Jihad This!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 25, 2002, 12:58 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:I don't give a fuck how stable it is. Leave them alone and let them self-destruct if that's what they want. It's not your country to fuck around in.

The last time the world took your advice, a few million jews ended up dead and Europe was conquered. Could you, Kyoukan, imagine what the world would be like today if the US took our forefathers advice and stayed out of European business during Hitlers megalomaniacian thrust?

With this single example of how bad things can get when psychos with power are left *alone* to do with their region *what they want*...I 100% disagree with your proposition of leaving them with their own devices.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 25, 2002, 1:09 am

The difference being that Hitler invaded a shitload of nations, and was clearly able and willing to go as far as he could, whereas Saddam has invaded no-one since we beat him down, and has shown no ability or willingness to even attempt to conquer the world.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 25, 2002, 1:27 am

You forget, Hitler started by *reuniting* Austria, and later Eastern Europe, while world leaders called him names but did nothing to stop it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 25, 2002, 1:27 am

Krimson Klaw wrote: The last time the world took your advice, a few million jews ended up dead and Europe was conquered. Could you, Kyoukan, imagine what the world would be like today if the US took our forefathers advice and stayed out of European business during Hitlers megalomaniacian thrust?

Ridiculous comparison. Hitler was left to his own devices for far longer than he should have been even by his neighboring countries. I don't see any Hitlers in the middle east.

The world is a lot smaller now than what it was in 40s. If somebody started massacring an entire race, the whole world would know about it instantly.

By your logic, the US should establish a heavy military precense in every country in the world "just in case."

Don't invoke godwin's law in a middle east thread.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 25, 2002, 1:29 am

No, I don't agree, it's not the US's place to be world police, I thought that's what the UN was for. The UN should be the one leading the charge on this, not having the US force feading them into enforcing their own rules.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 25, 2002, 1:30 am

Well guys a couple points you can take either way.

1) Sueven: IMO a "protest" like you are proposing is ludicrous. If you are as concerned about the state of your government as the idea of a "protest" implies, then why do you and your friends not a) get involved with the political organization that is closest to your view and try to convince people to share those views or b) if the existing parties are too far afield, you or one of your friends can run as an independant, can't you? (please forgive my partial ignorance: I am Canadian and we do have that right, as well as 4-5 "major" political parties and numerous fringe parties for every election) If you can garner any type of support, it shows the "winner" that there are a number of his/her constituents concerned with your issues. At the very least your protest is shown to be more than some pouting young people.

2) No matter what happens, people will continue to die over there. The Western world guaranteed that when the ousted the Palestinians and created the modern state of Israel, in their orgy of post WW2 shame. That decision can't be undone, without the dissolution of the state of Israel and that ain't gonna happen. The Israelis have close ties to the US (that they earned through being the US' most steadfast supporter in the region throughout the Cold War). If the US totally withdraws, the Israelis face the Arab World alone: if not, the US is embroiled in the hostilities until things can be resolved (if ever). One thing I have never been clear on is whether or not Israel is nuclear capable... that in itself, with their penchant for extreme conservative (borderline xenophobic in some cases) governments is unsettling.

3) The oil thing. What you guys have spouted is uninformed BS unless you are talking solely about conventional oil reserves. In NW Canada exist something called the Athabasca Oil Sands. They are basically a huge tar pit where petroleum has naturally migrated to surface. The reserves here are estimated to be between 100-250% of the volume of the Persian Gulf. Larger deposits also exist in South America. This oil is recoverable, but the cost to recover is something in the order of about $10 per bbl, vs the $2 per bbl to produce middle eastern oil. Some companies have started to mine these oilsands in Alberta but the fact remains that as long as the cost differential is that extreme, the profit margin is smaller, so people continue to tie themselves to the Middle East. There are also new conventional oil reserves being discovered off the NE coast of the States and Canada. If the West really wants to be rid of Middle Eastern oil dependance, it can be done, but it will require investment and research (in essence doubling the price you pay at the pumps). The avenue of alternative energy sources is also closer than many may appreciate.

4) As far as the "war in Iraq" goes, we, as the general public will never know the whole truth until long after it is over. Its the old "the information is classifed as need-to-know and you don't need to know". The information that the US government has, will be shared with other powers (Britain, the Russians, Germany, etc) to ensure their neutrality if not open support. To be honest I think that will be a more valid indication of the "danger" than anything else, although this could be purchased/encouraged (i.e. Bush phones Moscow and offer $X Billion in aid for support). And no I don't trust the French: they have a habit of trying to score cheap political points by playing "devil's advocate".

5) The "natural" opposition of the Arab World to the West. If they truly follow the teachings of their religion (like the Sunnis, which most of Saudi Arabia is) they may not like a lot of what happens in the West, but it is their "duty" to preach and convert, not declare war. Fanatics, like anywhere else, will always be dangerous to others, be they Arab, African, Columbian, Irish or American. They will search and find a reason to hate. The fact that so many Middle Eastern people have come to the North America and Europe speaks volumes in terms of the people just wanting a better life for themselves and their children, without the violence.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 25, 2002, 1:34 am

or from your own fucking government? Do you have any idea how the people there live and go about their lives?

Oh, here is a great reason to stay out of the middle east.

You can talk about how bad the governments there are then in the VERY NEXT BREATH talk about valuing your freedom.

Sir, one of the most potent ways to show how much you 'value' your freedom is to extend the chance of experiencing it to others. Don't tell me about valuing freedom when you are unwilling to get off your ass and offer it to a people you yourself claim are being bungholed by their own leaders.

As for my knowledge of the Middle East, it's largely historical. Lots of time in a history degree coupled with an intense interest in Europe and the middle ages. More than enought o know this isn't a new conflict, more than enough to understand that on their own the only solution the Palestines and Israelies will accept is the anhilliation of the opposing group.

If you ahve an idea more constructive than "Fuck them, let em die", let's hear it.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 25, 2002, 3:44 am

Pardon me, my history is not too great. At what point did Israel become a nation? Was there conflict in Palestine preceeding WWII?

one of the most potent ways to show how much you 'value' your freedom is to extend the chance of experiencing it to others

Extend the chance of experiencing it to others by invading them and killing half their population, then staying there and supporting the political group that benefits my future the most for years on end? All the while, increasing possible terrorism in my own country and to my own people?

Forcing people to believe in what you believe is ok. Doesn't matter what you believe as long as you force others to see your view and follow it. Democracy? Christianity? Capitolism? EVERYONE IN THE WORLD SHOULD BELIEVE IN THESE THINGS, THEY ARE SO AWESOME. Yeah.

If they don't like it we can bomb 'em. Soon the entire world will be one huge democracy, except that they will have electoral votes from member states, and some people's votes won't count, oh and there will only be 2 choices. Then the world government can be just like the U.S. government. Company's can pay them money to pass laws that benefits them. I see the vision now!

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 25, 2002, 11:07 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:I don't disagree, but I certainly don't think the oil would stop flowing. It is in the middle easts best interests to make sure soccer moms have a full tank of 96 octane in their bloated oversized SUV of doom. Islamic people arent adverse to making money.

Although when I am overqueen of north america, phase 2 of my plan would be to dump a whole fucking assload into alternative energy research. The government in the west is typically dragging their asses on it because huge fossil fuel energy companies are making sure they drag their asses on it. Eventually the world is going to run out of fossil fuels; especially crude oil. In fact it will probably be in my lifetime where shortages start to appear and major reserves start to dry out. It will definitely be in my lifetime if major energy corporations get their way and keep the status quo of selling as much crude as they can.

I would love to have an alternative to burning fossil fuels in vehicles and most machinery. It would be great to stiff the fucking shit out of the middle east oil barons and huge oil companies out of their only source of income. A lot of alternative energy sources could be produced and manufactured right in north america, so not only would it be cleaner but it would create tens or even hundreds of thousands of new jobs, instead of all that money going to sultans in Saudi Arabia and corrupt governments in Venezuala.

OMG! I actually agree with this statement. Not only do I agree but I believe in it. The only problem I see is that when we stop buying foreign oil and they no longer have the US cash cow, what will they do? My guess is that they will go to war to attain the resources they need.

I have a 45 minute drive to work each day and I see a lot of pickups and suv's on the road and I have to wonder how the hell they can afford to fill those tanks if they have the same drive as I do. I have a gas miser 4 cyclinder and I am still filling up every 4 days. Honestly, why do people have pickups if they don't use them for work? I mean actual work hauling shit. I passed an old guy driving an Echo on the road today and I was thinking how this guy is taking the step forward into the future.

On a worse note, Xyun, how dare you cry, "you don't know me or anything about me so don't make statements" when you are as big an offender as there is on these boards.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2002, 11:08 am

Wulfran: doubling the price at the pump raises the price of virtually every consumer good in this country.

Almost all consumer goods are transported by truck for some, if not most of their journey to market.

As to the points about Oil Reserves in North America, i certainly don't claim expertise in this area. As i said, i am simply paraphrasing a WSJ article.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 25, 2002, 11:18 am

Good grief.

Give me a minute, your last post is bullshit piled so high it's going to take a while to divide it up.

At what point did Israel become a nation? Was there conflict in Palestine preceeding WWII?

Yes. It's easily traceable back to just after the Crusades, then gets murky because historical documentation during that period is close to non-existant. There are hints of the conflict all the way back to biblical times.

That's why nothing short of enforced separation or anhiliation of one group will end the conflict. This isn't a battle over land or religion anymore, it's a cultural institution for both nations.

Extend the chance of experiencing it to others by invading them and killing half their population, then staying there and supporting the political group that benefits my future the most for years on end? All the while, increasing possible terrorism in my own country and to my own people?

Forcing people to believe in what you believe is ok. Doesn't matter what you believe as long as you force others to see your view and follow it. Democracy? Christianity? Capitolism? EVERYONE IN THE WORLD SHOULD BELIEVE IN THESE THINGS, THEY ARE SO AWESOME. Yeah.

If they don't like it we can bomb 'em. Soon the entire world will be one huge democracy, except that they will have electoral votes from member states, and some people's votes won't count, oh and there will only be 2 choices. Then the world government can be just like the U.S. government. Company's can pay them money to pass laws that benefits them. I see the vision now!

First off, let me say that bitching about democracy when the current choice is to live as you are told or be shot in the street is just unbelievably moronic. Second, you cannot force someone into a democracy. If you don't understand why, then you not only slept through your history courses, you flunked Civics as well.

Second, those corporations you like to rave about hold power for one reason. The citizens of this great nation are too fucking complacent to do anything about it. We hold the power to remove any politician from office who is even suspected of catering to special interest, and to keep doing so every election until we get a candidate we like. It's much easier, however, to sit around and bitch about the process while sitting in front of a machine that represents technology most countries have never even seen.

Forcing people to believe in what you believe is ok.

I had to pull this one out. You say your father was killed for being an atheist in a religious country. You came to the United States, where freedom of religion is a right (including the right to throw religion out the window all together). You then come to this forum and accuse the United States of forcing other countries to our beliefs?

Xyun, you need so switch meds man. You make absolutely no fucking sense. You cry about your father being killed for his choices, then sit in a country offering freedom beyond belief and accuse that same country of trying to dominate the freedoms of the rest of the world.

/boggle

Post by **Xouqoa** » October 25, 2002, 11:33 am

I think someone here mentioned it before, but I think the US Government should create a Manhatten Project for researching and developing alternative energy resources.... find a way to make them so compelling, that people won't have any choice but to use them.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2002, 11:37 am

Xouqoa wrote:I think someone here mentioned it before, but I think the US Government should create a Manhatten Project for researching and developing alternative energy resources.... find a way to make them so compelling, that people won't have any choice but to use them.

that's a great idea.

considering though how many $10s of millions both the President and VP have made from the petroleum industry, i dont see that happening anytime soon.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 25, 2002, 12:12 pm

Here's some things Dubya did within his first year in office for resources and our environment:

* Cut funding for renewable recourses by 50%

* Cut funding for cleaner, more efficiant cars and trucks by 28%

* Broke campaign promise to invest 100$ million per year in rain forest conservation

* Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocal agreement on global warming, which was signed by 178 other countries

* Cut half a billion from the Environmental Protection Agency's budget

* Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbone dioxide emissions in automobiles and factories

* Approved area off Florida's eastern shore for gas and oil development

* Tried to reverse federal regulations protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging

* Canceled the 2004 deadline for auto makers to develope prototype high milage cars

* Eased the permit process for constructing refineries and nuclear and hydor electirc dams, including lowering environmental standards

* Fought against a bill that would reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water

* Revoked rules that allowed the governemt to deny contracts to companies that violate environmental laws and workplace safety standards

GO BUSH!! YOU FUCKING ROCK!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 25, 2002, 12:12 pm

What Voron said.

There is so much money tied into oil and too many influencial people who gain from it's sale that it'll be a real long time before there's a switch. Even the electric/gas hybrid cars sell like crap while the suv's keep rolling off the lots.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 25, 2002, 12:20 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Here's some things Dubya did within his first year in office for resources and our environment:

* Cut funding for renewable recourses by 50%

* Cut funding for cleaner, more efficiant cars and trucks by 28%

* Broke campaign promise to invest 100$ million per year in rain forest conservation

* Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocal agreement on global warming, which was signed by 178 other countries

* Cut half a billion from the Environmental Protection Agency's budget

* Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbone dioxide emissions in automobiles and factories

* Approved area off Florida's eastern shore for gas and oil development

* Tried to reverse federal regulations protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging

* Canceled the 2004 deadline for auto makers to develope prototype high milage cars

* Eased the permit process for constructing refineries and nuclear and hydor electirc dams, including lowering environmental standards

* Fought against a bill that would reduce acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water

* Revoked rules that allowed the governemt to deny contracts to companies that violate environmental laws and workplace safety standards

GO BUSH!! YOU FUCKING ROCK!

Doesn't he have Whitman as head of the environment? Yeah, she did a whole lot of cleanup for my armpit of a state

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 25, 2002, 12:28 pm

Doesn't he have Whitman as head of the environment? Yeah, she did a whole lot of cleanup for my armpit of a state

Don't get me started... The list of assholes, fuck-ups, buy-outs, and sell-outs that he has appointed to various heads of government will make your head spin.

Post by **Xouqoa** » October 25, 2002, 12:59 pm

Voronwë wrote: that's a great idea.

considering though how many $10s of millions both the President and VP have made from the petroleum industry, i dont see that happening anytime soon.

There's a profit to be made in those industries, just the same as the petroleum industry. There would just be a period of adjustment during the conversion. Can you imagine pulling into a Mobil Hydrogen station to fill up your car? It could happen, but not until the greedy motherfuckers in charge of these things get over their obsession with monetary gains and $10,000 Armani suits.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 25, 2002, 1:27 pm

It's interesting that the most probable source of alternative fuel would also be controlled by the oil industry.

Millions of cubic metres of methane have been found trapped uder the rock of the continental shelf.

Guess who owns the rigs that can reach it? The distribution system?

Right now, oil is more profitable because the R&D has already been paid for. Look for a switch to methane as a fuel source as soon as new techniques for mining oil make it the more costly option.

Post by **Xouqoa** » October 25, 2002, 1:35 pm

Fallanthas wrote: Right now, oil is more profitable because the R&D has already been paid for. Look for a switch to methane as a fuel source as soon as new techniques for mining oil make it the more costly option.

I was thinking more along the lines of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, Solar Power, that sort of thing. Renewable resources, not natural resources.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 25, 2002, 1:50 pm

Aye, but renewables are quite a ways off yet, if we are discussing fuels for automobiles.

Methane takes only a few tweaks to a standard powerplant. We have a few farmers around here who use the stuff to run their tracotrs and 3 ton farm trucks already.

I'd say renewables are probably better suited to produce electricity than as a fuel. Of course, we could have been there already with nuclear if people were a bit more logical in their prejudices.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 25, 2002, 1:50 pm

Don't forget all the gas we can get from COW FARTS. How much did we spend on that research? Though I think it had something to do with the ozone and not a source of feul.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 25, 2002, 1:53 pm

I saw the other day that Some European country had a battery powered car that could sustain 80mph...pricetag of 400k heh.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 25, 2002, 2:03 pm

Don't forget all the gas we can get from COW FARTS.

^^ METHANE!!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2002, 3:11 pm

If I remember my ancient history correctly the Roman Emperor Hadrian got fed up with the Jews in Israel revolting over and over.

He was so fed up that he expelled all of the Jews from Israel at about 100AD and encouraged the locals from the region to populate the void.

He labeled this land Palistine.

So, if you want a starting point, perhaps the first usage of the word Palistine would be a good point.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2002, 3:12 pm

I'm not sure but I think they called that kicking out of the Jews around 100AD as the "Diaspora".

I'm not positive.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 25, 2002, 3:39 pm

Wulfran: I am not claiming that intentionally abstaining from voting is acceptable, as a sole form of political participation. However, I participate in a number of other ways, through protesting, speaking, writing letters, and so forth.

The problem with running as an independent in any major election is that America is, for all intents and purposes, a two-party system. Further, the distinctions between these two parties have become so blurred as to be practically indistinguishable. Running for political office requires a huge amount of money, which requires you to either become a corporate tool (which is the very thing I oppose), or to be independently wealthy, which I am certainly not. Further, due to my youth, I am too young to run for a number of political positions. I also find it useless to spend an exorbitant amount of time running for a position which I have no chance of winning.

Additionaly, even when independents do garner support, as does occasionaly happen (sometimes they even win), this is viewed as a simple aberration by those in power. I truly believe that the majority of our lawmakers are no longer interested in representing the people. Our political system has devolved from Democrat vs Republican or Liberal vs Conservative into Rich vs Poor, priveleged vs unpriveleged, the haves vs the have-nots. The problem is that only one half of those equations is represented on the ballot.

Whether I vote for Bush or Gore, or a local democrat or a local republican, the outcome will be the same: The man in power will be a corporate tool, most likely a lawyer, concerned with protecting the interests of the rich and maintaing the status quo, instead of instituting any real, useful change that would fix some of the many problems in this country.

Why would I vote for someone like that?

There are a growing number of people who think like I do, who share similar opinions and values. Many of us are young, some are not, but eventually our presence will be manifested.

While it may not be a factual political dissertation, the music video for "Testify," by Rage Against the Machine (directed by Michael Moore), provides a humorous and fairly accurate perspective on my views.

For a more factual perspective, I recommend the book "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road Except Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos," by Jim Hightower.

The power structure is raising a generation of young Abbie Hoffmans. I look forward to seeing what happens over the next few years.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2002, 3:43 pm

the ONLY thing not voting will ensure is that the Status Quo remains.

if you support 3rd party candidates, vote for them. Sign petitions to get them on the ballot. Stick a bumper sticker on your car.

not voting will not do anything to change the way Rep/Dem approach things. It makes them even more polarized to their core constituencies then.

It makes it so they don't have to represent your interests and people with opinions like you, because you are impotent to prevent them from continueing their position by voting for one of their competitors.

votes do matter, and the last presidential election demonstrated that.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 25, 2002, 3:48 pm

Sueven, we are kinderd spirits. Check out Micheal Moore's other Rage video, Sleep Now in the Fire. That also sums up my thoughts on politics in America.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 25, 2002, 3:54 pm

Voronwë wrote:the ONLY thing not voting will ensure is that the Status Quo remains.

if you support 3rd party candidates, vote for them. Sign petitions to get them on the ballot. Stick a bumper sticker on your car.

No. Stick a bumper sticker on someone elses car

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 25, 2002, 4:00 pm

votes do matter, and the last presidential election demonstrated that.

OK, I'll bite at this one. If anything the last presidential election showed how much voting dosen't matter. Florida was such a mess, it was an embarrassent. The amount of blacks that were turned away from the voting boothes in FL has left a scar on our political system that may never heal IMO. FYI, 90% of african americans vote Democrat. Do a google search on the Florida voting contoversy and see what an upill battle was waged by black voters in the state of Florida. The law that wouldn't allow felons to vote was extremely arbitrary, not even allowing people that shared the birthday or last name of a felon to vote. Dubya's cousin enacted the felon watch policy btw. I'm certian it was just a coincidence though...

Not sure I said this here before, but anyone who can tell me why matches and lighters are allowed on Airlines, while dry ice, nail clippers, and leaf blowers (amoung other laughable items) are not, will get extra brownie points from me. The reason should both shock and disgust you. Dubya at his finest people! Take notes and remeber!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2002, 4:10 pm

dry ice shouldnt be allowed on an airplane.

i can make a device out of dry ice , water, and a soda bottle.

not a powerful device, but one that will scare the fuck out of some people and give me a chance to break out my ninja moves.

but yes your points are well taken.

i lived in florida during the election, and it was a total debacle, no doubt. but if the voter turnout had been 53% instead of 52% in florida we would have had a different president. or let alone if it had been 60%.

(those numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not meant to be accurate).

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 25, 2002, 4:31 pm

i can make a device out of dry ice , water, and a soda bottle.

Your point is also noted. However, to my knowledge, no one has ever attempted any such distraction or harm with any of the above items. However, someone has used matches and very well could have killed a plane full of innocents. Yet, they are still allowed on planes. There is an answer, post if you know!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 25, 2002, 4:38 pm

Protecting the rich? Sure there are shelters and all but the reason is because they get taxed a higher percentage of their pay. Even after I put aside 6% for my 401k and my various benefits, a little over $900 is taken out of each of my paychecks every two weeks between the various taxes. I don't cost my country jack shit and I get robbed every other week. People think strict socialism is a great idea...until they start earning a decent paycheck.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 25, 2002, 4:39 pm

Fairweather: That video is fantastic as well. Moore and Rage work very well together, it's sad that it won't happen again.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2002, 4:49 pm

Chidoro wrote:Protecting the rich? Sure there are shelters and all but the reason is because they get taxed a higher percentage of their pay. Even after I put aside 6% for my 401k and my various benefits, a little over $900 is taken out of each of my paychecks every two weeks between the various taxes. I don't cost my country jack shit and I get robbed every other week. People think strict socialism is a great idea...until they start earning a decent paycheck.

you dont drive on interstate highways?

you don't enjoy medical technology funded largely by the federal government?

you don't enjoy the safety and economic prosperity to enjoy a paycheck due to the strength of the US military?

i agree that as you make more money the amount of taxes that are paid seems massive.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 25, 2002, 4:55 pm

Do I use the interstate highways more than anyone else, probably not. Probably less, Jersey still has a turnpike and pkwy that they charge for and getting around the state is more dependant on those than the interstates that run through it.

I don't enjoy medical advancement any more than someone else in this country

I don't enjoy the safety anymore than someone else. And for someone who has worked in Manhattan for the last 4 years, you could say I feel a little less safe than folks living and working elsewhere in the country.

Why should my percentage of taxes being taken out be higher than someone else's?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 25, 2002, 4:57 pm

Voro: Say 60% of the population did turn out, and Gore was the president. So what? My point is that both of them would have made equally terrible presidents.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 25, 2002, 5:25 pm

OK, since no one can/will answer my question, here is the answer...

Matches and lighters were on the original list of banned items. However, the tobacco companies successfully lobbied and got them removed from the list. Why? What's the first thing smokers do before they enter and as soon as they depart a plane? Why, light up of course! Big corporate $$ before the saftey of the American people. Thanks George! Smoke em if you got em folks! Big Tobacco is watching out for you!

The above fact should make every person in this country shudder and be a bold example as to who and what really matters to those who are writing our laws, taxes, and commanding our military. You ask why I don't trust the government? I ask how can you trust the government.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 25, 2002, 5:32 pm

yeah i have heard that too.

however, i don't consider Michael Moore a primary source. While i appreciate a some of his commentary, i do think sometimes he will bend the truth to make his points.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 25, 2002, 5:39 pm

Xouqoa wrote:There's a profit to be made in those industries, just the same as the petroleum industry. There would just be a period of adjustment during the conversion. Can you imagine pulling into a Mobil Hydrogen station to fill up your car? It could happen, but not until the greedy motherfuckers in charge of these things get over their obsession with monetary gains and $10,000 Armani suits.

Other corporations and institutions other than the petroleum industry are so much farther ahead than they are. Especially Japanese car companies like Honda, that have invested 100's of millions of dollars, if not billions into alternative energy research. The car companies know that it is the future of automobiles because eventually the massive deposits of crude won't be around any longer.

There is a fairly good chance that the first economically viable and stable alternative energy plan established in the west will all but wipe out the petroleum industry. Especially after 20 years when 99% of the cars on the road will be running on it. Petroleum as fuel will only be needed for generators and other machinery and probably auto racing. Even airliners stand to be upgraded to an alernative to using fossil fuels.

An alternative energy program will never be financed or introduced as long as there is a republican in the white house.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 25, 2002, 5:52 pm

An alternative energy program will never be financed or introduced as long as there is a republican in the white house.

I KNOW you can do better than that. That's just pathetic.

Alternative energy is going to be an uphill fight as long as the lobbyists have their claws into the bueracracy that runs the house, senate and white house. Who is sitting in the big chair doesn't matter a damn.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 25, 2002, 5:57 pm

who gives a fuck what you think? Haven't we already established that you are a moron enough times?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 25, 2002, 6:07 pm

Here you go. Now you all can put words in Bush's mouth.
Dubyah Talks

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 25, 2002, 6:12 pm

Israel became a nation in 1947, just after WWII when Britain refused to sign a U.N. resolution recognizing 2 countries in the area, Israel and Palestine.

The fighting has been going on for centuries but after WWII, the Arabs were pretty much forced out of the area to make room for all the Jews migrating there.

you cannot force someone into a democracy

? explain Afghanistan.

You then come to this forum and accuse the United States of forcing other countries to our beliefs?

I don't see what my coming to this country because it was more in line with what I believe in has to do with this country going to war to force other nations to become like the US.

The U.S. cries regime change, regime change. What regime would they allow in Iraq after they desecrate the country? Another Militaristic regime, an Islamic regime? Open your eyes fool.

I agree that the US is probably the best place in the world to live, that is why I'm here. But we're not perfect. I don't have total freedom. The government is corrupt to hell, and according to you, this is the fault of the people. I guess it is too much to ask a politician to do what he said he would do during the election.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 25, 2002, 6:13 pm

I question this notion that the energy companies are hesitant to explore new energy technologies. If anything they're researching it quite vigorously in the hopes of being first to develop it and cash in on a discovery.

BTW the end of oil won't bankrupt energy companies, they'll move right along into wheeling and dealing the new energy.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 26, 2002, 1:22 am

Haven't we already established that you are a moron enough times?

Waaaa! oWned by dancing fruit!

Argue the point or STFU.

Xyun,

Read the sentence before the one you posted. I find it incredibly moronic that you speak of your father being killed for his personal beliefs, that you live in a country now whose cornerstone is personal freedom, then claim that same country is forcing their beliefs on others. Explain this dichotomy, please.

As for Afghanistan, the people there must CHOOSE to participate in the democracy that has been offered them. You can't force someone to choose without negating the foundation principle of a democracy. Capice?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 26, 2002, 1:49 am

Fallanthas: I may be drunk, but I have no idea how what you wrote to Xyun is even slightly relevant.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 26, 2002, 2:17 am

Then try it again sober.

Xyun said his father was killed in the middle east for being an atheist. After leaving that country, Xyun comes to the United States where freedom of religion is a cornerstone. THEN he proceeds to berate the U.S. for forcing our views on the rest of the world.

The idea that democracy can be forced on anyone is just too ignorant to debate.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 26, 2002, 3:27 am

Maybe you are just too ignorant to debate with.

Debate is not your best trait.

Hypothetical-- A man from France moves to Germany because he believes in Nazi ideals. He lives there for a while and realizes that while the ideals are good, the Nazi's have twisted and transformed these ideals into something different. The practical application doesn't fit with the ideal. Yet the Nazi's believing that they are completely in the right, begin invading other countries and forcing them to follow their point of view. Yet the ideal itself they have failed to accomplish. The man sees this and speaks out against it.

You assume that people in the middle east want democracy, want freedom of religion, and maybe they do. But not the democracy that you have, not the freedom of religion that you have.