---

What position did George W Bush�s father have at the time of the attempted assassination?

quote:

---

what about CIA assacination plots against Castro in CUba and Khoumayni in Iran
they are foreign presidents too

---

Did Bush Jr, in his speech, hint at that he expects those nations not to retaliate or take revenge, if or when they get a chance?

quote:

---

2)Bush said that Irak attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990

---

This is essentially also what happened, even if it in both cases started with hostilities that allows all parts to blame each other for the outbreaks of war.

Saddam saw the attack on Iran as a preemptive action against the Islamist revolution, or at least at the kind Ayatollah Khomeini representeted. Those who don�t aknowledge any difference between Shiit Moslems and Sunni Moslems, and wants a joint Moslem - Islamist - Jihad; who also wants to take society and its values back to the middle ages. Saddam is a devot Shiit, and he dislikes the backwardness of the Islamist movement. For him and most of the Iraqi people it was important that the Iranian revolution didn�t spread to Iraq.

In the case of Kuweit, they literally stole oil from Iraq, drilling at an angle so they reached into Iraqi oil pockets. As Saddam at the time was still clandestinely supported by USA and Great Britain, he believed he would be allowed to attack Kuweit, not only as a revenge for the stolen oil, but more importantly to "free its people from the opressive and infidel royal family". He had also spoken in a similar way about the Saudi royal family; threatened to kill them and "free" the Big Mosque and the holy ground it stands on. Nobody could at the time be sure that, once he had invaded Kuweit, he wouldn�t continue into Saudi.

The attack on Kuweit was also the final blow to the US/GB support. They finally realised that he was much more of a threat to the region, than he was someone who, given the right support, could stabilize it.

quote:

---

answer : did you remark the iranian delegation laugh and smile about Bush hypocrisy in UN
because who visited Irak in 1983
(Ramsfeld) he was the envoyee of reagan to sadam to tell him that USA support him millitary and morally against Iran !

---

Through the Iranian revolution USA had lost its ally - partly "puppet" - the Shah of Iran, who actually upheld some kind of order in the Middle East; protecting the oil among other things. Iran under the Shah was also what we would call a modern society
- if far from a democracy.

Saddams hostility against the Iranian kind of Islamist revolution, gave George Bush Sr (who was then vice President to Reagan) and others, the idea to make Saddam the new ally in the Middle East. Hence the secret support.

Strangely enough, at the same time, another group within the CIA sold weapons to Iran, to raise money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

In all the books I have read on this, it has never been made clear if these two groups knew about eachother�s actions. But it seems unlikely to me, looking at the importance to get an ally in the Middle East, compared to the importance of funding the Contras.

It could of course be said that George Bush Sr was naive about Saddam Hussein. But at the time Saddam was by far the lesser of two evils. As far as he actually had shown any of his delusions of grandeur etc, at that time. He probably seemed as predictable and controllable as the Shah of Iran had proved himself to be, for a long time.

Had Saddam proven to be who they supposed and hoped him to be, the Middle East had been as relatively stable now as it was up until the Iranian revolution. Nobody would officially have thanked George Bush for that, but they were fast to blame him when it went wrong.

quote:

---

Bush Sr was also head of CIA in 80s

---

Eh, well yes he was...

But as far as I can see it only proves how he made his living at the time, and how a part of his political career was made. Perhaps it could also be said to have been of helpt to him when he took actions to support Saddam. He already knew how to do it, so to speak. But if he hadn�t been head of the CIA, and therefore hadn�t had that knowledge, I guess he would have asked for help from someone who had it...

quote:

---

3)he said Irak isn't a democracy hence USA wan't to save the poor Iraki people

answer : i agree but there no single arab democracy for instance i stated in a previous post about not voting in Moroccan parliamentary ellections
i was right Moroccan chosed a majority from socialists and the King just ignored their decision and set up a prime minister ho dosn't belong to any party and chalanged the public choice what Marguerite Tutweller said about it (THE US AMBASSADOR) it's a good choice and congratulated the king for choosing his prime minister so where is support for democracy
unless democracy in american standards isn't people choice .
Similar examples are not hard to find in other regions of the world .

---

This is somewhat muddled, but I guess your point is that US foreign policy is hypocritical. Yes, to a certain degree it is, as is all state�s foreign policies. A fact that doesn�t make things better in such cases as what you describe, but it�s not uniquely USA who have double standards.

In the case of Iraq the main reason for an attack is - of course - not to free the Iraqi people. Bush has also spoken publicly at length about all the other, more important, reasons. Reasons that - luckily! - don�t apply to the situation in Marocco, for example. In that sense your comparition is slightly askew.

Having said this, I can�t see any reason why Bush Jr and his government can�t have some compassion for the Iraqi people, and enough of it to make that part of their actual reasons to go after Saddam. As true as it is that power corrupts, those who are corrupted by power are still human, and as long as they have a sound mind and soul in every other respect, they will continue to act human (when politics allows them). Or, in other words: if we can have compassion, why do we have to assume that Bush, or any politician, can�t?!

quote:

---

4)he said we will show evidence about Irak having Mass Murder Weapons

answer : show them ,and i guess USA has no Mass Murder Weapons
who is the only country that effectively used nukes?

---

USA is the only country who effectively has used nuclear bombs, in what was essentially one attack even if it was two bombs.

USA did in this way put an end to the Japanese part of WW 2, after the Japanese had tried to conquer the far east and had killed vast amounts of people. In the middle of all this they had also attacked USA. Some estimations say that more Japanese people - not to mention others - would have died if it hadn�t been for the nuclear bombs. Other sources say to opposite, of course.

Since then USA has never used, or even made an actual threat to use, their weapons of mass destruction.

quote:

---

5)Irak used Chemical Weapons against his own people:

answer : yeah your right but USA was aware of it and USA,germany and France helped him to build his chemical infastructure since he used the same chemical weapons against Iranian troops .

---

In a pragmatic perspective, it was "right" by Saddam to use his weapons on the enemy, but "wrong" to use them on his own people. The latter also shows his recklessness and is an example of his, to say the least, unpredictability.

From another perspective it was idiotic to give Saddam - or anybody - chemical weapons.

quote:

---

what about secret human experience on native americans made by US gov in 1960s

---

That was of course total lunacy and unforgiveable, but it wasn�t an attack on the Native Americans. Even if I guess that some conspiracy theories claim so.

what I don�t see is how any of Bush�s and his governments standpoints and actions against Iraq are connected to the experiments you mention. Is Bush supposed to let Saddam keep his chemical weapons because an earlier US government allowed an experiment to go haywire and worse?! Or what do you mean?!

quote:

---

Conclusion Bush Jr wants to attack Irak because his DAD told him to do so
GOOD BOY

---

Well, it could be said that he now has got a chance to finish the work of a former US president, who also happens to be his father, and who started to clean up after his own failed attempt to make Saddam an ally in the Middle East.

But if Al Gore had won the elections, he would most probably have had to deal with it as well. Not least because of what has happened lately, with everything pointing at a global Jihad, rather than at some "fluke" terrorist attack on USA.

It could also be said that it was Clinton�s responsibility to continue what Bush Sr had started. Perhaps that was actually what Clinton did when he tried to finally make peace between Israel and the Palestines. Looking at history that was by far more naive than what Bush Sr did when he tried to make Saddam an ally.

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-07-2002).]

I'm gonna have a field day picking this lot apart...

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Castro and Khumayni where both fascist dictators.

---

No, Castro is an elected Liberal-Communist and Khomeini is a Fundamentalist. So you were nearly right (NOT)

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Castro tried to get Nuclear Weapons and it is more than likely that he would have used them. During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro was begging Kruschev to let him launch a perliminary attack and wipe out those capitalist pigs.

---

I think the only truth in that statement is there was nuclear weapons involved! To which any leader has the right to. Khruschev offered them and Castro accepted, as you would. But neither even contemplated a first strike attack, and there is irrefutable evidence of such ,there is also irrefutable evidence that USA were lying scum and on more than one occasion were ready to push the button, and it would not have been the first time would it?) Castro's only crime was to have Socialist principles, THAT IS NOT A CRIME! THAT IS EVIDENCE OF AN UNSELFISH NATURE! (very un-American)

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
You are viewing history as static instead of dynamic. We made deals with Saddam at that time becasue he was the lesser of evils. The same is true of Bin-Ladin. We armed him to fight the Soviets becasue at the time he was the lesser of two evils. Now Osama has made himself a threat so we fight him now. This is the same with Iraq.

---

But it is true that these are not the only examples of this particular tactic of funding terrorists has backfired on America (can you think of an occasion where it hasn't in fact) yet it still continues. And it is also worth noting that neither Iran, Iraq, Soviet Russia, Cuba, made any aggressive motions toward USA or it's interests. Lesser of two evils or not, none of them were relevant until USA stuck it's fat nose in, and even then none of these "threats to security" have made any other motions than defending their freedom against the aggressors (you).

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
This is not the reason we are going to war with Iraq, it is merely another justification about why Saddam is an evil man who does not deserve additional benefits of doubt.

---

No one has ever given me a reasonable argument to why Saddam is evil at all. Two events spring to mind (1) the gas attack on the village of (....), and (2) the invasion of Kuwait. The gas attack was a genuine attempt to remove a group of Kurdish terrorists, and there is still no evidence to blame Iraq! And the Kuwaiti invasion was a despicable attempt for the aquisition of land and wealth... both of these acts are practised by the USA regularly but in different situations (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Panama, Bolivia, Iraq, Iran, and Germany are just a few examples)

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
What? By the time we have absolute proof, most likely we will have a smoldering crater where a city once stood. This war is a preventative strike.

---

There is proof, that Iraq is NO threat to USA. You are only preventing peace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
If Saddam gets Nukes, he will most likely give them to some terrorist to use against us.

---

He is also more likely to dig a 12,000 mile tunnel to New York and invade America with an army of leaf-cutter ants! I wonder why terrorists often carry weapons with English lettering on them. And "made in the USA" on the side, obviously it is Saddam's cunning ploy to fool me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
If you would have rather lost a million men and many more Japaneese in an invasion of Japan, then you are an idiot. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke the Japaanese of the kamikazee mentality. They were willing to die to the man? Fine. We were willing to kill all of them. When they realized that it was in our power to do so, they surreneder.

---

The death of a million men was nigh on impossible, and even so... they would have been soldiers who are paid to die, and are almost all racist morons who deserve it! If this is America's only argument in favour of the A-Bomb. Why not accept that that was an almighty fuck-up and means your nation cannot be trusted for many more years to come.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
but Saddam turned those weapons on his own people when he wanted to instill order.

---

Although they were officially Iraqi, the Kurds were at war with Saddam, and perhaps he was jsut living by your terrifying example.

_____________________________________________

Fox has maintained some kind of eloquance

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Did Bush Jr, in his speech, hint at that he expects those nations not to retaliate or take revenge, if or when they get a chance?

---

Does that justify it. Both these leaders were chosen by their respective leaders, who in a large part died for the privelige of being led by them. They are the bravest men who I have known about and in some cases, even died to liberate themselves and their fellow countrymen . It is not your countries right to remove what so many incredibly brave partisans fought and died for, and it is none of your business! US interference is almost never welcome! Iran doesn't welcome it, Afghanistan doesn't welcome it, Saudi doesn't and when we were on the loud end of your stick of interference... we only put up with you because you brought stockings!

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
The attack on Kuweit was also the final blow to the US/GB support. They finally realised that he was much more of a threat to the region, than he was someone who, given the right support, could stabilize it.

---

The Middle East is an ancient area, and the Arabs are an ancient civilisation. The instability is just as ancient and USA are far too young to understand. Britain was still in Empire mode when it became our business, and America has no right to support an expansionist tyrant such as Britain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Strangely enough, at the same time, another group within the CIA sold weapons to Iran, to raise money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
US foreign policy is hypocritical. Yes, to a certain degree it is

---

Understatement of the year. You sold weapons to one terrorist group to raise money to fund another terrorist group. Not only helping terrorists, but twice in one shot... Yet you fight a "War on Terrorism" on the other hand? Perhaps your innexperianced nation would like to take note of N.Ireland, while the situation is not exactly being cured... We haven't invaded Ireland and oppressed the Irish, and placed a puppet leader who persecutes the Catholics, (see Israel) which would only breed more terrorism. As you do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Since then USA has never used, or even made an actual threat to use, their weapons of mass destruction.

---

Truman definetley threatened to nuke Beijing in the Korean war. And I can clearly remember Bush Jnr threatening to use nukes on Iraq and the Taliban. During the Gulf War, gas attacks were used against Iraq (albeit minor ones) and USA has just months ago tried to open a program to make "battlefield nukes" which is as big a threat as any.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
But if Al Gore had won the elections, he would most probably have had to deal with it as well. Not least because of what has happened lately, with everything pointing at a global Jihad, rather than at some "fluke" terrorist attack on USA.

---

Clinton did not point his deadly finger at the Arabs, and Al Quaeda did not attack but within 2 weeks of election, Bush bombed Iraq twice. What has happened lately I therefore conclude is as a consequence of Al Gore not winning the election (which in itself is odd, as more dead people voted Rep. than Dem. and predominately Dem. boxes were "lost" by Jed Bush) Clinton was a peaceful, president (make love not war! haha), that is not naive, it is bloody sensible. You can but try.

"The Development of World Capitlaism proceeds not in the path of smooth and even progress but through crisis and the catastrophes of war"-Joseph Stalin, Febuary 1946.
Evil? Or fucking wise?

"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are 2 Americans and 1 Russian left alive, we win"-General Thomas Power, Commander of Strategic Air Comand in the 1960s,
the mentality of the man who is paid to protect you.

Chuck!

At the moment I have great difficulty in taking you serious, because of a seemingly unsignificant detail.

I hope it�s a misunderstanding, and not something else...

I will now quote from your reply to me, in the post above:

"It is not your countries right to remove...//...it is none of your business! US interference is almost never welcome!...//...when we were on the loud end of your stick of interference...we only put up with you because you brought stockings!"

"You sold weapons...//...Yet you fight a War on Terrorism...//...perhaps your innexperianced nation...//...As you do."

"...the mentality of the man who is paid to protect you."

Explain how the quotes above can be from your reply to me.

FoxLeonard

There is no ambiguity. I have in fact highlighted the point in your post I am responding to. It's not just aimed at you though, it's aimed at the average dumb american who thinks he's not because he can debate politics, despite the fact it is in a predictably conformist way, as if they have no free thought.
When I say "you" I mean America, regardless of who you are.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOX IS THE ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
There is no ambiguity.

---

Yes there is, and even more so now.

quote:

---

I have in fact highlighted the point in your post I am responding to.

---

No, you have made it murky, and made it into something it never was and never could be, for a very obvious reason.

You have also made it, in one sense, impossible for me to reply, for the same, above mentioned reason.

quote:

---

It's not just aimed at you though, it's aimed at the average dumb american who thinks he's not because he can debate politics, despite the fact it is in a predictably conformist way, as if they have no free thought.

---

But it IS aimed at me, among others, if I understand the words "not just aimed at you" right?!

quote:

---

When I say "you" I mean America, regardless of who you are.

---

Don�t you think there�s is a limit to that?!

quote:

---

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOX IS THE ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

I don�t have a clue what this has to do with me, my earlier post, or your reply.

My name is Fox, or FoxLeonard, and nothing else.

I have in my earlier posts (in this thread) not mentioned, not quoted, or even hinted at Nox.

Therefore I very much dislike that you make him a part of this discussion, between you and me. Leave him out of it!

Instead you should concentrate on explaining why you distort facts about me and about US Americans.

FoxLeonard

Yes, I must say that ChuckStone response was typical in the demonization of the west and the deifcation of Communism. Stalin was a saint, Castro only had the best intentions at heart, all those millions who died were traitor to the State and deserved the death of dogs.

quote:

---

There is proof, that Iraq is NO threat to USA. You are only preventing peace

---

You use a style of argument that I call denial of all terms and definitions. You say that you have not seen enough proof and any proof that is brought forward is dismissed. This is akin to arguning over terms like terrorist, war, and Saddam not being an evil man.

quote:

---

He is also more likely to dig a 12,000 mile tunnel to New York and invade America with an army of leaf-cutter ants! I wonder why terrorists often carry weapons with English lettering on them. And "made in the USA" on the side, obviously it is Saddam's cunning ploy to fool me.

---

What the hell does this mean? It is not an issue of where the weapons are made it is a matter of distribution. The AK is a soviet gun, by your logic we should take out Russia. Your next argument would be that if production doesn't matter, why take out Iraq. The reason, of course, is simple: if Saddam can't make weapons, he has a much harder time of giving them to terrosits. This is a preventive action meant to save many lives latter on.

quote:

---

The death of a million men was nigh on impossible, and even so... they would have been soldiers who are paid to die, and are almost all racist morons who deserve it! If this is America's only argument in favour of the A-Bomb. Why not accept that that was an almighty fuck-up and means your nation cannot be trusted for many more years to come.

---

This is historical horse shit right here. Civilians were lining up with kitchen knives and were digging in to prepare for an allied invasion. You say the Japaneese deserved to die? Fine then, the intolerant fundamentalist Muslim extremests deserve to die. Lastly, it was the only argument becasue it is the only relevant one. How can you claim the "kill them all position," and then later retract it in favor of regimes that are equally as dangerous.

You are also mad that the US threatened Nuclear revenge if Nerve Gas or Anthrax was used on our troops? Take your head out of the ground. If weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) are used do you honestly expect the US to forgive and forget? Of course not! The deterrence of our nukes helps to hold the hand of any dictator who would think of using them on our troops.

NukeChild!

I agree that Chuck demonized the west, or at least USA, and deified Soviet Communism.

But that�s not the distortions of facts I�m talking about in my post above yours. I just want to make that clear, because of your "Yes", at the beginning of your post.

He has (as it seems) deliberately distorted facts about me, and by doing so he has distorted my standpoint in this discussion, and perhaps for the future in other discussions. He has also, indirectly, distorted the meaning of the points I made in my first post. This also becomes an indirect distortion of US American oppinions.

Right now I�m trying to give Chuck another chance to explain himself...

FoxLeonard

Tell me why everyone is so worried about Saddam GIVING weapons to terrorists.
First of all he can sell them. If he doenst own them he can give the $ to the terrorists so they can buy them elsewhere.
Or some other rich man ( bin laden comes to mind ) can provide the financal means to get such weapons.
And another thing. If Saddam starts getting attacked and feels in danger then he migth have to use those weapons before his death.

( Wich Bush promesses )

Will it not be premeditaed murder? Ohh I forgot. He Is Mr. President. He who can do everything he pleases.

Ha! bush should be the one taken out of power

Well, yes Saddam can sell nukes, but money tends to leave a trail that can be followed. The real point is that if he has nukes, he probably won't let them sit in his bunkers. Terrorists might be able to buy themelse where, but that would be from countries that attempt to monitor there stockpiles. The greatest bet would be Russia, but it is much easier and secret for Saddam to build nuclear weapons himself and then give them away.

quote:

---

If Saddam starts getting attacked and feels in danger then he migth have to use those weapons before his death.
( Wich Bush promesses )
Will it not be premeditaed murder? Ohh I forgot. He Is Mr. President. He who can do everything he pleases.
Ha! bush should be the one taken out of power

---

This last part doesn't make a lot of sense. It is still better to remove Saddam while his arsenal is small then when it gets to be much larger. If he nukes U.S. troops, then he knows that the retaliation will be swift and destuctive and he will have deserved that fate.

Stop crying Fox, you idiot. If you don't understand, then there is no more help for you, so give it a rest.

We need someone to demonise the West (and yes, all of it), as opposed to glorify it, I could highlight all the good things which the West has given us... but they are not the issue, the issue is the bad, and it is neccessary for Americans to realise their beloved country produces a lot of shit. All countries do, but it really pisses me off when you get fucking Americns crying when they get what's coming to them. And the constant passing-of-buck. Blame Marilyn Manson, blame al Quaeda, blame Liberals but for god's sake blame yourselves too.

Saddam is not going to give anything to terrorists. Why would he want to. Saddam is a human being, not a demon from Hell. His interests are the same as every other human being on Earth since ever and for ever. And no human being no matter how evil your presidnet says he is, is entirley motivated by death. The man is trying to make good on his promise to his people, to protect them, and unlike USA, Iraq has many genuine enemies, if anything Iraq should be the ones with the nukes instead of USA. So many countries have nukes, yet USA doesn't stop them, Korea admitted to owning nukes and stated no wish to decommission them, and USA have done nothing. Because USA are only interested in attacking countries who cannot defend themselves. When Bush rattles his sabres at Hussein, it is to show that he knows he will win, because USA have proved to be too scared to fight against a superior enemy. So in itself Bush has asmitted that Iraq poses no threat, and therefore we have no cause to attack. (DO you follow?).

>>>>>This last part doesn't make a lot of sense. It is still better to remove Saddam while his arsenal is small then when it gets to be much larger. If he nukes U.S. troops, then he knows that the retaliation will be swift and destuctive and he will have deserved that fate.<<<<<Saddam is none of our business! It is arrogant to assume we have to get rid of him at all. He was born with the exact same rights as Bush, and he was chosen to govern his people by a popular revolution, so fuck off! And I can see no historical evidence that US troops are anything other than sluggish and stupid, but large in number, and have no other advantage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Stop crying Fox, you idiot. If you don't understand, then there is no more help for you, so give it a rest.

---

Chuck!

I wonder who is the idiot, and who it is that doesn�t understand.

Check the left side of this, or any of my posts, and then tell me why you, time and again, in your reply to me say:

"not your countries right"

"none of your business"

"your stick of interference"

"we only put up with you because you brought stockings"

"you sold weapons"

"you fight a war on terrorism"

"your innexperianced (sic) nation"

"As you do"

All this refers to "you", as in US Americans, in a reply to me!

I am not US American!

I am from Sweden! I am Swedish! A Swede!

But your reply "makes" me into a US American. Not only every time you adress me as one but, because of that, the whole way through.

This makes it hard for me to reply, as I can�t defend USA as if it was my country.

You also made the facts and oppinions you qouted from me, seem to come from "just another American", thereby hiding the important fact that it was an "alternative", non-US American view you replied to.

It also hides the important fact that it is not only US Americans who have the oppinions you are so opposed to.

I don�t like when people distort facts, about me or about my knowledge and oppinions. Neither do I like being used to distort facts about others.

FoxLeonard

You say it is arrogant to want to get rig of Saddam? We have already established that it is in the self-interest of the United States and the self-interest of the rest of the world. Nothing is more justifiable than it being in our self interest.
Saddam was born with the same rights as everyother human in the world. But through the course of his life, he has lost his claim to those rights. The rights he was born with he denies his own people. Elected by popular revolution? Now it is my turn to tell you to Fuck Off.
Your knowledge of history shows that U.S. troops have no advantage except they are sluggish and slow? What books have you been reading from. This is bullshit straight and simple.

Why should Bush be allowed to commit a premeditaed murder?

Ha!

Thats just stupid on your part if you can't see it as a choice on Saddam's part to use weapons of mass destruction. If he really wanted an alternative to the situation, he should have obeyed all those UN resolutions that he had agreed to. Right now, he is untrustworhty and dangerous, all his choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:

Saddam is not going to give anything to terrorists. Why would he want to.

---

On August 31, 1998, Hassan al-Turabi (Sudan�s spiritual leader and one of the leaders of the Islamist International) approached Iraqi vice president Ramadan, and asked if bin Laden could move his headquarters and operations to Iraq. Ramadan responded yes, and bin Laden was notified within hours.

Bin Laden had some relations with Iraqi intelligence since 1993, when he played a role in the running of the Islamist operations in Somalia in wich Iraqi special forces and Arab "Afghans" (Mujaheedin veterans from the war against the Soviets), retrained by Iraqi intelligence also took part. In June 1994 bin Laden met Faruq al-Hijazi, then the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Department, and now chief of the entire Iraqi intelligence apparatus. Turabi mediated the meeting, hoping already then that they could formulate a joint strategy against the pro-Western regimes of Arabia. But the Iraqis were still apprehensive.

In spring 1998 Turabi revived his efforts to mediate beween Saddam and bin Laden. As a consequence two of bin Laden�s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdallah Qassim, visited Baghdad between April 25 and May 1, for discussions with Iraqi intelligence. The importance of these contacts to Baghdad was shown by their meeting with Qusay Hussein, Saddam�s son, responsible for intelligence matters, and personally involved in the Iraqi contribution to the Somalia operation.

One of the first concrete outcomes of these contacts was Baghdad�s agreement to train a network of Saudi Islamist intelligence operatives, and terrorists from among bin Laden�s supporters, still inside Saudi Arabia. Special clandestine cross-border passages were organized by Iraqi intelligence to enable these Saudis to make it to Iraq without passports or any other documents. the first group of saudi Islamists crossed over in mid June for a four week course in the al-Nasiriyah training camp. Most were trained in intelligence; how to collect intelligence on American targets and plan and launch strikes. The other Saudis were organized into a network for smuggling weapons into Saudi Arabia.

Bin Laden moved quickly to solidify the cooperation with Saddam. In mid-July, Ayman al-Zawahiri traveled to Iraq clandestinely. He met senior Iraqi officials, including the vice president Ramadan, to discuss the establishment of bin Laden�s base in Iraq, the expansion of training for his Mujahideen, and a joint strategy for an anti US jihad throughout the Arab world and North Africa. Baghdad could not have been more helpful, conditioning its support on bin Laden�s promise not to incite the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood into establishing an Islamic state in Iraq. In other words, bin Laden promised not to conspire against Saddam�s reign.

As we know, bin Laden never moved his actual headquarters from Afghanistan, but the base and the training-camps in Iraq are still operational. And so is the cooperation.

But why would Saddam want to help terrorists?!

He doesn�t only want to, he already does it!

________

This is not the first time ChuckStone has shown a strange kind of knowledge about the terrorists and their supporters...

In the topic "did we deserve 911" ChuckStone wrote:

"Many years ago (about the early 90s I think) Osama Bin Laden began as a very peaceful campaigner against the US occupation in Saudi Arabia...//...Osama Bin Laden protested against this, first by partaking in peaceful protests GreenPeace style...//...by the early-mid nineties he began threatening his acts of terror, and when THEY were ignored, he began his acts of terror..."

In reality, bin Laden returned to Saudi, from the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in 1989. He was considered a hero, and spoke at mosques and private gatherings. And he argued that nothing and nobody could stop the Muslim Nation once it was committed to the righteous practice of Islam.

Wich means that he had his mind set on global Jihad long before the US troops came to Saudi arabia; long before he "began as a very peaceful campaigner", as ChuckStone claimes...

For those who want to compare ChuckStones full version of how bin Laden began his career, to the real story, I suggest you go to the "Did we deserve 911" topic and read ChuckStones post that begins as quoted above. Below follows the real story, in summary.

FoxLeonard




[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-09-2002).]

<<<<<<<<In reality, bin Laden returned to Saudi, from the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in 1989. He was considered a hero, and spoke at mosques and private gatherings. And he argued that nothing and nobody could stop the Muslim Nation once it was committed to the righteous practice of Islam.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Whilst probably true (I don't know, could all be lies but for the case we'll assume it is true) it is just another section of Bin Laden's interesting life. This particular episode is not connected to the US occupation of Saudi, which he was a peaceful campaigner against.

Just out of interest... why did you bring that up again Fox? It's completely irrelevant!

i'm sorry but it seems i hurt your too sensitive AMERICAN PATRIOTISME FEELINGS

and the answer is as usual
yeah we used nukes against japan because they are the bad guys and we saved the good guys lives (american soldiers)
we dealed with sadam when he was a good boy and when he turned evil we are against him

yeah we have the right to assacinate castro
and khumayni they are bad guys

but wasn't the regimes before castro and khumayni worst
i mean the US governement supports only
traitors who kill their people and take their money to american banks while their people are poor
besides USA is a memeber of the UN and in international law assacinating foreign presidents is a crime

the truth is that you governement cares only for some rich american companies that
support your presidents during their campains and in return they
don't sign kyoto they don't sign anti land mines treaties
and you didn't sign international anti human crimes court treaties to spare your nice soldiers frankly who you think you are

the reality is that you are brainwashed by your medias and when a terrorist atack occures you asl yourselves while crying
SNIF SNIF why they are always targetting us
the question is simple see what your governement does in all the world and you will know the answer

your flag is the most burned in the world it's not a coincidence or jealousy as some people says
USA is powerfull so others are jealous because of our power and wealth wothout
knowing that your wealth comes from the rest of the world suffering

i don't hate you and this is why i post in this US board
i like what USA added to world culture
in music art and science but this aroogance is certainly a syndrome that comes too all civilisations when they reach their summet
and then comes the fall
i post just to make you see the reality
and tell you that your xenophobia won't protect you nor your arrogance

i also feel sorry for your historical informations your are really ignorant
most of the informations you stated are
only superficial and doesn't fit the real historical context !!!!

I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU

Chuck!

That piece of information, together with all the other information in my post in the quoted topic, IS relevant in connection to how you, in the quoted topic, told the story about bin Laden�s "career" and his protests against the US troops in Saudi Arabia.

You made it seem like he actually began his career in the early 1990s, and that he became a terrorist and became hostile towards USA because of their presence in Saudi. The way you wrote it, made it look like deliberate disinformation. Or that you were badly misinformed, or disinformed, from whatever source.

If you have read my summary of bin Ladens career, in the other topic, you can also see that I end it with saying that my story ends where your story begins. I know that he led peaceful demonstrations, but I also know that he already was an Islamist Jihad leader, with his mind set on global Jihad, and that many, if not most people who followed him in his protests, also knew that. They knew it becuse he had spoken publicly about it ever since he returned from Afghanistan.

-------------------

In this topic you have, in different ways, pointed out that Saddam Hussein is totally harmless. That it is proven that he is no threat to USA, and that he would never help or arm terrorists. My post above shows the opposite, and is substantiated with historical facts. Something that was sadly missing in your whitewash of Saddam.

By adding the excerpts from the "did we deserve 911" topic, and your story about bin Laden�s career, I pointed out that this, about Saddam, was not your first unsubstantiated and/or flawed whitewash of someone the US leaders see as a threat to USA and the western world.

FoxLeonard

Straight up I find it highly doubtful that you can claim that Iran and Cuba are better off now then they were before the revolutions. They are still the armpits of the world my friend and their glorious leaders might have improved things a bit, but they have retarded so many other areas of growth that the potential for their country has been shattered. You are also wrong to claim that we only support people who put their money in our banks. How in the world does this profit america?

You might be able to debate about the government caring about only a few big companies, but unless the government has been hanfing out the rights to monopolies while my back was turned, many of the policies and legislation that are good for the big companies are good for the small ones. Kyoto was a piece of shit treaty that was filled with stringent industry breaking requirements that had little scientific proof to back their worth. Why should our soldiers go before the Hauge?

Terrorists target us because America is the great Satan. Satan is a seducer, and America with its freedom and opportunity seduces many people away from their theocratic societies where morality is enforeced with a gun. Our freedom to make choices about our values and decide our own morality is why we are hated.

Wealth does not come from the suffering of others. I doubt that you have ever opened an econ book that was not written by a Marxist. A seperat topic would be needed to explain why wealth generation and production is not a zero sum game.

Xenophobia. Big word. I know the meaning, but would you please care to explain what YOU mean by it?

You debate context, provide examples and explain.

Feel sorry for us poor Americans as much as you want, it means nothing to me.

i may have used the wrong term XENOPHOBIA
but what i really ment was that you are scared from all non american people

ok about kyoto if u signed it would be better this would boost renewable energy research and u will abadon the petrol and have your energy independance without too mutch blood

my question was simple since you respect human rights why you didn't sign the human crimes court treaty signed by all the world
i mean take this example if a police man asked me for my ID i will give it to him if i don't have nothing to loose and i didn't do anything wrong
you claim to bee a civilised nation
a civilisation nation doesn't do human crimes
so we will sign it !SIMPLE

sorry before Khumayni and Castro there was the shah in iran while his people starved he
made the most expensive weding,and birthday for his familly and he was a close friend of americans in fact a slave
and there was another cuban dictator but i forgot his name he sold cuba to american mafia and american considered cuba as another las vegas and cuban women as prostitute if the two countries didn't prospere it is because of american policies
you sieged cuba for decades and you do all your possible to stop technological devlopement in these countries maybe the new leaders are bad but the one before were worst and there is a difference

I think you may mean General Fulgencio Batista, but before him was the US backed dictator Gerado Machado. The USA were fine until a Commie got in, despite the fact Cuba had been under a dictatorship since 1492, except for a brief period where a democratic president was chosen on Cuba's behalf by the USA (note sarcasm). The Sierra Maestra was funded by USA though.

Both Iran and Cuba are better off than before their revolutions, I can't see why you don't accept that fact. Imagi9ne how much better they would be if USA didn't keep trying to sabotage them at every opportunity.

"How in the world does this profit america?" - That money is used to invest on the stock market and make a tidy profit for the bank managers, who are therefore rich, and controll your easily led Government who smell money a mile away. Golden Handshake leads to diplomatic support for the countries who pay the wages of the corporate fat bastards---- no matter how evil they are.

"many of the policies and legislation that are good for the big companies are good for the small ones." And many are not... but there are no policies that are good for only the small ones, thus giving the big companies an unfair advantage.

"Kyoto was a piece of shit treaty that was filled with stringent industry breaking requirements that had little scientific proof to back their worth." You believed that then? It's common sense that if you cut down on emissions then the environment will benefit. And there is almost infinite scientific proof to support it. The Kyoto treaty was perfect and as a redult, we have seen a dramatic improvement in the quality of our atmosphere... including healing of the ozone layer. Without Kyoto, it is doubtful that any of this would have happened. As the most influential nation in the world, America has the responsibility to set a godd example, by pulling out of th treatry you are removing the flagstone which holds it together.

Terorists target you because you are arrogant and need to be shown that you are not as powerful as you seem to think. Terrorists target you because they believe that it is the oinly way to achieve a listnening ear (it won't work but that is the reason). HOW STUPID ARE YOU? It is infuriating that you think it is because they are jealous? You are definitely either blind, or stupid or both not to see the reasons why the terrorists target America. Blaming jealousy is easy, but it's completely non-sensicle. for a start, if they wanted to experience the virtues of living in America (I personally wouldn't want to if my life depended on it), then they would move to America, like 100s do. If however they hate America becasue it is a raper of the world, which is a trillion times more likely, then they might be more likely to fly planes into buildings and try and kill you.

9-11 was a victory. The American people are now shitting themselves about terrorists. Next time, Al Quaeda will not attack again unless they can top 9-11.

quote:

---

"How in the world does this profit america?" - That money is used to invest on the stock market and make a tidy profit for the bank managers, who are therefore rich, and controll your easily led Government who smell money a mile away. Golden Handshake leads to diplomatic support for the countries who pay the wages of the corporate fat bastards---- no matter how evil they are.

---

You know nothing of the banking system. This is just plain ignorant of the banking system and the importance of the SEC.

quote:

---

"Kyoto was a piece of shit treaty that was filled with stringent industry breaking requirements that had little scientific proof to back their worth." You believed that then? It's common sense that if you cut down on emissions then the environment will benefit. And there is almost infinite scientific proof to support it. The Kyoto treaty was perfect and as a redult, we have seen a dramatic improvement in the quality of our atmosphere... including healing of the ozone layer. Without Kyoto, it is doubtful that any of this would have happened. As the most influential nation in the world, America has the responsibility to set a godd example, by pulling out of th treatry you are removing the flagstone which holds it together.

---

False. The enviroment does not heal or dammage quickly like you are insinuating. Global warming has never even been proved as a fact. Even if America did accept Kyoto, the industrialization of the third world would make it a moot point.

quote:

---

Terorists target you because you are arrogant and need to be shown that you are not as powerful as you seem to think. Terrorists target you because they believe that it is the oinly way to achieve a listnening ear (it won't work but that is the reason). HOW STUPID ARE YOU? It is infuriating that you think it is because they are jealous? You are definitely either blind, or stupid or both not to see the reasons why the terrorists target America. Blaming jealousy is easy, but it's completely non-sensicle. for a start, if they wanted to experience the virtues of living in America (I personally wouldn't want to if my life depended on it), then they would move to America, like 100s do. If however they hate America becasue it is a raper of the world, which is a trillion times more likely, then they might be more likely to fly planes into buildings and try and kill you.

9-11 was a victory. The American people are now shitting themselves about terrorists. Next time, Al Quaeda will not attack again unless they can top 9-11.

---

Terrorists target America because we are a living example of an alternative to their system that works better. Our existance is a deterioration of their power so they either have to demonize us as the great Satan, or try to make us look weak, thereby proving that they are stronger. Islam believs that Allah will reward his devout followers in this life and in the next. The paradox is then why do their countries lick balls if they are on the side of Allah.

We do not rape the world. This is the biggest lie of the globalization critics. If American business did not move overseas for their prouction, then many of these countries would be in worse shape than they are in now. American capital flows into those countries and provides access to machinery, technology, and builds the infrastructure. This accelerates the advancement of the country because they are unable to invest the ammounts of capital or technology needed to do this. In the country people can work on the farm, in the city, the factories provide much needed jobs. The third world simply does not have enough capital to invest in its future or exploit the efficiency of localized economies. What this comes down to is that YES!!!, the terrorsts are jealous of America, because we are the opposite of all their backwards beliefs and we are prospering while they continue to run their country into the ground. We are not raping the world, we are improving it faster than if other nations had to go it alone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
You know nothing of the banking system. This is just plain ignorant of the banking system and the importance of the SEC.

---

Yeah, you're probably right. I don't know anything about the banking system, perhaps you could explain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
False. The enviroment does not heal or dammage quickly like you are insinuating. Global warming has never even been proved as a fact. Even if America did accept Kyoto, the industrialization of the third world would make it a moot point.

---

Neither ahs the sky, or the existence of emotion, or that the Brain is how we think. The fact that i haven't seen any snow for 4 years, yet when I was 8 it fell for 2 months suggests something is heating up the atmosphere. It is proven that there is a massive hole in the Ozone layer, it has been proven that before the advent of CFCs, the hole was not there, it has been proved that CFC's react with Ozone to create a useless gas, and thus remove Ozone. It has ALSO been proven that since Kyoto it has healed significantly, my 6 month old brother can work out logic problems as simple as this. You can't possibly be that stupid, so you must be lying to save your arse from a corner you have argued your way into (American tradition?). The industrialisaton of the 3rd World also has to stop if we want to be still here in 100 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
We do not rape the world. This is the biggest lie of the globalization critics.

---

WAKE UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT! You are helping no-one but yourselves. It's not welcome, YOU are not welcome, and most of the world would probably happily see your country sink into the ocean. You help the evil to oppress the weak, regularly, how the hell can you not expect anyone to hate you for it. Again you astound me with your stupidity that you can't see this. And worse... you congratulate yourself for it! You fucking idiot.

Here is a quick explanation of the banking system. I will be using some technical terms but will try to explain as i go along. Banks make the majority of their income from the interest that is collected on their loans. A bank therefore wants to make as many loans as possible, in industrial terms, think of this as maximizing production. The ammount of loans a bank can issue is limited by the required legal reserve. If the legal reserve is 10%, an a bank has 1 million dollars worth of reserves, it can generate 10 million dollars worth of loans. This however does not take into account adverse check clearing which would substantially lower the sum. There are two major things that can help a bank and they ar both controlled by the Federal Reserve, which is independent of the Federal government. The first is to lower the required reserve rate, allowing the banks to generate more loans. The second is for the Federal Reserve to purchase securities on the open market. What this does is that it transfers money from the Fed, to the banks, which in escence is rasing the banks total reserves and therefore the banks excess reserves. The problem here is that this whole thing relates to the money supply and if it is "dicked with" too much, then there are problems of inflation and other things that ruin the economy. Banking, as an industry, really can not lobby their interests as the Federal Reserve is beyond outside influence. If you wanted to effect American politics, there are better ways than dumping money into a bank.

Your enviromental concepts are suffering from a fallacy of parts. Just becase A happens and then B happens, does not mean that A is responsible for B. In 1975, scientists noticed that temperature on average went down by 1 degree celsius and declared the possibility of an ice age. The most significant rise in temperature also took place at the first half of the century. Carbon dioxide is also not increaing as fast as UN projections as more of it is being captured by plants. It has also been shown that given its time frame and methods, Kyoto will have no appreciable effect.

The world does not want American factories on their land? They do not want the increase in campital flowing into their country? Any business requires a few things to operate effectively. The first is roads, and roads are a good that helps everyone. The second is water. Water either comes from a treatment plant or from a well. It requires pipes to be put in. Most likely the business will not need all the water, so it can make additional profit through distributing it. A busniess will need a port to ship its goods from, and a moderately adavanced port at that. At each stage I have just listed, their is a profit opportunity created for someone else to move in and supply the much needed good or service. More capital, that the natives themselves are unable to raise, flows into the country. More jobs are created and the miserable poverty of the city is aliviated.

You can argue about exploitation, but there are a few things wrong with that. The first is that no one is putting a gun to their head so they are free to either work or tell the factory to fuck off. The second is that unskilled workers compete for jobs by the wage that they are willing to work for. Many people applying for few jobs means that those who are willing to accept the least are the ones who will get hired. The third is that the lowest level of wage is determined by the next best available option. If you could make $5 dollars a day pulling scrap from a garbage heap, the factory first off will not pay you $4 and to attract workers, will pay slightly more than $5. The point being here that as more factories move into the country to use the cheap labor force, the factories will have many jobs for few workers, and then the factories compete by using higher wages.

You could claim enviromental dammage, but that is simmilar to what the US went through during the industrial revolution and and eventually grew out of. Lax enviromental laws also attract factories to a country. Why? Because it lowers the cost of doing business and increases the efficiency of investment. These people want the jobs, they want the money, and they want the products/goods that flow into their country.

The weak are not being oppressed, they are being helped. They are being given the opportunity to rise above subsitence level agriculture and have access to some of the worlds most advanced capital goods. Look at South Korea and Taiwan! They started out "being exploited" but now are some of the richest nations in the world. If you understood economics, you would understand what I am talking about. For the Americans living in our "ivory towers," it sucks for them, but for the people actually living in the countries, it is a trememndous improvement. They go from wallowing in shit, to a job. Since the money supply in their country is so low, prices are low. You cannot count the nominal ammount of income, you have to look at the real ammount of income. You also have to loop at the PPP, the purchasing price parity. Wages in mexico are low, but for any one who has been south of the border, the prices are insanely low.

If A happens, and then B happens too, it can go down to coincidence. But if A happens repeatedly, and the "coincidence" occurs every single time, it would be reasonable to make a theory that A is responsible for B, especially if B doesn't happen without A, and every time A happens, B happens. Obviously then you can do research to confirm whether A is responsible for B and you may find that A definitely is responsible for B. You can then try and ascertain WHY A is responsible for B.

Carbon Dioxide IS produced by factoies, that is a PROVEN FACT. The Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere HAS increased is also a PROVEN FACT (you can test it yourself for about a dollar). It only requires the common sense of an imbecile to work out why the CO2 levels have risen, and in case there was any doubt, the rise coincides exactly with the rise in factory outputs. This is a coincidence of godly proportions, or the two are connected. CO2 definitely is lighter than Ozone (whch consists of 3 Oxygen atoms) as it consists of 2 oxygen atoms (of atomic mass 16) and 1 Nitrogen atom (of atomic mass 1), and it DEFINITELY supplants Ozone (I don't know why, but it is a PROVEN FACT). THEREFORE it is reasonable to assume that it would be less effective at protecting us from the Sun's radiation than the denser Ozone, which also protects us by absorbing the same UV rays. If CO2 levels rise, then Ozone levels drop...and therefore, more UV gets in to the atmosphere, and heats it up. (Ozone naturally floats away from the poles hence the holes are at the poles).

It is also notable that since the Kyoto Treaty, the CO2 levels have dropped, and the Ozone hole has repaired itself (so obviously it does heal itself that quickly). However it could be a series of massive coincidences that about 100 different things prove the existence of Global Warming. There is more proof for Global Warming than there is for Dinosaurs. By denying Global Warming you are assisting the selfish oil companies who have a complete disregard for the future generations... They are raking it in now, and soon they will be dead, they will not live to see the human race suffocating because there aren't enough trees to produce oxygen for us all, so what do they care?

quote:

---

There is more proof for Global Warming than there is for Dinosaurs

---

Such a blatant overexageration, global warming as a theory has been proven, but not global warming as a reality. It is folly to beleive that a planet that is so huge could be dammaged to the extreme levels you are talking about. Carbon dioxide levels are going up, but then again, so is the ammount of CO2 being absorbed by plants. In other words, the more C02, the better the enviroment for plants, the more they grow, the more they consume. There are more trees in America now then there were 100 years ago! The majority of the worlds oxygen is produced by plankton and algae in the ocean, not by the rainforests!

You can argue that CO2 levels have gone up or down, but you still have not proven that either level was sufficient enough to cause or ammend global warming.

How do oil companines not have any regard for future generations? This is more propagana just like your lack of oxygen line.

Finally, someone who understands that just because a scientist publishes his/her theory in a journal with data doesn't necessarily make his results conclusive. Global warming is not proven by anything, and just because you haven't built a snowman in a few years doesn't mean the global temperature is increasing.

Kyoto was a treaty that unfairly burdened the US while allowing others to free-ride, and was based on green science that is contradicted by plenty of evidence on the other side. Not in our interests=not going to be signed by the US.

NGOs and treaties are all fun and games, but at the end of the day, states are only operating to secure their economic and military goals. Always have, always will. And thank Dog for that.

Chuck, just curious, have you ever been to Cuba?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
Chuck, just curious, have you ever been to Cuba?

---

In another topic he alludes to the fact, however, he's only 16 (by his own admission) and I seriously doubt Mommy would allow him to go unsupervised. Hopefully, Daddy won't either. The part I like best is the claim he made about writing articles for the global headline-making magazine (which I never heard of) called "Cuba Si". I still await him to show me one of his "articles".

Nox

personallyu i'm 22
and there are some 13 years old people that are more mature than some people aged 30
in totse
age has nothing to do with mentalit or views
in all his posts chukstone exposed facts
and gave eveidences using logic reasoning
if you can't do the same don't change this post in to an age flaming "your too young to understand politics"
and try to answer the post

quote:

---

CO2 definitely is lighter than Ozone (whch consists of 3 Oxygen atoms) as it consists of 2 oxygen atoms (of atomic mass 16) and 1 Nitrogen atom (of atomic mass 1)

---

WTF? Carbon dioxide or C02 consists of 2 oxygen atoms and 1 carbon atom (average atomic mass 12.01). Nitrogen, which isn't part of a carbon dioxide molecule, has an average atomic mass of 14.01, not 1. Not the strongest scientific starting point.

The theory of man-made global warming has nothing to do with the hole in the ozone (linked to skin cancer). The theory is the "Greenhouse Effect" - that higher concentrations of gases with larger molecules eg carbon dioxide and methane, which are produced by human activity* for an insulating layer preventing the sun's rays reflecting off the earth's surface and exiting the atmosphere. It may be demonstrable in a laboratory; in reality the effects are negligible.

More realistic but less often discussed hypotheses for global warming (which has been going on since long before the Industrial Revolution) include changes in sunspot activity.

*methane is produced in more significant quantities by herds of cows farting...


[This message has been edited by FuckOffandDie (edited 11-13-2002).]

The definition of an ice age is any time when permanent ice caps are present on Earth (poles are colder so they will be there). So reallt, the ice age hasn't ended yet. Before the ice age started, Earth was considerably warmer than it is today, so it stands to reason that it should revert to that state at some point in the future (as an ice age is an abnormality). I will cite that as a possible reason for global warming (which does exist, greenhous effect maight not). BUT, it stands to reasn that the causes of thte greenhouse effect will also cause an increase in temperature. Whilst some of the causes may be out of our control, I don't want the human race to be extict anytime soon, especially if we can slow it down. On a more urgent timescale, the ice caps ARE melting, and New York will disappear (I'm fine, because I'm quite inland, the waterline will be approximately 5 miles east of me), if there is a chance no matter how small that we can slow this down... don't you think we should take it. Kyoto does no harm, only potential good, so why pull out? unless Esso told you to. (Harm to the capitalists is only harm to a microscopic minority, who we should have no care for whatsoever)

Your definition of an ice age seems to be, well, odd. In fact an ice age is anytime when ice sheets and glaciers extend beyod their present limits.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

Here is a web page that states that if both ice caps melted, the oceans would only rise about 200 feet.

quote:

---

Kyoto does no harm, only potential good, so why pull out? unless Esso told you to. (Harm to the capitalists is only harm to a microscopic minority, who we should have no care for whatsoever)

---

Kyoto unfairly burdens industry. Who do you think made the computer you are using and everything around you? Capitalists did, unless for some reason you decided to buy everything from those quaint and delightful Amish. What I am getting at here is that to hurt the capitalists, you are hurting those who produce EVERYTHING around. Well, not everything, but enough to make your life suck real bad if it all disapered. Kyoto at the very least raises prices and this puts many "luxury" items out of the reach of the poor. The rich really aren't as effected by changes in prices and it is the middle class and poor who suffer. Most fancy laws and legislation that is aimed at helping the poor actually hurts them.

when will you realise that you polute maybe your waiting for a very huge flood then it will be tool late and all what your industry
won previously will not be enough to recover
WAKE UP

I am going to ask you to rewrite that. As is, it is difficult but not impossible to understand your point.

1st)english is not my native language
i mean simply that you will realise your pollution when it will be too late and you will be probably swimming because of a flood

or in my language
maghadi tfehmou zamel boukoum biana rakoum tatlewthou lbayaa tay koun fat lfout wtat
tooum fmerja wetebki 3la lkahba limak

has anyone noticed how f***ed up the weather is in the world today. El Nino gets worse every year, I haven't seen snow in 2 years (no massive deal but it means something is up), Italy is suffering massive tectonic activity...and so is Manchester (although that is completely unrelated). This kind of activity has never been recorded before in history, so it is fair to assume that has never happened (although the Bible mentions similar events in Exodus). While it is possible that this is not our fault... it is very likely, and the American people are just in denial because this is mainly their fault. While the develping world does pollute on a large scale... it is nowhere near the scale that the USA pollutes. More importantly, USA is seen as a benchmark to be emulated, if it acts irresponsibly, it is setting a bad example by pulling out of Kyoto. This is a similar situation to the League of Nations downfall, once Germany left, it caught on, and as a result WW2 happened.

You might be safe NukeChild, but Global Warming will very badly affect me, and PrinceCharmant. Morrocco will become even more arid and probably end up like Ethiopia, while Britain will shrink massively. London will vanish etc. and we will freeze, due to a shift in the Gulf Stream.

Kyoto burdens industry to protect the world from selfish cunts like you who are only interested in filling their own pockets at the expense of maybe only a few thousand lives, and only a few million livelihoods.

If only I could type with such unpunctuated enthusiasm, if you'll pardon the pun. And I understand those who are writing english when it isn't their native language, but I also ask that those who are nearly fluent make an effort to be more coherent. It's more enjoyable to read, and respond to, postings that aren't so much rambling nonsense.

Kyoto would stop the usage of nonrenewable fossils fuels? Don't count on it.

The ICC is a bad idea. Wouldn't the world be great if everybody was really like the mythical policeman you use in your allegory? Why yes officer, I know you are altruistically looking out for my best interests and so I'm happy to provide you with my ID, because I have nothig to hide.

Well, my friend, authorities are not benign at a national level. I am just as interested in being protected from my government as I am from the criminals in my city. Police where I come from are notorious for persecuting, framing, and harassing people who are innocent. There must be provisions to protect the people from these transgressions.

In terms of the Int'l Criminal Court, the US, being the member of NATO and the UN that is inevitably responsible for contributing heavily to peacekeeping and peacemaking operations, would bear the price of these operations while others permit themselves to free ride, and then have the audacity to criticise and prosecute. Unacceptable.

ICC is reminiscent of a district court that accords no rights to the defendant, has no accountability and no responsiveness, and enforces laws that supposed "criminals" have no way of understanding, much less obeying. This is not something I want my country to be a part of: a kangaroo court of foreigners who decide when I have violated someone else's human rights---especially when the Human Rights commission in the UN boasts such a stellar gallery of human rights violators as Syria, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, Cuba, China, the Congo, Saudi Arabia...the list goes on.

Libya as chair of the commission? Why not have criminals sit on juries, or wear the tunic of a judge?

U.N. human rights bodies have in recent years expressed serious concerns about human rights in Libya, including:
- extrajudicial and summary executions perpetrated by state agents
- a high incidence of arbitrary arrest and long-term detention without trial
- the systematic use of torture and other ill-treatment or punishment
- imposition of the death penalty for offences that cannot be characterized as the most serious, including political and economic offences
- lack of judicial independence
- continuing inequality between women and men in such areas as inheritance, freedom of movement, nationality and divorce
- numerous restrictions in law and practice on freedom of expression and, in particular, the right to express opposition or criticism of the government.

(source: Human Rights Watch)

I have never had faith in any system of international law. It relies on a threat that cannot be enforced fairly and impartially. Frivolous suits will be the norm, and states will use the court to further their own agendas, not to protect anything. Thank you very little.

The Gulf-Stream, and other streams, have shifted several times in the history of the world. None of the earlier changes was caused by humanity, or by something that humanity could interfere with now.

There has been much more severe, and fast, changes in climate, than those we see now. Once again, they were not caused by humanity, as we were not even around when most of them happened.

This is not to say that we shouldn�t have concern for the enviroment and the ecology. But we must have it for the right reasons. Otherwise we can never do anything about it. Or, even worse, we will spend all our efforts (and money) on the alleged, politically correct, cause, while the actual problems develop into an actual catastrophy, that we will not be able to handle...

FoxLeonard

People die of cancer, some even die just because they are old. Is that to say that shooting a guy 8 times in the head can't kill him?

Yes, I agree that the environment has changed significantly before humans were here. But never as dramatically as it is doing now. Geologically a short time might be only a few million years, that's the sort of timescale the earlier climate changes have had. Only certain K2 events have been as dramatic as this one, the sort that killed the dinosaurs, and they have all coincided with a cataclysmic event... not just natural changes as you are suggesting.

to my knowledge, we haven't been hit by a rock the size of Manhatten for a few million years, so what is the cataclysmic event? Other than the obvious, that anybody with half a brain cell can work out, that we are doing it.

It is only Americans who claim that Global Warming is a natural process, and they only do it so they can continue pumping our atmosphere with poisonous gas and acid to feed their grotesque obesety. I suppose you also believe that Acid rain is natural too.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DID YOU KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That in New York, it is 10 times more likely to rain on a friday night than a Monday morning. This is because the gases pumped out into the atmosphere gather in the clouds throughout the week and make them heavier. So the chance of rain increases all week. On Sunday, the clouds are usually lighter because weekends see lower emmissions and the rain has probably already fallen on Friday night.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or is it coincidence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
It is only Americans who claim that Global Warming is a natural process, and they only do it so they can continue pumping our atmosphere with poisonous gas and acid to feed their grotesque obesety.

---

I suppose the damage done to the forests of Germany is the fault of the obese Americans. Here you go again, blaming all the problems of the world on the USA. I also seem to recall reading about the pollution of the Thames River, and something about Liverpool. O well, it's America's fault anyway so why bother thinking about it or correcting it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DID YOU KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That in New York, it is 10 times more likely to rain on a friday night than a Monday morning. This is because the gases pumped out into the atmosphere gather in the clouds throughout the week and make them heavier. So the chance of rain increases all week. On Sunday, the clouds are usually lighter because weekends see lower emmissions and the rain has probably already fallen on Friday night.

---

No. I did not know that. Where did this pearl of wisdom come from. And there is no sarcasm here, I am curious.

Nox

That last bit of info is as misleading and invented as anything I've heard Chuck spout yet. If clouds get heavier over the week, it doesn't make it more likely to rain on the weekend. And even following your retarded, unscientific logic, if the clouds got "heavier," they could still retain precipitation over the weekend and pour it out on Tuesday or Wednesday or whenever.

Jesus, you think up some wacky shit to pass off as truth. And have you ever been to New York, you knob? You never answered me before, either: ever been to Cuba?

Global warming is a natural process. That's why the earth has been warming since long before the Industrial Revolution.

Yup, and so is the converse, global cooling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by princecharmant1980:
these are some things Mr bush Jr said at the UN i wanted to post this earlier but i forgot

1)he said Irak tryed to assasinate a former US president
answer:why didn't he mention that he was his father so it's personal
what about CIA assacination plots against Castro in CUba and Khoumayni in Iran
they are foreign presidents too

2)Bush said that Irak attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990

answer : did you remark the iranian delegation laugh and smile about Bush hypocrisy in UN
because who visited Irak in 1983
(Ramsfeld) he was the envoyee of reagan to sadam to tell him that USA support him millitary and morally against Iran !
Bush Sr was also head of CIA in 80s

3)he said Irak isn't a democracy hence USA wan't to save the poor Iraki people

answer : i agree but there no single arab democracy for instance i stated in a previous post about not voting in Moroccan parliamentary ellections
i was right Moroccan chosed a majority from socialists and the King just ignored their decision and set up a prime minister ho dosn't belong to any party and chalanged the public choice what Marguerite Tutweller said about it (THE US AMBASSADOR) it's a good choice and congratulated the king for choosing his prime minister so where is support for democracy
unless democracy in american standards isn't people choice .
Similar examples are not hard to find in other regions of the world .

4)he said we will show evidence about Irak having Mass Murder Weapons

answer : show them ,and i guess USA has no Mass Murder Weapons
who is the only country that effectively used nukes?

5)Irak used Chemical Weapons against his own people:

answer : yeah your right but USA was aware of it and USA,germany and France helped him to build his chemical infastructure since he used the same chemical weapons against Iranian troops .
what about secret human experience on native americans made by US gov in 1960s


Conclusion Bush Jr wants to attack Irak because his DAD told him to do so
GOOD BOY

---

Q1. you fail to mention our suport of israel despite thier use of assasination.

Q2. and the US has invaded (in no perticular order) germany, japan, grenada(like 11 times), panama, guam, philipines, mexico, afghanistan, russia(during the revolution), cuba(spanish american war). the US tried to invade canada(war of 1812) and vietnam. we have engineered coups in iran, guatemala, honduras, iraq, and florida.

Q4.this is a non point. the US supports more non democracies than we do democracies. its just to get all the liberals on board, like womens lib in afghanistan. BULLSHIT

Q4. and if iraq does have WMD why are we invading them? wont they fucking use them? WMD are primarily used for deterence. and why did we nuke japan TWICE? we are the only nation that has used nukes. we would use them more if everyone else didn't have em.

Q5. they weren't his own people. they were kurds. because the colonial powers drew the borders of iraq as they did, a large population of kurds was included in the borders of a non kurdish nation. add to that the fact that the US has done similar things such as test our nukes out on our own military. the US has also continues to develop biological and chemical weapons. We also dont seem to give a shit when russia gasses its own people.

The earth has been warming up before the industrial revolution, BUT NOT AT THE RATE OF 0.5 DEGREES CELSIUS A YEAR. The USA has to cut their emissions because i am exposed to the sun's UV rays here in New Zealand and im gonna get pissed if it gets any bigger(the hole in the ozone).