USA a threat against the rest of the world!

Yeah they must have done that 'cos they just made it seem like USA was going to take control over space all alone. I must learn to be a little bit more critical to this kind of shows

"The Bosnia Bash" was a bit crap. We should have been able to do something about that on our own

But if you look at the British army and how thay have to use mobile phones in combat situations it really takes the pee eye double ess.
And the boots are rubbish too.

But ëFriendly Fireí isnít in the dictionary over here!

Einstein, you don't have to worry about N. Korea or Russia taking over the world, we and the UK will never let that happen.

Good point Director; we do have a friendly fire problem from time to time.

Do you remember seeing the AH-64 that lit up friendly ground targets during Desert Storm? He asked a couple times if the targets were enemy and still, after he was told to cease fire because it was friendlies, I really thought he was going to cap himself right there in the chair.
That's got to be one of the most hellish feelings, realizing you zapped friendlies. You'd think with the technology we have those would never happen. Maybe we should go to cell phones, too.

Excuse me:

I want to make some points.

1st) I don't think USA is a threat against the rest of the world.

2nd) That said, please sit you all and answer this simply question: is USA all that *good* or is something wrong?

3rd) USA don't wanted to adopt Kyoto iniciative to lessen planetary pollution (yeah, right, it would hurt its economy, Bush said). Even thinking USA is the most pollutionist country in the world. It's a fact, don't tell me i am a liar: you all have cars and you all know those are gas guzzlers.

4th) 4.000 USA people died moreless during 2001/09/11. How many people have died in Afghanistan since the start of the war? Collateral casualties? They are persons as well.

5th) No, I'm not pro - Al'Qaeda, or whatever it's spelled.

[edit]: I'm not talking bull#, see this:

www.guardian.co.uk...

...and this...

news.bbc.co.uk...

P.S.: I cited two sounding news sources. I didn't know if the Guardian is sounding cause it's yellow press or not, but I don't think BBC would be untrustworthy to you.

[Edited on 2002-12-17 by MakodFilu]

Well this actually could be misinformation. The PLO will battle in the streets of citys and leave their dead lying where they fall so that when the news crews come they say that the dead are innocents. Not saying that this is whats happening. Just another opinion.

But the USA could spread misinformation too and the Death rate could actually be even higher, by the same motivations. After all, public opinion ended Vietnam war. What better than obscuring the facts? I'm not saying that is happening, but are you really sure it isn't?

I cited two sounding news sites exactly for you not saying *this is bull#/ missinformation/ put your favorite objection here*.

My 0,02

[Edited on 2002-12-19 by MakodFilu]

No, th3e U.S. is not the nation that pollutes the most, I have no idea where you've collected the information to come to that conclusion. I'd love to read any decent information you might have, other than saying we must be the most polluting because of all the cars and "gas guzzlers" we have over here. No, the Kyoto Initiative would not have been good for this country or our economy, and as soon as you manage to get the majority of the world to our pollution control standards, come back and talk to us. Especially considering waste to productivity.

The "researcher" in the BBC article states his information is gathered from media reports. I dare say they are not very accurate and tend to tinker with the body count as well as the Army brass did when tallying enemy body counts in Vietnam.

Regardless, other than Israel, what other nation can you say goes to the extent to minimize civilian casualties? I'm also curious as to how a reporter can tell a civilian from the enemy when they aren't wearing uniforms as western nations' soldiers do.
There's no doubt that civilians get hurt and killed, and that is quite sad, but let's not try and make the defender appear to be the villian.

I'm amazed of how much dissinformed you are... As the most industrialized country, USA is the *most* polluting country. And is a matter of fact cars are the more pollutionist medium. And USA is the country wich consumes more petroleum. Europe and Japan has greater pollution control that USA have. You only have to see your polluted clouds over your cities.

As for the other things you say, take it this way: if you want to be blind to facts, do so. I don't care.

[Edited on 2002-12-20 by MakodFilu]

No you are wrong dude, China is the nation that pollutes the most. By some nearly 25% more than the US.

The difference though is the US has 300,000,000 people, and China 1.3 Billion people. So that's about4 times as many people.

So because of that, environmentalists like to say WE pollute the most.

But in actuality, should having more people give you more right to polluting more?

Nay, the earth will die all the same, whether having a billion people to justify it, or having 1 person. China pollutes the most, and like the US, they will soon find out how dependant they are on that industry. The problem is until we have Fusion power, we are dead in the water, Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source, and so we are forced to rely on coal//oils//natural gas. Even if we turned ALL of the continental US into a solar panel, we'd not generate enough electricity for the US.

Until we get Fusion power, the Kyoto agreement is simply not sensible.

Sincerely,
no signature

Given that population figures, China should not pollute only 25% more, but 400% more, as population is (grossly) 4 times higher. Even with those figures (i would like to see graphs) basically you are stating that USA is not the most pollutionist country, but it's the most pollutionist country per capita.

No man, i don't see your rights there...

You, as a country, should do *way* more to improve pollution control.

P.S.: I'm searching for pollution Graphs. Not so many studies found, but stay tuned.

[edit]: firsts links i see, USA is not the most pollutionist, but should improve a *lot*.

Interesting links:
arch.rivm.nl...
(i'll post more with sufficient time given)



[Edited on 2002-12-20 by MakodFilu]

"There is no evidence (anti-American rhetoric and theorizing doesn't count as evidence. Sorry) that the U.S. has any desire to conquer the world"

yes there is, there's also evidence that it doesn't.
it depends on perspective.

Lets say you attack Iraq depose Saddam and install a new democratic government.
presumably you would install one that is autonomous as you desire Iraq to become a progressive prosperous and free country yet you will also desire it to be one that is allied to America or at least sympathetic towards American interests, thatís simply common sense, your not going to install one who hates your guts and wants to be destructive towards US interests in the middle east..

On one hand, this is a noble pursuit.
on the other, its exactly how Rome colonised Europe.

from one perspective you are altruists.
from another you are conquerors.

Given that we live in a world of finite resources and a global economy, it is reasonable to assume that in order for America to continue to grow and develop and ensure the prosperity of its people you require subsidiary areas of the planet to be friendly / sympathetic to your interests.

As such the invasion of Iraq cannot be seen as simply altruistic. That makes no political or economic sense, even if it is simply to "crush your enemies" altruism is removed from the equation.

As such you must perceive it as part of Americas continued colonisation of the world by proxy leaders.

If it had stopped with Afghanistan, one could argue it was a one off. If it stops with Iraq one could argue that its simply a slow developing and generally benign attempt to secure global U.S. interests. If it continues to other countries then you must admit that America is effectively performing a political global take over.

For better or for worse.

Sorry pal, I've been all over this country and seem to have caught all the cities in their clear days.

Any idea what is the city with the worst pollution?

Once again, While you claim I am the victim of disinformation, you make allegations without backing them up. I think you go on assumptions you have due to the misinformation you have learned about this country. Ever spent much time here? What do you know first hand of this country?

As far as the other things I said, if you want to be blind of the facts and think I'm wrong, I don't care. And I don't care if you don't care.

In case you missed it, you made an allegation about my nation being the filthiest, and I am now expecting you to back it up with objective, verifiable proof.

Ok, Lupe, you have a point. Evidence doesn't necessarily lead one to the truth, it depends on preconceived notions and personal biases. Like three blind guys touching different parts of an elephant and by those different pieces of "eveidence" guessing entirely different things that the elephant is.

Sorry pal, but I did..., some posts ago. Obviously you missed it.

BTW: have you backed your affirmation with some objective info. Could you provide some? Please...

[Edited on 2002-12-21 by MakodFilu]

If you've offered this information in a previous post, it wasn't in this thread. What thread was it that you proved that America is the filthiest?

When you you in this country to witness first hand all the pollution caused by all our automobiles, and how long were you here? Where were you in the country?

Two posts ago.

I'll provide you the link again (as i said in my post, I were searching still, but I'm thinking the effort is not worthy enough)

arch.rivm.nl...

Whoa hold on there sparky, who died and made you the expert on polution and who needs improvement in that area?

(speechless)

I changed my mind. Let's took some beers, then sit and wait for the World to rotten.

Oh, that proof. It appears that your proof made a big deal of America being highest in NO2, but other than that, we certainly did not lead the way.

It also didn't make a big deal out of other major ecological concerns that are of major importance (of which we are not to blame).

You wanna drink a beer and watch the world go by? I'm game! What kind of beer do we bring?

By the way, did I ask you, when and where were you in America and for how long?