How Can We Know?

[acushla]

This morning when I checked my GOOGLE News Home Page there was a story with 1500 feeds concerning the fact that Iran was now 16 days away from being able to produce a Nuclear Bomb.

Allow me to type that again so you know I didn't make a mistake.

This morning when I checked my GOOGLE News Home Page there was a story with 1500 feeds concerning the fact that Iran was now 16 days away from being able to produce a Nuclear Bomb.

Given limited time I choose to read the BBC version. Not encouraging, and one was left with the distinct feeling that obvoulsy this was going to demand more than words and sanctions as a response.

Less than 3 hours later that story and all 1500 feeds have dissappeared and in it's place is a rehash of what is now old news about sanctions, meetings, Iran showing good faith etc. etc. etc.

At the end of the longish article are these sentences:

Still, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack suggested Iran has a long way to go before it can make nuclear weapons.

"One of the critical pathways to development of a nuclear weapon is the ability to enrich uranium to high levels," he said.

"That is not the announcement that the Iranians made. It's a fairly low enrichment level."

My question is this: Does 16 days qualify as a 'long way'?

[idefiXX]

My question is this: Does 16 days qualify as a 'long way'?
No, they need centrifuges. (currently the got 164, but the want to build 54 k to supply their first reactor)
Looks like it's going to take them at least another 3 years to be in possession of a nuclear bomb.
To me it seems like google just wanted to avoid embarrassments ;)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Bah, why not a race to build the worlds most efficient nuclear fusion reactor and dominate the world energy market. Oh wait the middle East still has massive oil fields, nevermind...

[madjo]

Bah, why not a race to build the worlds most efficient nuclear fusion reactor and dominate the world energy market. Oh wait the middle East still has massive oil fields, nevermind...
Rex For World President!
I mean that whole oil thing is just stupid. We should not be relying on fossil fuel for much longer. (In the end we _will_ be without, and without alternatives where can we go?)
But sadly many of us need their cars
(me included, I'm not about to bike a distance, that, by car, already takes 1.5 hours (one way trip)... and by train is even less possible... :( )

[rorythedog]

The more cars there are on the road, the more the cars slow down. Therefore allowing other forms of transport to become more viable. At least time-wise anyway. et voila!

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Yeah the Netherlands has over 9 million cars over a population of only 16 million inhabitants! So no surprise there are daily traffic jams, daily pollution, daily stress. The government wanted to introduce 80km zones everywhere to combat the pollution. Now there are more traffic jams than ever. Now they're debating to remove the 80km zones! I dont know... I do know that the solution is simple. Toll booths! Force people to abandon the luxury of a car. Fewer cars on the road, the better! Heh you might have guessed it already. I dont have a drivers licence ;)

Oh and cars should be banned from the big cities! Revolution!

[WHAT?]

Cute Rex!!
But seriously, It's hard (but not impossible) in a free society to dictate what vehicles can and can't be driven. Since commerce needs bigger vehicles to deliver to goods, etc. How can you put regulations on them? I'm just sayin'.
In Ohio we have license plates that state "commercial", "Non commercial" "Truck" or nothing if it's just a passing vehicle.
But this is mostly for parking in no parking zones, and certain other reasons.
One pays more for TRUCK plates, but it has advantages in bigger city no Parking Zones. It's free parking for a half hour! Even if you drive a Porche you can obtain these! It's great for PC service techs, Copier techs, salespeople, etc.
So OK how can we get the bigger gas hogs off the road?
In the 70s (and again in the 80s) rising gas prices cause alot of people to buy small!
This time around I hear some people with SUVs complaining, but most still won't change unless it hits $4 a gallon US (what's that in Liters, and Euros? or where you live?).
My wish hasn't been to get smaller just for GAS consumption reasons, but for safty reasons. You know... get those big "honda-crushers" off the road!:shocked: before they kill me!
In our area, more cities are thinking solar, and wind power. But of course that's not for motor vehicles. But wouldn't that be cool! I can see a mini-van trying to get down the road and under a bridge with these BIG wind blades on top of it now!http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[madjo]

Yeah the Netherlands has over 9 million cars over a population of only 16 million inhabitants! So no surprise there are daily traffic jams, daily pollution, daily stress. The government wanted to introduce 80km zones everywhere to combat the pollution. Now there are more traffic jams than ever. Now they're debating to remove the 80km zones! I dont know... I do know that the solution is simple. Toll booths! Force people to abandon the luxury of a car. Fewer cars on the road, the better! Heh you might have guessed it already. I dont have a drivers licence ;)

Oh and cars should be banned from the big cities! Revolution!
last morning another gruesome morning... 2 hours and 45 minutes of travel time :(
and all because of a little rain... f-ing idiots..
I swear, there are people out there, that will hit the brakes full on, the moment they see 1 drop of water on their windscreen...

But ofcourse the easter also added to the traffic (many people wanting to be early at the office (:D gnah! as if!) so they could leave earlier... and have an extra long weekend...

but I had some good music on (Massive Attack), and I had already called the office that I was going to be late... so there were no hurries from me.

[Solon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm

I like the way "Western Countries" (The USA) don't think Iran should be using Nuclear power because they have plenty of oil, but then they'll go on about global warming and how oil should be cut down on :knocked-o

In answer to the "How Soon" question:

How soon could Iran build a bomb?
Estimates from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London vary from between about three to five years up to about 15 years, depending on Iran's abilities and intentions. But first it would have to take the decision to go down that path. That would mean enriching uranium much more highly than it says it has done so far.



^^ from the site

[acushla]

... depending on Iran's abilities and intentions. But first it would have to take the decision to go down that path.I am beginning to ask myself in exasperation what part of 'NO' does the UN and the rest of the world not understand about Iran's stated intentions? I've been watching this unfold for almost two years now when talks began in Vienna. Then it was Iran saying it would agree to follow guidelines,,,and then two days later saying it had changed its mind. The only thing that has changed since then is Iran no longer puts up any pretense of complying with anything other than its own agenda.

Knowing this allows us two choices...let them do what they want or prevent them from achieving their goal.

If we choose the later then the only question is...when?

[acushla]

Cute Rex!!
But seriously, It's hard (but not impossible) in a free society to dictate what vehicles can and can't be driven.Just saw a news item on PBS on alternative fuel vehicle's...specifically Ethanol . The program claimed that 80% of all cars sold in Brazil now run on Ethanol . It also claimed that a car can be converted to run on this fuel for about $2000.00US.

[acushla]

Bah, why not a race to build the worlds most efficient nuclear fusion reactor and dominate the world energy market. Oh wait the middle East still has massive oil fields, never-mind...Does this qualify as a Hi-jack?

Not that I care...and I really don't care...but it does illustrate the point I have always made that conversations can and will veer from the original post as a natural progression of ideas and concepts.

No harm as far as I am concerned.

[rorythedog]

I am beginning to ask myself in exasperation what part of 'NO' does the UN and the rest of the world not understand about Iran's stated intentions? I've been watching this unfold for almost two years now when talks began in Vienna. Then it was Iran saying it would agree to follow guidelines,,,and then two days later saying it had changed its mind. The only thing that has changed since then is Iran no longer puts up any pretense of complying with anything other than its own agenda.

Knowing this allows us two choices...let them do what they want or prevent them from achieving their goal.

If we choose the later then the only question is...when?

What about the US blatantly disregarding world opinion? That's ok I suppose. The hypocrisy of you lot is breathtaking!

As far as I've read Iran has complied with it's obligations. The FACT of the matter is that you won't know Irans true intentions until it's perhaps too late. This brings it down to trust. Do we trust Iran, and more importantly, do we trust the US Government. On recent evidence the US Government cannot be trusted, with anything.

Lying, hypocritical, warmongering bastards!

Not that it matters anyway. Israel will deal with this PROBLEM and the world will stand back and let them. Game Over!

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Does this qualify as a Hi-jack?

Not that I care...and I really don't care...but it does illustrate the point I have always made that conversations can and will veer from the original post as a natural progression of ideas and concepts.

No harm as far as I am concerned.

Well the thread title isnt particularly descriptive so i thought we could expand this discussion somewhat ;)

3 to 5 years sounds about right before Iran will be able to test their first nuclear bomb. And we know they will aim for this and not build peaceful nuclear reactors, be it fission or fusion, because Iran has so much oil still in the ground the rest of the world will be back in the stone age while Iran is still pumping its oil to meet their energy demands! But the situation is tricky. We wouldnt want to harm the population with sanctions because the general population has nothing to do with this and they'll be the ones to get harmed first. UN sanctions or a war. A silent assassin might be an interesting option heh heh It's obvious the Iranian president is clearly nuts.

[madjo]

A silent assassin might be an interesting option heh heh It's obvious the Iranian president is clearly nuts.
Overheard the Iranian president say: "LIES! ALL LIES! I never speak to the shadows! They are speaking to me, but I never respond!"

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

The US is getting agitated... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4908820.stm)

[rorythedog]

If the US could just not rise to the bait that is being set by the Iranian leadership maybe the Iranian people will deal with their leaders by themselves. One report I heard implied that all this was just sabre-rattling by the Iranian Government because they know people are unhappy about many of their policies. What better way to unite your electorate than by creating a scenario where the "simple" Iranians are "attacked" by the "Evil" West? I'm not trying to imply that Iranians are simple, btw. Far from it. But if the West once more allows the US to fall into this trap then all this crap will never end. We all need to start recognising our commonalities, not focusing on our differences.

[WHAT?]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm

I like the way "Western Countries" (The USA) don't think Iran should be using Nuclear power because they have plenty of oil, but then they'll go on about global warming and how oil should be cut down on :knocked-o


I don't think they(these people in the "west" wink wink USA) are one in the same!
Imaybe the Iranian people will deal with their leaders by themselves.
Yeah and monkees will flying outta my butt!
Just saw a news item on PBS on alternative fuel vehicle's...specifically Ethanol . The program claimed that 80% of all cars sold in Brazil now run on Ethanol . It also claimed that a car can be converted to run on this fuel for about $2000.00US.
Sorry to pile on the highjacking.

But... for those of you who like investing your money in stocks...

There is a company the keeps expanding into ethanol. They are building processing plants around the mid-west USA.
They also keep buying rail-cars for some reason and renting them out to other companies, for train shipment of course. And making money on that.
Their core business is GRAIN, so you can see the wholesale pricing advantage they get. What an advantage in ethanol production then.
I don't know their stock exchange code. But the name of the company is "The Andersons".
Good luck!

[rorythedog]

I don't think they are one in the same!

Yeah and monkees will flying outta my butt!

I can see it.

[WHAT?]

I can see it.
You mean the monkees?
or....:ponder:

[BALTY]

You mean the monkees?
or....:ponder:
I hope not because he'd be peeking in at your butt too!:cross-eye :shocked: :laugh:

[BALTY]

Overheard the Iranian president say: "LIES! ALL LIES! I never speak to the shadows! They are speaking to me, but I never respond!"
hehehehehe!:silly:

[BALTY]

The US is getting agitated... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4908820.stm)
I think we all are agitated! NO?:confused:

[rorythedog]

They are three years away from an intangible. Who cares? Ask yourself why this is news now.

[BALTY]

I just did...
...didn't get an answer!

[acushla]

Not that it matters anyway. Israel will deal with this PROBLEM and the world will stand back and let them. Game Over!
Well...we agree on this point. Do we agree that a lot of the world will cheer?

Haven't you already reluctantly conceded that, if it came right down to it, you would rather live in a world ruled by the US (Christians) instead of a world ruled by the Middle East (Muslims)?

Do you think the world should just step back and say 'Hey Iran...buddy, pal...you say you're not interested in a bomb...even though every statement you make seems to indicate the opposite...but gosh...who are we to judge? You say you want it for energy...we believe you. It's not like you've ever done anything in the past to make us suspicious. Oh..except for that 18 years of not reporting all you we're doing on the Nuclear front...but hey...everybody makes mistakes.'

One question and one question only...Yes or No (like they say in court on Law and Order)...Iran with a bomb...that doesn't scare you?

[rorythedog]

Of course it scares me! Your people scare me too though. How exactly do you propose to stop Iran doing what they feel they must? Sanctions? Won't work. Military action? I don't think so. Iran is NOT Iraq. A limited nuclear strike? The world will hate you for ever more. Why not work to create a climate (no pun intended) where these states no longer feel the need to protect themselves with nuclear weapons? Why not practise what you preach?

[acushla]

We all need to start recognising our commonalities, not focusing on our differences.
Huh huh...smell some mighty pungent aroma coming from somewhere.:silly:

Good luck with that...let us know how it's working out.:calm:

Perhaps if we all wrote a letter to President Bush and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayat Allah Ali Khamenei (the REAL Power in Iran) telling them they should just shake hands and be friends...that could work.

[rorythedog]

Huh huh...smell some mighty pungent aroma coming from somewhere.:silly:

Good luck with that...let us know how it's working out.:calm:

Perhaps if we all wrote a letter to President Bush and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayat Allah Ali Khamenei (the REAL Power in Iran) telling them they should just shake hands and be friends...that could work.

does this forum automatically boost a members reputation for being a cynical wanker?

[acushla]

Of course it scares me! Your people scare me too though. How exactly do you propose to stop Iran doing what they feel they must? Sanctions? Won't work. Military action? I don't think so. Iran is NOT Iraq. A limited nuclear strike? The world will hate you for ever more. Why not work to create a climate (no pun intended) where these states no longer feel the need to protect themselves with nuclear weapons? Why not practise what you preach?

My observation is that it is too late for all you suggest. I think if you look at this situation objectively you would concede that the world has held out an olive branch for some time now and has constantly tried to engage Iran in a dialogue that would lead to understanding and stability for everybody.

Iran for it's part is obsessed to get a bomb...I assume that they view it as a power that will give them a voice and the ability to shape the world in their vision.

Unfortunately Israel is convinced that part of that vision is that they be 'wiped off the face of the map'...so there is a problem...and the problem is a 'us or them' problem. The advantage, of course, is that Israel has a bomb NOW...and both the US (Bush on Thursday vowed that Iran will NEVER have a bomb...and Israel has stated clearly that it will act before Iran has a bomb.

Whatever one might think I doubt that anybody believes for one moment that Bush's statement or Israel's position is simply 'words'. We all know...if the US says Iran will NEVER have a bomb...then Iran itself should take a long hard look at what it is doing...and know that to proceed is to bring death and destruction upon themselves.:grimreape

[WHAT?]

I see todays paper shows, that the Iranian Pres. to say it again!!!
Wiping Israel off the map talk I mean!

[rorythedog]

"...and the problem is a 'us or them' problem". And who exactly is "us"? As to your earlier point about me allegedly saying I'd prefer to live in a Christian world. Pants! Where did I say that?

[acushla]

does this forum automatically boost a members reputation for being a cynical wanker?

Nooooo...but you certainly get points for being a realist.:)

[acushla]

"...and the problem is a 'us or them' problem". And who exactly is "us"? As to your earlier point about me allegedly saying I'd prefer to live in a Christian world. Pants! Where did I say that?
'Us or them' refers to Israel and Iran as in if you think you're going to wipe us out then you leave us no choice but to wipe you out before you get that chance. Kill or be killed. Keep in mind...Israel has had a bomb for some time now...I do not even recall a whisper on their part that they would use it against anybody.

You did concede the point about the West over the East a long time ago...you'll understand me when I say I really don't feel like searching for it. If it is the word 'Christian' you object to...well, what can I say...the West is considered as Christian in the History books and those same books describe the Middle East as Muslim.

I suppose it is guilt by association.

[rorythedog]

But the West isn't Christian any more. Maybe the US is, but I see very little evidence of it around these parts. Funny how, as you say, Israel hasn't threatened anyone with their bomb yet we all accept it's a distinct possibility. I may have said I prefer Western culture in relation to the cartoons portraying Mohammed but this is more to do with having fairly libertarian beliefs. It's certainly not based on any religious ethos. As far as I'm concerned, all religions are completely unacceptable in the modern world. I see very little difference with Islam and Christianity. Both try to tell me what's "right". I'll decide that, thankyou very much.

[acushla]

But the West isn't Christian any more. Maybe the US is, but I see very little evidence of it around these parts. Funny how, as you say, Israel hasn't threatened anyone with their bomb yet we all accept it's a distinct possibility. I may have said I prefer Western culture in relation to the cartoons portraying Mohammad but this is more to do with having fairly libertarian beliefs. It's certainly not based on any religious ethos. As far as I'm concerned, all religions are completely unacceptable in the modern world. I see very little difference with Islam and Christianity. Both try to tell me what's "right". I'll decide that, thankyou very much.

I think the key was my referring to the History books where they would describe the West as 'Christian'. I imagine it takes on may broad aspects of culture and behaviour...and the way laws are formed and courts conduct themselves. The calender we live by and any other number of cultural considerations that mark us as members of a 'Christian' culture. Your post did make we wonder about countries such as Holland, Norway etc....Scotland must certainly be considered 'Christian'...but not Turkey...if you see what I mean.

[rorythedog]

I don't see what you mean. It's partly down to this labelling that you lot go in for that causes these problems. There are towns in England that would probably count themselves as Muslim, such is the ethnic breakdown. Where would you place them?

[acushla]

I don't see what you mean. It's partly down to this labelling that you lot go in for that causes these problems. There are towns in England that would probably count themselves as Muslim, such is the ethnic breakdown. Where would you place them?Like I said...it's not where I would place them...it's where does the Historians place them. Using your example...a well written book would probably state that 'England is predominately White of a Christian heritage with pockets of Muslims and other ethic immigrants'.

[idefiXX]

Iran with a bomb...that doesn't scare you?
Yes.
It doesn't scare me because I know that Ahmadinejad tries to distract from social/economic problems (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,411083,00.html) in his country.
By the way - Pakistan has nuclear bombs too. Those countries trie to strengthen their position, their anti-israelic propaganda is a way of appeasing their religious leaders.

[rorythedog]

Yes.
It doesn't scare me because I know that Ahmadinejad tries to distract from social/economic problems (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,411083,00.html) in his country.
By the way - Pakistan has nuclear bombs too. Those countries trie to strengthen their position, their anti-israelic propaganda is a way of appeasing their religious leaders.

India also has nuclear weapons like Pakistan. Neither of them have so far signed up to the non-proliferation treaty. Nor has North Korea. Iran has signed up. In fact, other than some political posturing from their leader, they have fulfilled their International obligations. They even faciltated the US invasion of Afghanistan.

If Israel feels the need to deal with Iran militarily I'd have no problem with that. It is they who have been threatened. If the US enters the situation then, IMO, that amounts to International State Terrorism.

[acushla]

India also has nuclear weapons like Pakistan. Neither of them have so far signed up to the non-proliferation treaty. Nor has North Korea. Iran has signed up. In fact, other than some political posturing from their leader, they have fulfilled their International obligations. They even facilitated the US invasion of Afghanistan.

If Israel feels the need to deal with Iran militarily I'd have no problem with that. It is they who have been threatened. If the US enters the situation then, IMO, that amounts to International State Terrorism.

...except, of course, that Israel is the 51st State...albeit 'secret'.:) Not to mention about the only true 'friend' that the US have in the Middle East.

But I see your point...as I am sure the US does.

Israel it will be then...the only question now is when and how:ninja: .

[acushla]

Yes.
It doesn't scare me because I know that Ahmadinejad tries to distract from social/economic problems (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,411083,00.html) in his country.
By the way - Pakistan has nuclear bombs too. Those countries try to strengthen their position, their anti-Israeli propaganda is a way of appeasing their religious leaders.
I'm afraid I don't take much stock in stories of this nature...and less so when they come out of Iran. That is not to say I don't believe the stories (I do), just that they mean absolutely nothing in the scheme of things...except perhaps to serve as a smoke screen and deflect some of the attention away from the central issue.

I do not mean to sound callas but a few or many hungry people slaving away at meaningless jobs (in terms of state revenue) is going to have absolutely no impact whatsoever. If things were to really escalate then I have no doubt the 'problem' will be dealt with in a way which will further alienate Iran from the rest of the world.

The answer is contained in the article itself...$50 Billion a year in oil revenues. Probably more than enough to at least ensure that nobody goes to bed hungry. Except of course that the rulers don't care about the people...a point made clear by their continuing defiance in the relentless pursuit of building a bomb. A bomb that already has the distinct markings of 'self destruct' written all over it.

[WHAT?]

If the US enters the situation then, IMO, that amounts to International State Terrorism.
Nah; don't see it that way, however you can assume what you want!

[rorythedog]

Nah; don't see it that way, however you can assume what you want!

I'd hardly expect you to agree.

[rorythedog]

I'm afraid I don't take much stock in stories of this nature...and less so when they come out of Iran. That is not to say I don't believe the stories (I do), just that they mean absolutely nothing in the scheme of things...except perhaps to serve as a smoke screen and deflect some of the attention away from the central issue.

I do not mean to sound callas but a few or many hungry people slaving away at meaningless jobs (in terms of state revenue) is going to have absolutely no impact whatsoever. If things were to really escalate then I have no doubt the 'problem' will be dealt with in a way which will further alienate Iran from the rest of the world.

The answer is contained in the article itself...$50 Billion a year in oil revenues. Probably more than enough to at least ensure that nobody goes to bed hungry. Except of course that the rulers don't care about the people...a point made clear by their continuing defiance in the relentless pursuit of building a bomb. A bomb that already has the distinct markings of 'self destruct' written all over it.

Isn't Bush guilty of exactly the same thing? i.e. creating an international incident (namely the illegal invasion of a Sovereign country) as a smokescreen for his failing policies at home. Until the hypocrisy of your sides position is dealt with you'll always have folks like me shouting you down. Get your own house in order before judging others.

[WHAT?]

Actually this all occured prior to anyone truely questioning his demestic policies~ Although all liberals question Conservative policies ALL the time so the timline is subjective! Over-ruled!~

[rorythedog]

Actually this all occured prior to anyone truely questioning his demestic policies~ Although all liberals question Conservative policies ALL the time so the timline is subjective! Over-ruled!~
Which is precisely my point!

[WHAT?]

So good point then!:cheeky:

[madjo]

Haven't you already reluctantly conceded that, if it came right down to it, you would rather live in a world ruled by the US (Christians) instead of a world ruled by the Middle East (Muslims)?
How about neither?
Just keep each country to itself. I, for one, will not welcome any American Overlords (to paraphrase one of the many Slashdot memes), nor will I welcome the Muslim ones.

Each country should have a controlling power of their own. Even a European parliament is not really working out, now is it? That is why I voted NO, last year, for the 'European constitution', they want to force-feed us. Because Brussels needs to get their act together before they can sign a document of such magnitude.

We've had a few show-and-tells from the past, where there was one ruler over a large part of the world, and we all know how that ended up (each country became self-regulating again eventually). (The Romans, Charles the Great, Napoleon, take your pick). True world domination will never happen. At least not for very long, and will, most times, end in war.

Oh and I absolutely shudder at the thought of having George W. Bush at the helm of the world... That's a one-way ticket into the abyss of doom.

(Disclaimer: This is my view, not necessarily yours. You can disagree with this. But don't flame me over this, just because you disagree.)

[madjo]

We all need to start recognising our commonalities, not focusing on our differences.Hear Hear!

[idefiXX]

We've had a few show-and-tells from the past, where there was one ruler over a large part of the world, and we all know how that ended up (each country became self-regulating again eventually). (The Romans, Charles the Great, Napoleon, take your pick). True world domination will never happen. At least not for very long, and will, most times, end in war.
You can't lump together the romans, charles the great and napoleon.
The romans and fell because they were not the worlds ruler and because they were refused by the people.
charles the great's death splitted the Frankish Empire, but it was a precondition for the birth of the Holy Roman Empire.
Napoleon fell because of his arrogance.
A democratic (that means an assumed) government would bring much more stability to a large region. For example there would be no more Berlusconi's ;)
(sorry for my off-topicness :) )

[acushla]

(sorry for my off-topicness :) )Nothing off topic here...so nothing to apologize for.:)

I think my next thread will be called 'Politics, History and Life'.

Not sure it would be possible to get off topic in that one.:foureyes:

Are you going to Italy?

[acushla]

Hear Hear!...and we all need to start eating better and exercising on a regular basis, not to mention volunteering to do more community work.:foureyes:

[madjo]

You can't lump together the romans, charles the great and napoleon.
they served merely as examples of world-domination and that failed!
I don't care how they failed, my point was that they failed.

A democratic (that means an assumed) government would bring much more stability to a large region. For example there would be no more Berlusconi's ;)
Didn't Berlusconi got re-elected a few years back in a supposed democratic vote?
The italians finally got sick of their rulers and voted for Prodi... but that does not say that Prodi won't fall for the same mistakes that Berlusconi has made. Who, incidentally, has not acknowledged his defeat.

Didn't Hitler become a ruler of Germany after a democratic vote?

A democratic chosen government is no guarantee that it stays that way.

[madjo]

...and we all need to start eating better and exercising on a regular basis, not to mention volunteering to do more community work.:foureyes:
yes we should

[Inthewoods]

First this:We all need to start recognising our commonalities, not focusing on our differences.Then this:Until the hypocrisy of your sides position is dealt with you'll always have folks like me shouting you down. Get your own house in order before judging others.And they called John Kerry a waffler. Practice what you preach.

[acushla]

Isn't Bush guilty of exactly the same thing? i.e. creating an international incident (namely the illegal invasion of a Sovereign country) as a smokescreen for his failing policies at home. Until the hypocrisy of your sides position is dealt with you'll always have folks like me shouting you down. Get your own house in order before judging others.I really do not think that Bush is guilty of the same thing. The 'International Incident' existed in the minds of all 20 voting members of the UN Security Council...namely that not only were Iraq in possession of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' but past events had shown they were not adverse to using them. If you want to split hairs and call the war illegal...well...only illegal in as much as the US had patiently sat back and watched one deadline after another come and go only to be replaced by a new deadline. At some point they decided enough was enough and if the other countries doing the voting did not have the courage of their convictions then they would go it alone. There is no point in applying 'hindsight' of faulty intelligence etc....it means nothing. At the time EVERYBODY believed there were weapons. End of story. If you really want to split hairs you could place the blame of the current conflict squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein...after all, the Americans had arranged safe passage for him to leave Iraq and thus avoid a war. We all know what Saddam Hussein's choice was.

What Iran is doing, in essence, is to produce a bomb with which they can use against Israel. If you want to work it all down to the bottom line...then at least the US can make a case for how a people and a world benefit from an invasion. Unless one is an anti-semitic there is no positive spin on 'wiping a people of the face of the map.' Certainly not the same thing in my mind...and if you think it is I would be most curious to know your reasoning.

[acushla]

Practice what you preach.

Bad advice.:laugh: :cheeky: :)

[rorythedog]

I really do not think that Bush is guilty of the same thing. The 'International Incident' existed in the minds of all 20 voting members of the UN Security Council...namely that not only were Iraq in possession of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' but past events had shown they were not adverse to using them. If you want to split hairs and call the war illegal...well...only illegal in as much as the US had patiently sat back and watched one deadline after another come and go only to be replaced by a new deadline. At some point they decided enough was enough and if the other countries doing the voting did not have the courage of their convictions then they would go it alone. There is no point in applying 'hindsight' of faulty intelligence etc....it means nothing. At the time EVERYBODY believed there were weapons. End of story. If you really want to split hairs you could place the blame of the current conflict squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein...after all, the Americans had arranged safe passage for him to leave Iraq and thus avoid a war. We all know what Saddam Hussein's choice was.

What Iran is doing, in essence, is to produce a bomb with which they can use against Israel. If you want to work it all down to the bottom line...then at least the US can make a case for how a people and a world benefit from an invasion. Unless one is an anti-semitic there is no positive spin on 'wiping a people of the face of the map.' Certainly not the same thing in my mind...and if you think it is I would be most curious to know your reasoning.


If Saddam Hussein was such a bad guy why did you "...arrange safe passage" for him? Can you spell hypocrisy. This is my point. The UN security council believed there was WMD in Iraq because you lot told them there was! I well remember Colin Powell and his wee diagrams. All bullshit! Hans Blix didn't believe there were WMD's in Iraq. Remember him? The guy charged with finding them. He said there was absolutely no need for military action. Inspections were going fine. Still you sent your troops in there, on a completely false pretence. How can you possibly expect people to trust your motives are anything other than financial? That's what makes the US spin man. You NEED the "Petro-Dollar". God forbid it should ever become the "Petro-Euro" eh? The US would actually have to compete on a level playing field with the like of Europe, China, Malaysia & India. and the US would be screwed. At least based on my limited experience of US products. Have you looked at your automotive (to name but one) industry lately? Even Americans won't buy your cars. Until the US starts showing some moral ethics nobody will trust you. Sure, we trust you guys. I'm absolutely certain Inthewoods is a good guy and firmly believes his country is right. But I think he's wrong. And I would be wiling to stake my life on it, if need be. God knows, if the US keeps this up, it might just come to that.

And please, if you don't agree with what I think, fair enough. Just don't take it as a personal attack. Because it's not.

[Willow of Oz]

What Iran is doing, in essence, is to produce a bomb with which they can use against Israel. If you want to work it all down to the bottom line...then at least the US can make a case for how a people and a world benefit from an invasion. Unless one is an anti-semitic there is no positive spin on 'wiping a people of the face of the map.' Certainly not the same thing in my mind...and if you think it is I would be most curious to know your reasoning.

:rolls-eyes:
you do realise Israel is considered to have quite a few nuclear weapons of its own? Like on the scale of countries like China. What for? Wiping a people off the face of the earth? Do you know how many *thousands* of nuclear weapons the US had? Why? To tickle someone? If you launch ~20,000 nuclear weapons you can't fail to wipe a number of peoples off the face of the map. Nuclear weapons are good at that sort of thing.

[Inthewoods]

If Saddam Hussein was such a bad guy why did you "...arrange safe passage" for him? Can you spell hypocrisy. This is my point. The UN security council believed there was WMD in Iraq because you lot told them there was! I well remember Colin Powell and his wee diagrams. All bullshit! Hans Blix didn't believe there were WMD's in Iraq. Remember him? The guy charged with finding them. He said there was absolutely no need for military action. Inspections were going fine. Still you sent your troops in there, on a completely false pretence. How can you possibly expect people to trust your motives are anything other than financial? That's what makes the US spin man. You NEED the "Petro-Dollar". God forbid it should ever become the "Petro-Euro" eh? The US would actually have to compete on a level playing field with the like of Europe, China, Malaysia & India. and the US would be screwed. At least based on my limited experience of US products. Have you looked at your automotive (to name but one) industry lately? Even Americans won't buy your cars. Until the US starts showing some moral ethics nobody will trust you. Sure, we trust you guys. I'm absolutely certain Inthewoods is a good guy and firmly believes his country is right. But I think he's wrong. And I would be wiling to stake my life on it, if need be. God knows, if the US keeps this up, it might just come to that.

And please, if you don't agree with what I think, fair enough. Just don't take it as a personal attack. Because it's not.

1. What should we have done, turned Saddam over to the terrorists?

2. You say everything Powell said was bullshit, right after mentioning Blix? Ya, right. Don't even go there.

3. You say we spin things? Unless you want to give up all modern conveniences, like transportation (other than by horse), computers, etc, don't even start with buzzwords like "Petro-dollars". The US is hardly the only country that needs oil.

4. If you really think Americans don't buy American cars and trucks, you are living in the 80s. The American car industry has come a long way since then.

5. I'm glad you think I'm a good guy, I think you are too, but I have never stated that my country's foreign policy is right regarding the mideast, I simply don't like the personal attacks I haven't wavered from this:

Hi All,

I sense some real heat being generated here and I hope we don't end up starting our own little war (or go up in "flames"). That said, I have a couple thoughts.

First, I don't think Bush is hateful, not at all. Do I support him? HELL NO! Do I support what's going on in Iraq? HELL NO!! However, I really believe that Bush is not malevolent, merely very ignorant and misguided. He just doesn't get it. And that holds true for a whole lot of his policies. However, I do agree with some others here that Afghanistan was different than Iraq...totally. If you disagree, ok, but remember that this is rthe opinion of an American, and just that, an opinion. I's very easy to take a "holier than thou" attitude when one's government takes a different "side" in a particular issue to that which is percieved as "wrong". .........All of which leads me to my second point:


Second, I am first and foremost, a citizen of the world, but I also happen to be an American, and as such, I am part of America. When I read things like "America should be ashamed", I can only assume that somebody is missing that distinction, that America is NOT some evil entity, but rather a huge group of people, all with their own thoughts and opinions. So please do not tell me to be ashamed because you choose to disagree with my government's foreign policies. I disagree too but dammit I am PROUD to be an American!


OK so you ended this post by saying that it was not a personal attack, I can accept that. But just yesterday you said:

Until the hypocrisy of your sides position is dealt with you'll always have folks like me shouting you down. Get your own house in order before judging others.If "shouting someone down" (your words not mine) is not a personal attack, I don't know what is.

Please stop saying we should be ashamed, we are not.

Please stop saying the American government is evil, it is not. Wrong? Most certainly, especially regarding the current topic, but not evil.
Don't forget that when you wish President Bush dead, you wish death and havoc on American citizens as well. (you have said all of these things right here in this forum)

[rorythedog]

1. What should we have done, turned Saddam over to the terrorists?

2. You say everything Powell said was bullshit, right after mentioning Blix? Ya, right. Don't even go there.

3. You say we spin things? Unless you want to give up all modern conveniences, like transportation (other than by horse), computers, etc, don't even start with buzzwords like "Petro-dollars". The US is hardly the only country that needs oil.

4. If you really think Americans don't buy American cars and trucks, you are living in the 80s. The American car industry has come a long way since then.

5. I'm glad you think I'm a good guy, I think you are too, but I have never stated that my country's foreign policy is right regarding the mideast, I simply don't like the personal attacks I haven't wavered from this:




OK so you ended this post by saying that it was not a personal attack, I can accept that. But just yesterday you said:

If "shouting someone down" (your words not mine) is not a personal attack, I don't know what is.

Please stop saying we should be ashamed, we are not.

Please stop saying the American government is evil, it is not. Wrong? Most certainly, especially regarding the current topic, but not evil.
Don't forget that when you wish President Bush dead, you wish death and havoc on American citizens as well. (you have said all of these things right here in this forum)

1. What terrorists? The ones in Iraq now? There was no terrorism in Iraq before the invasion. It's arguable whether the ones there now are actually terrorists. They could be called freedom fighters.

2. Colin Powell was talking bullshit. You think Hans Blix was lying? Why would he do that?

3. You're right. Others need oil too. At the moment the oil is all sold by the US$. If that should change then your country is indeed in trouble. Just before the invasion Iraq threatened to sell in Euros. Six months ago, before all this hoo-ha, Iran also discussed selling her oil in Euros. Saudi Arabia, your ally, has been making similar noises.

4. Your cars are crap. End of discussion on that one I'm afraid.

5. I am shouting certain people down because they're deliberately stirring shit. That doesn't bother you?

6. Every time that I or anyone else here espouses a theory that denigrates the US it's turned into a personal attack.

7. If you can find where I said I wish Bush was dead then I'll show you a time when I was drunk. I am not naive enough to believe that would make one iota of difference. Your system is corrupt. Not your leader. He is merely a fool.

8. The political system in my country is also corrupt. Two parties, more or less, with not enough between them to slip a fag paper. It's the same in the US. For the record, it's also the same in Canada, Italy, France, Germany & The Netherlands. All the time voter turnout is falling and do you think the politicians care about that? Of course not. They're laughing all the way to the bank.

9. Let me apologise to you all. I admit that I can get a bit hot-headed at times. Sometimes I get diverted from the main argument, and so things start to get personal. My anger comes from the fact that at 41 my vote has never counted. Never made any difference whatsoever. And it pisses me off. Is this the Democracy we're trying to export to the Middle East? No wonder they don't want it. I don't want it. Condoleeza Rice was over here a couple of weeks ago and when a journalist asked her how she felt about meeting protests wherever she went, she just said that it warms her heart to see democracy in action. If we weren't so lucky to live in a Democracy we wouldn't have had the right to protest. Ha! What's the point in freedom of speech if no-one's listening?

[Inthewoods]

1. What terrorists? The ones in Iraq now? There was no terrorism in Iraq before the invasion. It's arguable whether the ones there now are actually terrorists. They could be called freedom fighters.

2. Colin Powell was talking bullshit. You think Hans Blix was lying? Why would he do that?

3. You're right. Others need oil too. At the moment the oil is all sold by the US$. If that should change then your country is indeed in trouble. Just before the invasion Iraq threatened to sell in Euros. Six months ago, before all this hoo-ha, Iran also discussed selling her oil in Euros. Saudi Arabia, your ally, has been making similar noises.

4. Your cars are crap. End of discussion on that one I'm afraid.

5. I am shouting certain people down because they're deliberately stirring shit. That doesn't bother you?

6. Every time that I or anyone else here espouses a theory that denigrates the US it's turned into a personal attack.

7. If you can find where I said I wish Bush was dead then I'll show you a time when I was drunk. I am not naive enough to believe that would make one iota of difference. Your system is corrupt. Not your leader. He is merely a fool.

8. The political system in my country is also corrupt. Two parties, more or less, with not enough between them to slip a fag paper. It's the same in the US. For the record, it's also the same in Canada, Italy, France, Germany & The Netherlands. All the time voter turnout is falling and do you think the politicians care about that? Of course not. They're laughing all the way to the bank.

9. Let me apologise to you all. I admit that I can get a bit hot-headed at times. Sometimes I get diverted from the main argument, and so things start to get personal. My anger comes from the fact that at 41 my vote has never counted. Never made any difference whatsoever. And it pisses me off. Is this the Democracy we're trying to export to the Middle East? No wonder they don't want it. I don't want it. Condoleeza Rice was over here a couple of weeks ago and when a journalist asked her how she felt about meeting protests wherever she went, she just said that it warms her heart to see democracy in action. If we weren't so lucky to live in a Democracy we wouldn't have had the right to protest. Ha! What's the point in freedom of speech if no-one's listening?

1. You and I already debated that one at length, you admitted I was right, there certainly were terrorists in Iraq, dating back several decades. We've already been down that road.

2. Colin Powell was talking bullshit? Why would he do that?

3. "At the moment the oil is all sold by the US"? Now that is bullshit if I ever heard it. We import most of our oil from Canada.

4. If you want to believe that, so be it, but that doesn't make it true. Dop a google search, the facts will bear me out. Sure, not all the best vehicles are American, but we're right up there. BTW, how many American cars do you have personal experience with. Have you even driven one, inspected one, or read up on the subject carefully? I think not, or you wouldn't be so sure of yourself. Incidentally, I have owned and driven European, Japanese, and American cars of recent vintage. They all have their fortes, and shortcomings.

5. Is someone "stirring shit" (your own words) because they don't like you "shouting down" (your own words) those who disagree with you? Can you only refrain from putdowns as long as everyone agrees with you?

6. So why "denigrate" the US? Can't you express your opinion without doing that? If anything, what I see is that the personal attacks are objected to, and then you say something like "it's nothing personal, I'm sure you're a nice guy" after the damage is done.

Here's a definition for you: Definition of denigrate (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=denigrate)

When you denigrate my country, you're damn right I'm gonna take it personally. There are plenty of very GOOD things about this country despite the current sitiation in the mideast, and your viewpoint of the US is just about as accurate and objective as your viewpoint about our cars.

7. You, referring to President Bush:Personally, I'd hang the bas***d. But then you all know that anyway. Truly shameful.I guess you better lighten up on the drinking. Jeez, that was only a few days ago. Oh and yes, by the way, as you said, we DO already know that, because you espouse that kind of hatred for him over......and over....and over.....and over......and over....and over.....and over......and over....and over.....and over......and over....and over.....

Man, we get it alright?? you don't like America as a whole, hell you don't even like our cars. We get it.

8. Thanks for admitting that, very forthright of you, seriously.:cool:

9. I don't get the connection between your feeling that your vote doesn't count and your disparagement of America. Your vote is about your government, not ours. I, for one, think that, barring election corruption (not ready to open that one just yet), everyone's vote counts. And even though you don't see it, people are listening. What President Bush and his cronies have done will not be forgotten by us (Americans) either. Trust me on this, he is under scrutiny by our own government even as I type this.

You'll have to excuse me for a bit, I have to go get in my extremely high quality, fuel efficient American automobile and dash off to the store for some energy- and oil-consuming printer supplies. Peace. ;)

[Willow of Oz]

At the moment the oil is all sold by the US$.

Minor point for all who missed it - I certainly did at first.
The point here is the dollar sign. Oil is sold in US dollars.
Carry on.

[rorythedog]

1. You and I already debated that one at length, you admitted I was right, there certainly were terrorists in Iraq, dating back several decades. We've already been down that road.

2. Colin Powell was talking bullshit? Why would he do that?

3. "At the moment the oil is all sold by the US"? Now that is bullshit if I ever heard it. We import most of our oil from Canada.

4. If you want to believe that, so be it, but that doesn't make it true. Dop a google search, the facts will bear me out. Sure, not all the best vehicles are American, but we're right up there. BTW, how many American cars do you have personal experience with. Have you even driven one, inspected one, or read up on the subject carefully? I think not, or you wouldn't be so sure of yourself. Incidentally, I have owned and driven European, Japanese, and American cars of recent vintage. They all have their fortes, and shortcomings.

5. Is someone "stirring shit" (your own words) because they don't like you "shouting down" (your own words) those who disagree with you? Can you only refrain from putdowns as long as everyone agrees with you?

6. So why "denigrate" the US? Can't you express your opinion without doing that? If anything, what I see is that the personal attacks are objected to, and then you say something like "it's nothing personal, I'm sure you're a nice guy" after the damage is done.

Here's a definition for you: Definition of denigrate (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=denigrate)

When you denigrate my country, you're damn right I'm gonna take it personally. There are plenty of very GOOD things about this country despite the current sitiation in the mideast, and your viewpoint of the US is just about as accurate and objective as your viewpoint about our cars.

7. You, referring to President Bush:I guess you better lighten up on the drinking. Jeez, that was only a few days ago. Oh and yes, by the way, as you said, we DO already know that, because you espouse that kind of hatred for him over......and over....and over.....and over......and over....and over.....and over......and over....and over.....and over......and over....and over.....

Man, we get it alright?? you don't like America as a whole, hell you don't even like our cars. We get it.

8. Thanks for admitting that, very forthright of you, seriously.:cool:

9. I don't get the connection between your feeling that your vote doesn't count and your disparagement of America. Your vote is about your government, not ours. I, for one, think that, barring election corruption (not ready to open that one just yet), everyone's vote counts. And even though you don't see it, people are listening. What President Bush and his cronies have done will not be forgotten by us (Americans) either. Trust me on this, he is under scrutiny by our own government even as I type this.

You'll have to excuse me for a bit, I have to go get in my extremely high quality, fuel efficient American automobile and dash off to the store for some energy- and oil-consuming printer supplies. Peace. ;)

OK. You're right on every count. I'm just one of those morons who can't see sense.

Your cars are shit though. That much I do know.

Thanks Willow. The dollar sign was important. I guess when you're reading something and your face is turnin blue you might not read the detail.

Got to say though - your idea that somehow your elections are not my business. Yes they are. Especially when those elections result in countries getting bombed. You voted for a moron - twice!

I could say more, but I won't. Not while there's a chance I could be banned.

[madjo]

Rory I agree with you on many levels... especially about the corrupt democracies.. that is oh so true, even here in NL.

[Inthewoods]

Your cars are shit though. That much I do know.We'll just never agree on this one I guess, and that's ok.

Thanks Willow. The dollar sign was important. I guess when you're reading something and your face is turnin blue you might not read the detail.You callin' me blue face??? :silly: But really, I don't see how it matters anyway, there are different units of currency, and different exchange rates. The true cost is just that.

Got to say though - your idea that somehow your elections are not my business. Yes they are. Especially when those elections result in countries getting bombed. You voted for a moron - twice!. WTF? I never said any such thing. I said your vote is about your government, not ours. Of course your vote doesn't count in America, why should it? You're not an American citizen. But I never said it was none of your business. Of course it is.

Oh and BTW, I never voted for President Bush, I thought I had made that clear many, many times.

[acushla]

:rolls-eyes:
you do realise Israel is considered to have quite a few nuclear weapons of its own? Like on the scale of countries like China. What for? Wiping a people off the face of the earth? Do you know how many *thousands* of nuclear weapons the US had? Why? To tickle someone? If you launch ~20,000 nuclear weapons you can't fail to wipe a number of peoples off the face of the map. Nuclear weapons are good at that sort of thing.
From a Post I made on April 15th, 2006:

'Us or them' refers to Israel and Iran as in if you think you're going to wipe us out then you leave us no choice but to wipe you out before you get that chance. Kill or be killed. Keep in mind...Israel has had a bomb for some time now...I do not even recall a whisper on their part that they would use it against anybody.

Nuclear weapons are usually good at deterring others from wiping you off the face of the map.

[acushla]

What is the significance of whether the oil is sold in US currency or some other currency?

[rorythedog]

Every single oil transaction goes through the New York Stock Exchange. It means the International price of oil is linked directly to the state of the US economy. You think that's not important? The information is out there. Of course you'll say these are all conspiracy theories. Find out for yourself.

[Willow of Oz]

Nuclear weapons are usually good at deterring others from wiping you off the face of the map.


I don't think that point is lost on countries like N Korea and Iran.

Countries went into Iraq and messed with their affairs, for right or for wrong. If they had a few nuclear weapons, perhaps this would not have occurred.

[WHAT?]

the price of crude oil is set by movements on the three major international petroleum exchanges, all of which have their own Web sites featuring information about oil prices. They are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX, http://www.nymex.com), the International Petroleum Exchange in London (IPE, http://www.ipe.uk.com) and the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX, http://www.simex.com.sg).

The Web sites of the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA, http://www.iea.org) and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov), also have extensive historical information on oil prices.

[acushla]

Every single oil transaction goes through the New York Stock Exchange. It means the International price of oil is linked directly to the state of the US economy. You think that's not important? The information is out there. Of course you'll say these are all conspiracy theories. Find out for yourself.Please do not tell me what I think or what I will say.

I asked a question about oil and US dollars which indicates I don't know the significance...I did not say it wasn't important and I do not know why you say I will think it is a conspiracy.

I will, however, find out for myself and then I will tell you what I think.:bulb:

Capiche?:)

[acushla]

I don't think that point is lost on countries like N Korea and Iran.

Countries went into Iraq and messed with their affairs, for right or for wrong. If they had a few nuclear weapons, perhaps this would not have occurred.Without writing a long dissertation allow me to point out that nobody ever threatened either North Korea or Iran with Nuclear weapons.

Everything to date has been a reaction to a perceived irresponsible aggression exhibited by both countries.

I know of no circumstance (with the exception of the Cuban Missile crisis...which again was a reaction to the Soviet Union desiring to have a Nuclear Base in Cuba) where any country who has the bomb has even remotely threatened to use it.

Iran do not even have a bomb and already they make their true intentions widely known of just exactly what they will do with it when they do get one.

Which, of course, is why they never will.

[acushla]

the price of crude oil is set by movements on the three major international petroleum exchanges, all of which have their own Web sites featuring information about oil prices. They are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX, http://www.nymex.com), the International Petroleum Exchange in London (IPE, http://www.ipe.uk.com) and the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX, http://www.simex.com.sg).

The Web sites of the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA, http://www.iea.org) and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov), also have extensive historical information on oil prices.
Much gratitude to you WHAT? Will check these out when I have more time.

[rorythedog]

Please do not tell me what I think or what I will say.

I asked a question about oil and US dollars which indicates I don't know the significance...I did not say it wasn't important and I do not know why you say I will think it is a conspiracy.

I will, however, find out for myself and then I will tell you what I think.:bulb:

Capiche?:)

When you got your new job did the requirements include an ability to be a condescending, obnoxious twat?

Smilies don't nulify your condescension. Capiche?

[rorythedog]

Feel free -

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar)

Energy Warfare (http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html)

Petrodollar or PetroEuro (http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm)

War Against Europe (http://www.tacomapjh.org/petrodollartheories.htm)

[acushla]

When you got your new job did the requirements include an ability to be a condescending, obnoxious twat?

Smilies don't nulify your condescension. Capiche?There was absolutely nothing even remotely resembling a condescending tone in my post and I'm sorry if that is how you read it. I thought I was being reasonable and polite in pointing out that I did not think it was appropriate for you to be telling me how I think and what I would say...something you failed to address in your post.

However, I am sorry if that is how it came across...it was not my intention. My use of the smiley was to reinforce the idea there was no malice or injury to my post...I was simply pointing out something which I felt needed to be addressed.

[Inthewoods]

Every single oil transaction goes through the New York Stock Exchange. It means the International price of oil is linked directly to the state of the US economy. No it doesn't. First of all, oil is traded on NYSE, Nasdaq, The London stock exchange, TSE, Nikkei (Sumitomo etc.), EASDAQ in Belgium, as well as in TelAviv, Jakarta, Osaka, and all over South America, just to name a few. The exchange rates vary with any country's economy, they change daily. If the US dollar goes down vs the Euro, America pays more for oil, Europe pays less (relative to the US), and vice versa. The currency that any commodity is traded with is just that, a unit of currency. The real value of the commodity has nothing to do with what currency it's traded in. Basic Economics 101. Period.

[Inthewoods]

the price of crude oil is set by movements on the three major international petroleum exchanges, all of which have their own Web sites featuring information about oil prices. They are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX, http://www.nymex.com), the International Petroleum Exchange in London (IPE, http://www.ipe.uk.com) and the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX, http://www.simex.com.sg).

The Web sites of the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA, http://www.iea.org) and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov), also have extensive historical information on oil prices.That is the exact truth. And while the prices are set by movements in these exchanges because they are the largest, oil trading takes place in every corner of the earth including the places mentioned in my post.

EDIT: What Rory says is true as far as I know about the US $ being the accepted unit of currency internationally, but it's just that, a unit of currency governed by the exchange rates. It has nothing to do with what commodity exchanges actually trade oil.

[rorythedog]

There was absolutely nothing even remotely resembling a condescending tone in my post and I'm sorry if that is how you read it. I thought I was being reasonable and polite in pointing out that I did not think it was appropriate for you to be telling me how I think and what I would say...something you failed to address in your post.

However, I am sorry if that is how it came across...it was not my intention. My use of the smiley was to reinforce the idea there was no malice or injury to my post...I was simply pointing out something which I felt needed to be addressed.

Frankly, I STILL read you as condescending. That could be a language problem and it's definitely my problem. I do try to stay out of these discussions but it's hard because I do care. I'm obviously crap at getting my points across and obviously some of the details are wrong but you'd be mistaken to think I am somehow alone in my beliefs. There are a great many out there who believe the same things I believe about the US Government. And a whole heap of them are Americans, btw. Charlie Sheen, to name but one (cue a loud shouting voice pointing out how he's a failed actor and would say anything to get in the news).

Get this though. No way do I hate "Americans"! I have some US friends on other forums where this stuff never comes up and we get on fine. Hell, I'm a member of a US based sim-racing team! We have no problems. I've known those guys almost as long as I've known some of you but this stuff rarely comes up. When it does though, I find most concur with a lot of what I say, maybe not the details, but enough. I'm too old for the details man. I know enough to know that the US leadership is leading us all down a very dangerous path. So I'm wrong on some details, big deal. You don't think the US has a grand plan for us all? More fool you.

I work with eight other guys in our shop. Tomorrow I'll take a straw poll on the question - "Do you think America has honourable intentions regarding Iraq, Iran, Syria et al"? I can predict right now that, with one numptie exception, they'll all answer NO.

[BALTY]

I always said if I won millions of dollars in a lottery, I'd never change. And thusly nothing around me would change (that much ) as well.
But truely, what would change the most is what I say when around others, family, friends. Or should I say "how others percerive" how I say things.
When you are backed up with some sort of power, prestege, wealth or title, others either get persuaded easier, or get put off easier by you.

From the outside looking in I see a few people and JUST a few, in here "put off" by your title change D1! But I still take you the exactly same way! You're not God of the forum, nor do you caim to be. Nor were you before. So what you say is just genuinly you, and that is all one can expect.
Rory I'm disapointed in you for even thinking the way you do! I also was a little shocked by Rex, and how he took things. But he has a different, disposition with the forum, and a diffeert story to tell. Apples-Oranges.
Anyway I think it's just perception, and disposition. Not condescention! Geta grip mon!
Can't we all just get along??
I do however, agree to your right to disagree!

[acushla]

Frankly, I STILL read you as condescending. That could be a language problem and it's definitely my problem. I do try to stay out of these discussions but it's hard because I do care. I'm obviously crap at getting my points across and obviously some of the details are wrong but you'd be mistaken to think I am somehow alone in my beliefs. There are a great many out there who believe the same things I believe about the US Government. And a whole heap of them are Americans, btw. Charlie Sheen, to name but one (cue a loud shouting voice pointing out how he's a failed actor and would say anything to get in the news).

Get this though. No way do I hate "Americans"! I have some US friends on other forums where this stuff never comes up and we get on fine. Hell, I'm a member of a US based sim-racing team! We have no problems. I've known those guys almost as long as I've known some of you but this stuff rarely comes up. When it does though, I find most concur with a lot of what I say, maybe not the details, but enough. I'm too old for the details man. I know enough to know that the US leadership is leading us all down a very dangerous path. So I'm wrong on some details, big deal. You don't think the US has a grand plan for us all? More fool you.

I work with eight other guys in our shop. Tomorrow I'll take a straw poll on the question - "Do you think America has honourable intentions regarding Iraq, Iran, Syria et al"? I can predict right now that, with one numptie exception, they'll all answer NO.
Please... take my word for it...I was not being condescending.

Personally I am pleased that you DON'T stay out of these discussions...for one thing there wouldn't be much of a discussion going on! It's enlightening to see another point of view as it forces one to more closely examine and clarify one's own position...and for myself I know there is a deepening understanding as bits of the equation are pointed out to me that I was not aware of prior to it being brought to my attention. It's a fun way to learn. Even if I have to dig a little deeper sometimes to understand the point you are making.:silly: ;) The good news is there's always a point to be found.

Allow me this...those of us who have had the privilege of hearing your views have come to accept that you have a definite 'edge' and 'in your face' way of expressing your thoughts of which it is readily apparent you are passionate about. In time we come to understand and accept that this is simply how you express yourself in the Political thread...and once we understand that we are able to move beyond how the ideas are presented and look at the ideas themselves. It's not likely your going to change how you post these ideas...and nor should you...but it might be helpful if you were to understand that often times it is work to exchange ideas with you because it never really comes across as if you are even prepared to consider...only consider...some other ideas or points of view.

Which is OK...but none of us want to be, however subtlety, be accused of being idiots or even as 'know it alls'. A lot of us simply want to have some meaningful dialogue about those issues which are front and center in the world today.

If I tell you how I feel or what I think...that does not mean I think I'm right...it simply shows where I'm coming from today. Anyone who shows me something meaningful could mean that tomorrow I would be coming from a slightly different perspective.

The bottom line here is that as we have chosen to belong to a community, we should first and foremost approach each other as friends. If we did that then I think it would go a long way to eliminating 'personal attacks' perceived or otherwise and our first response to a post wouldn't be that someone is being condescending.

Or patronizing.

You are an asset rorythedog and I for one trust you will remain in the Political thread.

[Willow of Oz]

Petrodollar or PetroEuro (http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm)

Very interesting with regards to the US economy and deficit.


"The latest figure means that the US payments deficit is running at an annual rate of $780 billion, requiring $2 billion a day from the rest of the world—mainly provided by Japan, China and other Asian nations—to finance it." ... " US imports now around 50 percent higher than exports"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/usde-j21.shtml

[WHAT?]

But It's even a greater spread when it comes to the import/exporting of illegal aliens!:ponder:

[rorythedog]

But It's even a greater spread when it comes to the import/exporting of illegal aliens!:ponder:

What does this mean?

[rorythedog]

I found this piece in The Times. Published on the 19th of February.

"America asks the world to believe itself so threatened as to require the kidnappings of foreign citizens in foreign parts, detention without legal process, the curbing of free speech and derogation from all international law. It asks the world to believe that it must disregard the Geneva conventions and employ foreign dictators to help it to torture at random. It uses the same justification for occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. The world simply refuses to agree. Only cringing Britain appeases such actions and calls them merely “anomalous”. There are madmen aplenty, but they do not constitute a war.

Even America’s most robust champions plead that this is all grotesquely counter-productive. What is frightening is not the evil of much American foreign policy at present but its stupidity; the damage it does to its own objectives. What was terrifying about Soviet power in the cold war was not its mega-tonnage but the incompetence of those controlling it.

America and Britain claim the right to invade foreign countries in defiance of international law. This requires at the very least a defensible moral superiority. Americans take this supremacy as read. Moral high ground comes with apple pie and the flag. Yet this supremacy, already questioned by many Americans at home, is in chronic disrepair abroad. Young Europeans and Asians no longer remember the second world war and do not see the world Washington’s way. Their belief in America’ s wealth is secure. Their belief in its values and their relevance to foreign countries is evaporating, blown away by relentless American belligerence. Last year’s BBC poll of 21 countries gave a majority that declared George Bush “a threat to world peace”.

The result is to cripple America’s effectiveness as diplomat and power broker. Take Iran. The emergence of any new nuclear power is alarming. Yet it was tolerated in Israel, India, Pakistan and Korea. Partly because of its isolation, Iran now seems certain to develop a nuclear potential. To respond by increasing that isolation and thus the paranoia of Iran’s turbulent and unstable rulers is daft. The sensible realpolitik must be to give Iran no reason to turn potential into actual power, let alone to want to use it.

I doubt if there is a world leader who would nominate America as best qualified to handle Iran in its present sensitive state. The war-mongering of the neocon ascendancy -- the calls for bombing and the constant listing of targets -- seems to mirror the fundamentalist mullahs behind President Ahmadinejad. American policy in the Middle East is so counter-productive as to be the problem, not the solution".

This is broadly how I feel, only better expressed.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

America likes to keep its 'enemies' in check. But in the end it all comes down to spreading your own beliefs amongst others.

How about this:

World peace cannot exist while there are nations that do not hold the right to free speech sacred.

True or false?

Or better yet, should we fight for the freedoms we all have grown so accustomed to? Or should we give them up to appease other nations who oppose the idea?

If you read George Orwell's 1984, then you'll get an idea of the perfect anti-utopia where everything told are lies and no freedoms exist. Truely horrific IMO.

Other problems are the fact that religion and state can be so intertwined that a democracy doesnt work, even though we all see it as the way forward. This is the problem in Iraq or even Palestina where now the Hamas has great political power but doesnt resign the use of violence to obtain their goals which in turn are connected to religion.

So now we come back to the role of America as world police. Perhaps it is not the best solution but we cant forget that American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown radicals (Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc) that their practices are not tolerated. We cannot let them go unpunished. Good news also comes from this. I mean the IRA and the ETA have now fully disarmed because they see what harm terrorism really does to innocent people.

The problem i think is that why diplomacy so often doesnt work is because one side will never give in no matter what compensations are made within reason. Russia even offered to refine the Uranium on its soil and sell it to Iran. But Iran denied this request. Iran (or North Korea for this matter) wont even allow UN inspection teams to monitor their true intentions as far as i know. No wonder this leads to suspicions. As time moves on we realise how dependent nations have become on each other in the last century. Thus it would seem impossible or even unwise for America to back off the nuclear issue in Iran. We all heard the Iranian president. He will wage war, if not with America, it will be Israel. Israel will not wait for the moment to come obviously and before you know it we have another world war on our hands. I think i prefer precision bombing of American aeroplanes even though i despise any war mongering.

If, on the other hand, Iran was liberal nation with all the basic freedoms (right, speech, religion...) given to the people and did not appear threatening to other (neighbouring) nations,, earned the world's trust by allowing its nuclear programme to be monitored, i would have no problem if it were to build nuclear weapons. Heck we might still need them one day to blow away that rogue comet heading for Earth! :)

[WHAT?]

Finally, a level head!
The debate goes on!
It's like a few posts back...
Power.
Some people are overly obvious in being upset with those who have it. I mean it's always a good thing to question policies, to keep them in check. But when one holds a position, of... "I will not be broken" attitude. Or "I hate those with power period" disposition. Why debate at all? When there is no compromise why have talks?
Alls it takes is a showing of some compromise.. somewhere. Both in a nation, and in ones personal stance. Whatever the subject may be!
Some like other people who know what they want... Know where they stand. etc. There is a place for those type of people, yes. But I say "those who know everything"!... "know nothing"!

[Inthewoods]

Finally, a level head!
The debate goes on!...........................................What ever the subject may be! Some like other people who know what they want... Know where they stand. etc. There is a place for those type of people, yes. But I say "those who know everything"!... "know nothing"!Terrific words, and oh so true. I have very strong beliefs, but I'm certainly not above changing them when confronted by factual evidence or logical arguments. But bending the truth is something I gave up at about the age of 17 and trust me, that was a looooonnnnngggg time ago. (too long actually:ermm:)

EDIT:Off topic, but am I the only one here beginning to get really friggin' bugged by my current avatar?

[rorythedog]

Terrific words, and oh so true. I have very strong beliefs, but I'm certainly not above changing them when confronted by factual evidence or logical arguments. But bending the truth is something I gave up at about the age of 17 and trust me, that was a looooonnnnngggg time ago. (too long actually:ermm:)

EDIT:Off topic, but am I the only one here beginning to get really friggin' bugged by my current avatar?

Alas, you are not alone. :cry:

*EDiT* - that's a good line actually. I just noticed that. Works on so many levels. :evolved:

[acushla]

EDIT:Off topic, but am I the only one here beginning to get really friggin' bugged by my current avatar?
No.:)

[acushla]

How about this:


Truly a gift Rex...:knocked-o

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Maybe there is still a political future in store for me ha ha. :silly: But it all makes sense now doesnt it? And if nations like Iran dont change, they'll be left behind in history. Peer pressure? Just look at China. Still communist you might say, but in the mean while the country is becoming more and more competitive and open. That's what capitalism is all about. Making money and profit. I doubt that the commies in China can still reverse the process. Once capitalist, always capitalist.

Back to the Middle East, my dad once told me that when you go there, you may see people dressed as we westerners dress, but it's all cover. Even in Jordan, the most western arab nation in the middle east is still deep down very old fashioned where success is achieved via family influences. Heck, if you live in a wealthy Arab family you basically already got your phD title in your pocket! Other than that their way of living is still very much comparable to how we lived before the industrial revolution. It's that different! I think countries like Jordan would only be too happy to join the EU but such is not the case. Anyway that's about as much as i know. Perhaps i should go there myself to figure out what it's really like out there...;)

[Willow of Oz]

Even in Jordan, the most western arab nation in the middle east is still deep down very old fashioned where success is achieved via family influences. Heck, if you live in a wealthy Arab family you basically already got your phD title in your pocket!

Indeed! I can't imagine that in any western countries, having money or family connections would make it easier to graduate from a prestiguous university or run in politics.

(sarcasm for those who missed it).

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Indeed! I can't imagine that in any western countries, having money or family connections would make it easier to graduate from a prestiguous university or run in politics.

(sarcasm for those who missed it).

Maybe i didnt make myself clear though. People in wealthy influential Arab families just get the degree and are put into high places like any boss job. I've been told that a typical boss comes to work, reads the newspaper in the morning, drinks his coffee, checks on people if they are present, and leaves for the day.

Ofcourse the degrees they obtain are worthless in the western world and the problem becomes obvious. But who cares if money is plentiful. Fair play doesnt really get rewarded. Maybe there are some analogies to be made to the western world, but i dont believe that this system can work here. Here you'll need to provide more evidence of your studies where a title isnt enough. Otherwise i'd be walking into Oxford University no problem he he ;)

[rorythedog]

Oxford & Cambridge are already full to bursting with exactly the kind of people you're talking about. :confused:

[Inthewoods]

Oxford & Cambridge are already full to bursting with exactly the kind of people you're talking about. :confused:You forgot Harvard and Yale.;)

[acushla]

You forgot Harvard and Yale.;)It makes for a good sound bite...but that is about as far as it goes.

At least the people you (and rorythedog) are referring too are attending classes.

The people Rex are referring to couldn't tell you what the inside of a classroom looked like.

[WHAT?]

What does this mean?
Oh... I don't know!


I guess I was trying to say, We still get more people into our great country, than leave it ! (Legally or illegally)
When the reverse starts to happen, then I'll be worried!:cheeky:

[rorythedog]

Oh... I don't know!


I guess I was trying to say, We still get more people into our great country, than leave it ! (Legally or illegally)
When the reverse starts to happen, then I'll be worried!:cheeky:

I thought that was what you meant.