American over-consumption, and a discussion of attitudes to the environment

JustHalf

(discussion continued from other thread)

Originally posted by American
ROTFL! Have you seen this frozen wasteland of ANWR? And besides, the polar bears like the transAlaska pipeline and the caribou herds near it are thriving.
"Destroying" is an ignorant term. Ignorant of the advanced technology of drilling and the actual reality of the current pipeline.
And, no, I am not an employee of "Big Oil."
If you wish to go over the environmental issues, maybe you should start another thread and invite me on.

Started. Consider yourself invited, if you like.

"Destroying" is hardly an ignorant term. How will a large pipeline through Alaska benefit the beauty of the place? How will the creation of the infrastructure necessary for an oil extration plant also help?

Regardless of how it may affect the environment

Originally posted by American
And the United States has been increasingly been using energy more efficiently, and beyond that has done research into fusion (a machine called z, our next Manhattan project) and solar power satellites.

The Z project cannot be comparred to the Manhattan project.

The purpose of the Manhattan project was to create an atomic bomb. No strict control of the reaction was needed. The purpose of the Z project is to create a controlled fusion reaction for the purposes of energy "creation".

Originally posted by American
The American Way is not to retreat but to rise to a technological challenge.

I wish that was always the case; but given the manner the government has treated NASA over the last decade or so, I don't think so.

Originally posted by American
But no, we are not going to huddle in caves, and yes, idiot liberals have been buying stupid SUV's for suburban use. My eyes are rolling at their hypocrisy, but it is a free country.

Do you think that only liberals buy SUV's?

Also, please explain your contempt for the Democrats.

Also, please explain why America should not try to limit it's harmful effects on the environment by the legislative process.

I don't see any hope of this in this administration, given that Bush and Cheney both own oil companies, and Ms Rice is a board member of one.

American

Originally posted by JustHalf
Bush and Cheney both own oil companies

This will be news to them.
President Bush sold his stock in Harken (an oil company) over a decade ago in order to pay off a loan he took out to buy into the Rangers baseball team. His financial resources are in blind trust now because he is President.
The only time he owned an oil company was before the mid-80's when he had a small company that researched and found small reserves and developed them. When the price of oil dropped below $10 a barrel in the mid-80's, the value of his assets dropped so far that he sold them to a larger company that felt it would be able to weather the economic storm. That way he avoided bankruptcy that many other small oil companies declared at that time.
Vice President Cheney was CEO of a company that made equipment that oil companies bought. Far as I know Haleburton doesn't drill for oil, and is not an "oil company." On becoming Vice President, Dick Cheney had to give up his Haleburton stock options to avoid any conflict of interest and lost thirteen million dollars that he would have had if he not agreed to serve his country. As with the President, the Vice President's assets are in a blind trust now.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, our National Security Adviser, served on a board of an oil company in the past, but would have resigned such a position on becoming National Security Adviser.

please explain your contempt for the Democrats.
They allowed the most corrupt President in American history to remain in office, deliberately turning blind eyes to unbridled corruption to the detriment of our country. Read The Year of the Rat among other books on the subject.
When faced with similar, actually much less corruption in the 1970's, the Republicans finally came around and asked Richard Nixon to resign, which he did.
The Democrats also practiced wide-spread voter fraud in 2000 under the campaign chairmanship of Richard Daley, Jr. And I'll print 16 pages of reports of such fraud on this site it you want.
In the words of long time Democrat and Pollster Pat Caddell said on MSNBC: "But I have to tell you, at this point it's hard not to believe that my party, which is the party I've belonged to since my great, great grandfather in my family, has become no longer a party of great principle -- but has been hijacked by a confederacy of gangsters who need to take power by whatever means and whatever canard they can say."

They claim to champion free speech but since they have control of most news on commercial television airways, they generally never allow the Republican side of a story to be told without bias. Check Bernard Goldberg's new book, Bias.

The Democrat party in the 1980's became infested with groups and elected officials who championed foreign communist insurgents over our own efforts to prevent communists taking over countries, for example, in Nicaragua. The Democrat party is still infested with groups that control that party and are still anti-American.

Liberals in the U.S. are blind to reality, and think fantasy is logic and they are anti-American. And that is where a lot of the "contempt" for them comes from.

Not all Democrats are liberals and not all liberals are Democrats, so there are not exact correlations when using one term or the other.

How will a large pipeline through Alaska benefit the beauty of the place?
There already is a large pipeline through Alaska.
The proposal is to build a short one from ANWR to the main one already at Prudhoe Bay.
Beauty?
How did the Twin Towers benefit the beauty of Manhattan island after the Indians sold it?


How will the creation of the infrastructure necessary for an oil extration plant also help?
An oil extraction plant??
Guess you don't know much about oil.
After they drill and strike oil, they put in a pump. The ones I have seen look like mechanical ants on the landscape, slurping up and down, and about the size of a generator, less annoying to look at than windmill power machines that destroy the beauty of the hills near San Francisco. Probably they have proposed something much more sophisticated for ANWR that are able to blend more into the landscape. I have heard how maybe only one drill will be needed where 6 would have been used in the past, as they have lateral drilling underground that they can do now from the primary site.

Red Moose

How did the Twin Towers benefit the beauty of Manhattan island after the Indians sold it?

I read that was for something like $16! LOL!

I am of the opinion that the oil will eventually run out, but we will have been able to use oil to research and develop sustainable power sources, or better ones, like fuel cells. So I say use up the oil! Buy V8 10litre cars!

One day we'll all be living in trees without cigarettes, alcohol, cars because the eco-nuts will have banned everything worth doing.

Anyway, if oil is so bad, why not build massive pipelines and use it all up - once it's gone, there's no more danger of oil spills, surely. (OK I've been reading Douglas Adams books again so my logic is a bit off)(But the argument is sound, IMHO).

adnans

They allowed the most corrupt President in American history to remain in office, deliberately turning blind eyes...

<snip>

...Not all Democrats are liberals and not all liberals are Democrats, so there are not exact correlations when using one term or the other.

i didnt know there was so much internal squabbling inside america. this makes it even more worse thought of US getting involved into the world politics when they cant even decide who doing what.

as for the oil bit ... bush and chaney will cease being president and vice president one day, they have to look after their future in the meantime. just look at bush snr, one of many partners in a 12 billion company, makes you think though without drawing any conspiracies on the table of course

alaska indeed is a natural reserve, far from the smoke filled streets of new york.

adnans

American

Originally posted by adnans

i didnt know there was so much internal squabbling inside america. this makes it even more worse thought of US getting involved into the world politics when they cant even decide who doing what.

Are there any countries that don't have internal squabbling.
Seriously though, the citizens of the U.S. have come close to an impasse, similar to the one it faced before our Civil War of 1860-1865, where one side could not abide slavery being legal in the U.S. any longer, and the other side argued State's Rights. A very good video that explains America's sides in the conflict and American ideals as we understand them is Gettysburg starring Martin Sheen and Jeff Daniels.

Now we have a deepening divide over how we see the role of government in our lives, especially socialism, and religious issues, such as abortion.

As our arguments with each other have to do with morality and reining in government interference, I don't think they will be detrimental to the world at large any more that our "squabble" with the British in the 1700's ended up detrimental because we disagreed with them about the best way to govern a country. We still do, but we get along.

American

Originally posted by adnans

.. bush and chaney will cease being president and vice president one day, they have to look after their future in the meantime.

They are secure in their futures, having made already enough money to provide for themselves and their families. President Bush made his money in baseball, about $15 million, which he feels is sufficient to provide for his family's needs. Vice President Cheney has a much bigger cushion, but has no need to look after his future, as he won't live a great deal longer most likely.

We are currently debating who we would like to see take Dick Cheney's place on the ticket in 2004 as he will probably not be able to serve a second term. A lot of the excitement lately is revolving around Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the current National Security Adviser. Lots of us would like to see Condi on the ticket with Bush in 2004 and be Vice President for four years and then run for President after Bush.

In so far as oil is concerned. Bush knows the economic recovery depends on oil prices being cheaper than before. The very high prices of $30-35 a barrel for oil during the last few years caused the economy downturn, not just the dot.com bust after wild speculation in internet stocks.

Oil is down to $18 a barrel today, and has been around $20 or so for a month or so. This is not good news for "oil men," but it is what Bush wants because it is good for the economy.

Evil Phil

Is it not true that Bush did not ratify the kyoto protocol because of the oil lobby? The same lobby that financed his electoral campaign. Bush is going to increase America's CO2 output to help drive the countries economy. Regardless of the fact that this affects the whole world, not just the states. What gives him, or America, the right to affect our environment for their gain? The good ol' U.S. of A. has 80% of global wealth, and they're going to increase greenhouse emissions to get more of the pie.

Of course they have their military to back this up if anybody should stand in their way, such and the Taliban not letting US Oil companies put an oil pipe through Afghanastan. I'm not defending the Taliban, but when the States rush the troops in you can bet there's oil involved.

American

Originally posted by Evil Phil
Is it not true that Bush did not ratify the kyoto protocol because of the oil lobby?

No. Our reasons for being against it as written are because it would adversely affect our economy as a whole, not just "Big Oil"

The same lobby that financed his electoral campaign.

All contributors to the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush have been posted on the internet. My name is included, and I have nothing to do with the oil lobby. If you wish to substantiate this charge, then back it up with stats. I have never seen anyone back this up with figures, so I tend to think you are just repeating a Big Lie.

Bush is going to increase America's CO2 output to help drive the countries economy.
Well, he is giving more speeches than before and running more miles in his daily workouts than before, so I suppose his CO2 output has increased. Seriously, perhaps you should have said, "In order to drive the country's economy, Bush will not propose measures to help curb America's CO2 output."
In reponse to that, Bush's energy bill, which has been deliberately stalled by the Senate now controlled by the Democrats, contains measures to help curb CO2 emissions, like research into methods for cleaning coal, like funding for alternative clean energy, like measures to assist power companies to clean up their emissions.
The issue, though, is that the American people will not look favorably on anything that causes economic hardship, and any President would have to respond to that or face a hostile electorate at the next election. President Clinton just didn't face the issue after our Senate voted 99-0 not to consider ratifying Kyoto unless it was significantly altered.

What gives him, or America, the right to affect our environment for their gain?
Human beings are like that. If your country was top dog, it would act the same way, perhaps worse.


The good ol' U.S. of A. has 80% of global wealth, and they're going to increase greenhouse emissions to get more of the pie.
The world's economy is adversely affected when the U.S. is in a downturn. This country may act for selfish reasons, but if we get a cold, other places in the world get the flu. There are Americans at the bottom of our society who consider themselves poor, and they want more of the pie.
Bush's answer is to make the pie bigger, so everyone can have a nice slice.

Of course they have their military to back this up if anybody should stand in their way, such and the Taliban not letting US Oil companies put an oil pipe through Afghanastan.
I've heard this absurd rumor a couple of places, but I doubt there is any truth in it.
I can grant that President Clinton may well have agreed to send troops to Kosovo and Bosnia and Macedonia to stabilize a region for a pipeline from the Caspian, but who in their right mind would want to build a pipeline over those mountains in Afghanistan.
Maybe the Soviets invaded Afghanistan a couple decades ago because they were dreaming of a warm water port, but I haven't heard anything reliable about a pipeline.

I'm not defending the Taliban, but when the States rush the troops in you can bet there'b
s oil involved.
The only connection to oil was the jet fuel bombing of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a plane in Pennsylvania. Perhaps you missed that, but it was all over the news.

American

Originally posted by Evil Phil

Let me clarify my answer to your allegation that the oil lobby financed the Bush presidential campaign.
I'm sure oil contributed to the campaign. They may have even contributed to the Gore campaign. But I do not believe they were a huge, overwhelming percentage of the contributors.
And as the contributors are posted on the internet, there is nothing preventing anyone from researching what percentage of the contributions were made by the oil lobby.
I was very involved as a private citizen volunteer in the 2000 presidential campaign, and saw tons of material in opposition to my candidate's election. I believe that if stats had shown a huge percentage of contributions from the oil lobby then I would have seen attack pieces touting them.
So, I don't think this allegation is true, just an unsubstantiated charge.

Evil Phil

If I'm wrong about the campaign funds then fair enough. But the oil lobby are hugely infulential and he is bowing down to them.

bonkey

Originally posted by American
Have you seen this frozen wasteland of ANWR? And besides, the polar bears like the transAlaska pipeline and the caribou herds near it are thriving.

The original post stated that the ANWR was a beautiful place. The assertion that it is a "frozen wasteland" is blatantly misleading. It is a wasteland in that it is inhospitable for human survival or settlement. This should only serve to heighten its value for protection, not diminish it.

Also, as a side note, the caribou are thriving near the pipeline due to the massive depopulation of wolves in the area - their natural predator. The depopulation of wolves can be directly attributed to the hunting of these animals by those working on the pipeline.

No excuse can be offered for the proposed destruction of a wildlife preserve. Can you imagine the outrage America would voice if it were Yellowstone Park which was to be exploited for oil? It is purely the fact that it is indeed in a "frozen wasteland" that has kept some of the opposition quiet. Out of sight, out of mind.

As to the whole thing about Bush being in oil or not....its irrelevant. The simple fact is that the analysts believed prior to the election that a Bush presidency would be far more "business-friendly" than a Gore one. You can attribute this to their party affiliations, personal backgrounds, or anything you like, but it is still what the analysts were expounding prior to the last round of elections, and so far they appear to have been spot on the money.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by American

Originally posted by Evil Phil
Seriously, perhaps you should have said, "In order to drive the country's economy, Bush will not propose measures to help curb America's CO2 output."

Or rather, "Bush will propose measures to increase America's CO2 output, while still saying that America needs to use its energy more efficiently".

The issue, though, is that the American people will not look favorably on anything that causes economic hardship, and any President would have to respond to that or face a hostile electorate at the next election. President Clinton just didn't face the issue after our Senate voted 99-0 not to consider ratifying Kyoto unless it was significantly altered.

Personally, I dont care whether it was Bush, Clinton, Ronnie Ray-Gun or any other president. The more important point you make is that the American people will not look favourably....

The rest of the major industrial world has managed to sign up to the Kyoto agreements. There is no nation in the world where cutting back on economic production is popular, yet they all managed to sign up.

The Kyoto agreements were not even Draconian. They require changes to be implemented over a number of years, so that the economic world can strive towards a better environment within a timescale which the experts could agree was a fair balance between the importance of the economy, and the importance of the ecology.

There are very few (if any) strong arguments which can be applied to the US' refusal to sign. Essentially, it boiled down to "we will not have our internal policy dictated to us by an external body". If thats the excuse, then fine - use it and suffer the criticism.

This applies to both sides in this dicsussion. Dont blame Bush or Clinton - its not about American parties. America, the nation, howed that it is unwilling to sign up to a co-operative agreement on pretecting the environment. (p.s. This ties back to American's comments that the government is the people.

What gives him, or America, the right to affect our environment for their gain?
Human beings are like that. If your country was top dog, it would act the same way, perhaps worse.

Again, I would point out that the US is the only major economy who did not sign up. Do you think, American, that the other nations can somehow survive these cutbacks better? Given that the US didnt sign up, and the rest of the nations are still comitted, isnt it an indication of how seriously they take the issue? If, as you assert, becoming more environmentally friendly involves a cutback in economic growth, then these nations are slitting their own throats by remaining signed up to Kyoto while the US goes its own merry own way. And yet, this is what they have done.

You can call it human nature, or whatever you like, but the fact is that the rest of the world appears to have woken up to the importance of this issue. America does not. The rest of the world have realised that its not just about "top dog", but its also about a small thing called "our children and the world they inherit from us".

The world's economy is adversely affected when the U.S. is in a downturn. This country may act for selfish reasons, but if we get a cold, other places in the world get the flu.

I agree - a downturn in the US would affect the rest of the world. So what? The rest of the world still signed up to Kyoto, and did so regardless of the US' decision. You think this wont cause a downturn for them as well? If it does, then surely it shows how seriously the rest of the world takes this issue in comparison with the US. If, on the other hand, it iwll not cause a downturn for them, then surely it would not have done so for the US either.

So, whichever way you look at it, it is still a moot point. It is not a good argument as to why the US could afford to abstain from the Kyoto agreements.

There are Americans at the bottom of our society who consider themselves poor, and they want more of the pie.
Bush's answer is to make the pie bigger, so everyone can have a nice slice.

Again, it is not about individual leaders - it is about the US as a nation. However, taking this point....Surely a redistribution of wealth would have been a better solution? To make the poor less poor does not have to involve making the rich far richer. This argument against "ecologicalisation" is effectively the same as saying "the rich want to become richer".

Of course they have their military to back this up if anybody should stand in their way, such and the Taliban not letting US Oil companies put an oil pipe through Afghanastan.
I've heard this absurd rumor a couple of places, but I doubt there is any truth in it.

Links to numerous sources for this have been posted several times by others (Hobbes, I believe). IIRC, some of these links include minutes from senate meetings?

The fact is that the US have a serious business interest in running a pipeline across northern Afghanistan.

While I am not so much a conspiracy theorist that I would say that this is a cause fo the current war, the fact remains that the change in political climate in Aghanistan and the region in general will prove greatly beneficial to the US.

While the US refused to recognise the Taliban, and while Afghanistan remained in a state of constant turmoil, this meant that the pipeline was just a pipedream. Now that the face of Afghanistan is changing, this may also change.

I can imagine that in a few months, the pipeline will be announced as a major foreign investment in to the nation, so that everyone wins. The US gets its strategic oil supply, and the Afhani people benefit from large-scale and continued investment.

It may be callous in the extreme to say that this is the reason for the war in any way, but it is in no way untrue to say that the US will, in all probability, benefit massively from the political change in Afghanistan. Given the history of the US' involvements in the ME, and their continued ability to end up with financially attrative oil deals there (in comparison to the rest of the world) there is at the very least a case to be answered....not one to be brushed under the carpet with glib assertions that it is an "absurd rumour" and that the only connection to oil is the jet fuel exploding on 09-11.

jc

Evil Phil

Bush is going to increase America's CO2 output to help drive the countries economy.
Well, he is giving more speeches than before and running more miles in his daily workouts than before, so I suppose his CO2 output has increased. Seriously, perhaps you should have said, "In order to drive the country's economy, Bush will not propose measures to help curb America's CO2 output."

I was going to let this one lie, but trying to point out faults in peoples grammer is just as bad as pointing out a spelling mistake. It's lame and carries no weight in a political discussion.

bonkey

Originally posted by Evil Phil

I was going to let this one lie, but trying to point out faults in peoples grammer is just as bad as pointing out a spelling mistake. It's lame and carries no weight in a political discussion.

I think (I hope!) American was pointing out that there is a subtle difference between refusing to curb output, and explicitly increasing it.

This difference does mostly boil down to use words in the end, but Asmerican's line is both more correct factually, and less damning of Bush (of whom we know American is a fan).

Lets try and not get bogged down in this....but could American clarify whether he was making a "serious" point, or just taking the piss...


jc

Excelsior

Originally posted by American

How did the Twin Towers benefit the beauty of Manhattan island after the Indians sold it?
[/B]

Well, there were a couple of years in between those two events.

However, the twin towers were universally derided in the architectural world as a perfect example of a failed large scale project.
They were aesthetically bland, they were built in an unorthodox way that in time, tragically, proved to be foolish.
They were too tall for the surrounding areas impacting quite badly on pedestrians, but hey, Americans want to drive, not walk.
The Temple Bar style urban environment that was intended for the Plaza failed, even after 15 years of heavy funding because the scale of the project prevented any kind of interaction with residents. As a result, outside of 9-6 it was deserted.
All these things would have faded away if the people inside the towers could enjoy the views that they offered. Few would argue that they were the finest views on the planet. However, all the windows were 18 inches wide. In other words, narrower than most adult men's shoulder span. The buildings were a failure and it seems striking to me that someone so American-centric as yourself could suggest them as an example of progression or technology being well used.
Look down the island to Chrysler, look to Rotterdam and the KPN Tower, look to Potzdamer Platz and its Mercedez, Sony and German Postal Services towers, darnit, look at downtown Denver to see better examples of architecture that works.
As oppossed to architecture that looks clumsy and stupid until it gets blown up and we all forget that we, actually, hated that building.

American

Originally posted by Excelsior

it seems striking to me that someone so American-centric as yourself could suggest them as an example of progression or technology being well used.

Don't let it worry you, but you are certainly not the first person who failed to pick up on my private, somewhat wry sense of humor.

However, I do have a picture that shows the Towers in a light that lets you know why we Americans miss them and their occupants. Is there any way to post pictures here?

American

Originally posted by Evil Phil


I was going to let this one lie, but trying to point out faults in peoples grammer is just as bad as pointing out a spelling mistake. It's lame and carries no weight in a political discussion.

*Sigh*

It was whimsy, with no insult intended, nor correction of grammar intended.

Doesn't anyone ever have fun any more?

Maybe that's one of the reasons I like Dubya... he always knew how to have fun.

Life is too short not to.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

the caribou are thriving near the pipeline due to the massive depopulation of wolves in the area - their natural predator. The depopulation of wolves can be directly attributed to the hunting of these animals by those working on the pipeline.

Well, that's the first time I've heard that. Do you have a reference that cites current and pre-pipeline populations of wolves? I just thought the caribou were hanging around the town of Prudhoe because no one molested them there, including wolves.

No excuse can be offered for the proposed destruction of a wildlife preserve.
Two points.
1. We aren't going to destroy it, anymore than Alaska was destroyed by putting in the transAlaska pipeline. And now the technology is more advanced and less intrusive.
2. One of the things that frosts Alaskans about everyone in "The Lower Forty-Eight" and those "Outside" of Alaska getting on their high horses about the evils of despoiling Alaskan wilderness is that all the other States in the Union and certainly all of Europe and Ireland did a pretty good job of exploiting their land and resources. And they think you are taking out your guilt trips on them.
Alaskans are for drilling in ANWR and are much more aware of what is actually being proposed in terms of "footprints," and how their State fared after the transAlaska pipeline was put in than people "Outside". They know that the area being considered for exploration and drilling is only like 1/10 of 1% of the whole preserve.

Can you imagine the outrage America would voice if it were Yellowstone Park which was to be exploited for oil?
Yellowstone is sitting on a massive caldera that is going to blow the U.S. to Kingdom Come one of these millennia.
We may be forced to figure out a way to drill for lava to release the pressure if we are to survive.


The simple fact is that the analysts believed prior to the election that a Bush presidency would be far more "business-friendly" than a Gore one.
You don't have to be an "analyst" to say that. It's like saying the sky is blue.
And in the U.S. being "business friendly" is a good thing. We are not socialists. Our wealth derives from being "business friendly". Businesses, especially small businesses, create the jobs and do the research and development that makes new products that create more wealth.
We make the pie bigger.
Capitalism R US.
We Americans don't apologize for it; we are proud of it.
And the ones that aren't proud of us raise confused sons that go fight with the Taliban.

Aspro

And in the U.S. being "business friendly" is a good thing. We are not socialists. Our wealth derives from being "business friendly".

"Our wealth" is a bit general, don't you think? - with the USA being the most unequal country in the developed world, with the largest gap between rich and poor.

"Your" wealth comes mostly from the exploitation of cheap labour both at home and especially in the Third World, from bombing poor countries to steal their natural resources under the farcical cover of a "War against Terrorism". What a joke! As if terrorism is something that can be defeated, while the underlying causes for it are exacerbated more every day by "business friendly" America. The "war" has created a thousand more bin Ladens. Just as Ian Paisley was the greatest recruiter for the IRA during the Troubles.

And once again it will be ordinary Americans paying for the greed and powerlust of their so-called leaders.

bonkey

Originally posted by American

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, that's the first time I've heard that. Do you have a reference that cites current and pre-pipeline populations of wolves? I just thought the caribou were hanging around the town of Prudhoe because no one molested them there, including wolves.

I'll see if I can relocate my reference...

No excuse can be offered for the proposed destruction of a wildlife preserve.
Two points.
1. We aren't going to destroy it, anymore than Alaska was destroyed by putting in the transAlaska pipeline. And now the technology is more advanced and less intrusive.

Alaska <> Wildlife reserve.

I'll accept your figure about 1/10 of 1% of the reserve being drilled, even allowing for some "collateral" waste. It doesnt matter. The point is this...and read it carefully...its a wildlife reserve. Got it? When it was set up, it was done so to prevent any and all settlement and/or industrialisation of the area. What is now being put forward is that such a status is only valid as long as the land remains economically worthless for other purposes. This is a prime example of putting the economy before the ecology. Once you set a precedent like this, how can you ever hope to preserve the rest if other economic factors wish to explit it.

2. One of the things that frosts Alaskans about everyone in "The Lower Forty-Eight" and those "Outside" of Alaska getting on their high horses about the evils of despoiling Alaskan wilderness is that all the other States in the Union and certainly all of Europe and Ireland did a pretty good job of exploiting their land and resources. And they think you are taking out your guilt trips on them.

Oh - I get it. Because the rest of the world has shown no regard for resources, Alaska shouldnt have to either. No allowances for the fact that the rest of the world outside the US is now saying "we went too far - we need to stop". No allowances for the fact that Alaska is not a nation.

By your analogy, every piece of land everywhere can be exploited because some other piece of land was exploited.

Alaskans are for drilling in ANWR

And hey - if the locals are for it, screw the ecology, right

The simple fact is that the analysts believed prior to the election that a Bush presidency would be far more "business-friendly" than a Gore one.
You don't have to be an "analyst" to say that. It's like saying the sky is blue.
And in the U.S. being "business friendly" is a good thing. We are not socialists. Our wealth derives from being "business friendly".

<snip>

I fail to see how saying that one administration being more business friendly than another administration is as obvious as saying the sky is blue, but I guess I'm not American (no pun intended).

Also, I am talking about the relative "business friendliness" of two US governments, not the bf of the US as a nation, which is what the rest of your piece was on.

And the ones that aren't proud of us raise confused sons that go fight with the Taliban.

Unless you are a personal friend of these people, I would ask you not to go making slanderous statements like this on these boards please.

jc

American

Originally posted by bonkey

at the very least a case to be answered....not one to be brushed under the carpet with glib assertions that it is an "absurd rumour"

Let's settle some things. Can someone provide the exact location of the Caspian oil fields? Are they east, west or north of the sea?
And if this pipeline really is more than an absurd rumor, then where is the oil coming from? and where is it going?
Maybe it is Iran that wants to build one to China?

The fact is that the US have a serious business interest in running a pipeline across northern Afghanistan.

Why do we have a serious business interest in piping oil from Iran to China? What U.S. company is proposing this?
No more unsubstantiated wispy rumors; I want some real particulars before I will back off my belief that this is an absurd rumor.


I can imagine that in a few months, the pipeline will be announced as a major foreign investment in to the nation, so that everyone wins. The US gets its strategic oil supply, and the Afhani people benefit from large-scale and continued investment.

Care to bet?
And how does the U.S. get the oil if the pipeline is going to run across northern Afghanistan?


It may be callous in the extreme to say that this is the reason for the war in any way

Callous doesn't fit; but ignorance of Americans does. We didn't go to war in Afghanistan for some fictitious pipeline. We went because we had been greviously wronged; we went to right that wrong. Period.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

The rest of the major industrial world has managed to sign up to the Kyoto agreements.

When Bush said the obvious, that Kyoto wasn't going to work so he wasn't going to waste time on it, only Romania had ratified it.
And in the form it had before, no one else was going to sign it, because it would have been economic suicide.
Now they have a nice new cop-out clause, you can sign it and not be held to it, so I lost interest after Japan signed that new Kyoto paper tiger with no teeth, as it was even more worthless than the one before it.

The rest of the world still signed up to Kyoto, and did so regardless of the US' decision.
I assume you are talking about the watered down, toothless new version of Kyoto? And exactly who is "the rest of the world?"
Now this is a trick question, because having a head of state sign something does not mean it necessarily has the effect of law, as in some places, like the U.S., a legislative body must still ratify it before it come into law.

You quoted me before as saying there are Americans at the bottom of our society who consider themselves poor, and th Bush's answer is to make the pie bigger, so everyone can have a nice slice.

Your answer:
Surely a redistribution of wealth would have been a better solution?
Grade: F-
Communism fails.
Socialism stagnants and then fails.
Regulated capitalism thrives.
If you wish to discuss economic systems and their merits, perhaps we need another thread.

American

Originally posted by Evil Phil
But the oil lobby are hugely infulential and he is bowing down to them.

George W. Bush bows only to his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

How is he "bowing" to them? Specifically what measure did he do solely at the behest of Big Oil and not because it was in America's best interst?

And if he's bowing to them, how come the price of gas is now running between 99c to 1.29 a gallon depending on grade and your location in the country?
Why is the price of a barrel of oil running 1/3 less than since Bush took office? Is he trying to run his friends out of business?

bonkey

Originally posted by American

Originally posted by bonkey
And if this pipeline really is more than an absurd rumor, then where is the oil coming from? and where is it going?
Maybe it is Iran that wants to build one to China?

Heres one link which I found easily from the Whitehouse.

The US has significant interests in oil in this area, as well as with whichever of the 7 sisters is inolved in the deal.

All your comments about piping to China, Iran, blah blah blah are completely irrelevant. The US buys oil from the ME. This needs to be transported to the US, which typically involves ships. This means that the oil the US needs must get to the coast, which involves pipelines.

New pipelines are proposed which would be most cost-effectively done by running them across Afghanistan. Up until recently Afghanistan was too politically troubled for this to be a viable option, even though talks were had with the Taliban on this very subject.

I really dont want to have to trawl back through articles on this forum and on Humanities (from whence this forum sprang). I would suggest that before you go rubbishing the whole thing again, that you go to www.google.com, put in a search for "Afghanistan Pipeline" and go read some of the hits which have come out of there.

In simplest terms, the extended exploitation of the region makes more oil available to the US. Major US-based companies are involved in the exploitation of the oil. Bush himself has stated (in the link above) that improving the network in the region will be to the benefit of the US.

You can continue to assume this is all mythical. That is your perogative. You are, however, incorrect.

We didn't go to war in Afghanistan for some fictitious pipeline. We went because we had been greviously wronged; we went to right that wrong. Period.

Which is why you didnt go there after the miulitary attack on the USS Cole, or any of the other attacks? Or were the numbers of dead in those terrorist attacks too small to be "grevious wrongs".

Also, please go back and read my original post on this issue where I stated clearly While I am not so much a conspiracy theorist that I would say that this is a cause fo the current war, the fact remains that the change in political climate in Aghanistan and the region in general will prove greatly beneficial to the US.[/i]

Exactly where did I misunderstand Americans and/or say that oil was the reason you went there?

jc

Hobbes

American your not the first to ask this. Go to the humanities forum (and search here) for references to Afganistan and oil.

You will find links that lead to a US Goverment report relating to setting up a pipe through Afganistan wouldn't be possible until they could put a stable government into the region. This report was long before the attacks.

You will also find links off to news stories where the US states it was planning to invade Afganistan around late September/October of 2001. Again long before the actual attack happened.

If you do some research you may also find that the US was in talks with the Taleban a week or so before the attacks regarding setting up an oil pipe and Bin Laden wasn't mentioned once in the meetings.

The reason no one has bothered posting links is because they have already been posted 3 or 4 times.

Try looking.

US Intrests in the Central Asian republics (US Goverment website). Large Document but contains the part about the US having to put a stable goverment in place. Here is a condensed version.

bonkey

Originally posted by American

Originally posted by bonkey
When Bush said the obvious, that Kyoto wasn't going to work so he wasn't going to waste time on it, only Romania had ratified it.

Actually, I believe his reasoning was that he did not accept the figures on how bad the environment can get, given that the scientific community cannot appear to come to any consensus on it.

Therefore, his approach is "until you can quantify exactly how bad the problem is, we will consider there to be no problem".

You may agree with this sentiment. The rest of the world does not, apparently.

be held to it, so I lost interest after Japan signed that new Kyoto paper tiger with no teeth, as it was even more worthless than the one before it.

So you're saying that the US was right to refuse to sign it, even though they never had to implement it because of a cop-out clause? That they are better off having taken the criticism of the world for nothing?

This makes no sense. If Kyoto had no teeth and would achieve nothing, then the US could have signed it with big smiles, knowing it wouldnt adversely affect them. By not signing it, they lowered their standing in many nations eyes. While this may not have any immediate economic influences, it could have long-term reprecussions.

In short, if there was nothing to lose by signing it, why did the US not sign it?

Your answer:
Surely a redistribution of wealth would have been a better solution?
Grade: F-
Communism fails.
Socialism stagnants and then fails.
Regulated capitalism thrives.
If you wish to discuss economic systems and their merits, perhaps we need another thread.

No, I dont. However, if you think that your capitalism is fairly regulated, then I think I should give this up as a lost cause. Furthermore, why do people always take the extreme opposite case in order to try and counter an argument.

Exactly where does a redistribution of wealth imply communism or socialism? A fairer taxation scheme, proper expenditure on the poorer sections of the populace, etc. Buy one less long range bomber, and spend the several billion on some improved education, targetting the less well off areas which have major learning deficits in comparison to the richer sectors.

These are all steps which redistribute the wealth, and which do not involve socialism or communism.

Jeez - you'd think I was trying to bring down the US instead of suggest ways in which it could be improved...

jc

Aspro

Exactly where does a redistribution of wealth imply communism or socialism? A fairer taxation scheme, proper expenditure on the poorer sections of the populace, etc. Buy one less long range bomber, and spend the several billion on some improved education, targetting the less well off areas which have major learning deficits in comparison to the richer sectors.

What you're essentially talking about Bonkey is reformism - trying to make capitalism a bit nicer which unfortunately hasn't been on the agenda of any government in America or Europe in possibly half a century.

With the sell-out of former social democratic institutions across the globe neo-liberal economics is the order of the day. Free market, open market - forget about the disastrous effects it's having on people's lives in developed and neo-colonial countries.

Therefore to most reasonable and compassionate people some form of wealth redistribution (e.g. a progressive scaled taxation system) and a diversion of military spending to essential services would make sense.

But to rabid right-wingers it's all some "communist" plot to take over the world. "I'm alright Jack, eh?"

bonkey

Originally posted by Aspro
What you're essentially talking about Bonkey is reformism - trying to make capitalism a bit nicer which unfortunately hasn't been on the agenda of any government in America or Europe in possibly half a century.

Agreed. I would never claim that the US is alone in this.

What I find amusing (or depressing, depending on my mood) is that the advocates of the US system will tell us two different things depending on the subject :

1) We're the world leader / major player / big cheese in area X. Of course we should be doing this - who else will.

2) Why shouldnt we do it - everyone else is.

On one hand, America is leading by example. It is the world leader and supposed to be the shining light to us all. On the other hand, no major reform is needed because the rest of us are doing the same things.

Free market, open market - forget about the disastrous effects it's having on people's lives in developed and neo-colonial countries.

As people like CB have pointed out before, the disastrous effects are not because of the "free market", but rather are generally caused by the lack of a free market. In simple terms, while we like to talk about the free market and unregulated commerce, the reality is that there is no free market. Trade Agreements, government regulations, etc are all preventing a true free market from ever occurring.

Also, the disastrous effects on peoples lives are gnerally not caused by the free market, but rather by the lack of proper working regulations in nations. Yes, the west is at fault for exploiting this fact (and thereby encouraging it), but ultimately, these nations respecting their citizens is the solution...whether Nike or anyone else pulls out of the sweatshops will not improve these people's lives....it will simply move them from one form of oppression to the next.

Therefore to most reasonable and compassionate people some form of wealth redistribution (e.g. a progressive scaled taxation system) and a diversion of military spending to essential services would make sense.

Heh - we both come to the same conclusion. Of course, the counter-argument will go that if we modify the taxation system we will actually impact businesses' growth or profitability, which could actually cause more poverty, as would closing down the weapons factories due to less work.

I know its not a simple problem, and no simple solution exists. However, I dislike the notion that it doesnt need fixing. Most people who tell us this are those who are not below the poverty line and have not had direct exposure to the true horrors at the low-end of the social scale where the system falls apart.

jc

American

Originally posted by bonkey

Unless you are a personal friend of these people, I would ask you not to go making slanderous statements like this on these boards please.

Clarification: Many people in the United States are calling Johnny Walker a traitor. Many people in the United States believe his father raised him in a manner that led to confusion about the importance of loyalty to his country.

dahamsta

Originally posted by American
Can you imagine the outrage America would voice if it were Yellowstone Park which was to be exploited for oil?
Yellowstone is sitting on a massive caldera that is going to blow the U.S. to Kingdom Come one of these millennia. We may be forced to figure out a way to drill for lava to release the pressure if we are to survive.

What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Answer the question.

adam

Hobbes

Clarification: Many people in the United States are calling Johnny Walker a traitor.

Doesn't mean he is. The most common answer to everything (in most countries) is "If you don't like it, then leave!". Which is what Mr Walker did.

Now for some facts.

- Johnny Walker joined the Taliban. He did not join Al Quida.

- He joined them to attack the Northern Alliance.

- He joined in May.

- Al Quida are the people supposedly responsible for 9/11, not the Taliban.

- The Taliban were attacked by the US for not handing over a person in their country to the US without getting conclusive proof of his guilt.

- The Taliban (or Afganistan) did not attack the US.

I wouldn't call him a tratior, just a person in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do feel he should be treated as if he was a member of the Taliban ... no wait scratch that as it seems the Taliban get justice by being gunned down while in prison. He should be treated as a prisoner of war.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

The US buys oil from the ME. This needs to be transported to the US, which typically involves ships. This means that the oil the US needs must get to the coast, which involves pipelines.
New pipelines are proposed which would be most cost-effectively done by running them across Afghanistan.

I still think you've lost a marble.
The oil is in the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan, north east of the Caspian Sea. The CPC (Caspian Pipeline Consortium) has already built one pipeline from Kazakhstan to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk.
Russia owns 24% of the CPC, Kazakhstan 19% and Oman 7% of the CPC stock. The other 50% is divided between U.S. Chevron Caspian Pipeline Consortium Co. (15%), Mobil Caspian Pipeline Co. (7.5%) and Oryx Caspian Pipeline LLC (1.75%), Russian - U.S. LUKARCO B.V. (12.5%), Russian - British Rosneft - Shell Caspian Ventures Ltd (7.5%), Italy's Agip International (N.A.) NV (2%), British BG Overseas Holdings (2%) and Kazakhstan Pipeline Ventures LLC (1.75%).
A second pipeline, which is in the planning stages, will run from Azerbaijan's capital Baku to Ceyhan on Turkey's Mediterranean coast.

Powell made clear that a certain rapprochement between the United States and Iran after the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities had not changed Washington's critical attitude toward a more cost-effective, possible third route which would take crude exports via Iran.

``The two pipeline projects...seem to me to indicate that there will be stability with respect to supply of fuel...and I see nothing
in the post-September 11 that suggests that we should rethink that,'' Powell said.

***************
I still see no reference to a proposed pipeline going across Afghanistan.
Could you give me a URL?
***************************************
In an earlier post I stated: "We didn't go to war in Afghanistan for some fictitious pipeline. We went because we had been greviously wronged; we went to right that wrong. Period."

Which is why you didnt go there after the miulitary attack on the USS Cole, or any of the other attacks? Or were the numbers of dead in those terrorist attacks too small to be "grevious wrongs".

We didn't go because our President at the time was craven and corrupt. First we had to move Heaven and earth to get the sociopath out of office and deny it to his lapdog.
Now that the sleeping giant is awake, we are shedding the dishonor of the last eight years, and righting some wrongs.

C B

O.K. as I've said in another thread I don't think Americans posts are worth repling, and I'm not going to reply to them individually. But I feel this thread needs to be replied to if for now other reason that to stop American from spreading the belief that capitailism is some tool of the demons and that libertarians are hardnosed ba$tards who enjoy p!ssing on the homeless.

Firstly, and let me make this absolutely clear, G.W. Bush is not pro-market he is pro-business. he has done nothing to roll back the interference of government in the affairs of private entities. he has simply shifted the intervention in the way that best suits business.

His attitude to the Kyoto Protocol is a case in point. All economists would agree that free markets produce the best results for a vibrant society, however all economists also agree that that the conditions for market operation are not always present. Property rights are essential for markets to work, and governments enforce a range of property rights fro traditional land to intellectual property. this is one of the primary functions of government in a capitalist society, and I have yet to hear the business lobby call for this function to be done away with.

It is necessary for governments to extend these property rights to common property, including mobile phone/radio licences and the environment. The US (generally under Republican administrations) has been extremely effective in protecting the common property of atmosphere and ensuring its effecient use through the Clean Air Act and Ammendments Title IV of which forces companies to internalise the costs of using the atmosphere as a dumping ground for SO2, NOX, VOC, and PM10's rather than use it as an open access resource.

Albrecht and Gobbin (Schumpeter and the Rise of Modern Environmentalism available att www.feem.it working paper 18.01) provide an brilliant analysis of political lobbying which is the most likely explanation of the US dropout from Kyoto.

The detail how corporate entities can mobilise their resources to combat issue entrepenuers (activists) and dictate public policy.

Anybody with any insight into the climate change negotiations can tell you how Exxon-Mobil pressed the American administration away from agreement, and not in the neferious brown envelope manner that paranoid left-wing types would like to believe.

The truth is that gien the choice between enforcing property rights to the global atmosphere for the relaese of six greenhouse gases and meeting the needs of corporate America (particularlly Exxon-Mobil) Bush chose the pro-business option and abandoned the market.

The real danger is that people will associate this action with pro-market and be wary of future pro-market initiatives.

American

Originally posted by Hobbes

- Johnny Walker joined the Taliban. He did not join Al Quida.
The man has admitted going to al Qaida training camps and meeting bin Laden several times. He admitted he was about killing Americans, and that he was happy about the deaths of the Americans on 9-11.

- He joined them to attack the Northern Alliance.
But you do not know that was his ultimate motive.

- The Taliban were attacked by the US for not handing over a person in their country to the US without getting conclusive proof of his guilt.They know he's guilty and we know he's guilty. You are not a party to this so your opinion is just backseat driving.

- The Taliban (or Afganistan) did not attack the US. There is another concept in America, if you help a murderer in anyway knowingly, then you are guilty of conspiracy to murder and yes, you are guilty of the attack. If you obstruct in the apprehension of a murderer then you are an accomplice and equally guilty of the original attack.

He should be treated as a prisoner of war.
I agree, he should be stripped of his U.S. citizenship or renounce it, and be tried by military tribunal as a foreigner taking arms against the U.S. If he is not stripped of citizenship, then he cannot be tried or treated as a POW.
The only other alternative is to charge him with sedition or treason, and try him in the United States.
But it sounds like what may be happening is that the craven young man is turning state's evidence to save his sorry hide. He is ratting out his beloved Taliban and al Qaida in order to get a light sentence.

Aspro

Now that the sleeping giant is awake, we are shedding the dishonor of the last eight years, and righting some wrongs.

That kind of language makes me think a military incursion into the Middle East was preconceived before 9/11. No! It couldn't be!

However I believe with the coming world recession the "sleeping giant" - the ordinary Americans - will be awoken.

Awoken to the fact that their money is being wasted killing ordinary Third World muslims while they're losing their jobs at home.

And we'll see how the fool Bush tries to squirm out of that one.

bonkey

Originally posted by American

Originally posted by bonkey
We didn't go because our President at the time was craven and corrupt. First we had to move Heaven and earth to get the sociopath out of office and deny it to his lapdog.
Now that the sleeping giant is awake, we are shedding the dishonor of the last eight years, and righting some wrongs.

This appears to be your only point in the entire last post which doesnt consist of continued ignoring of the "Afghanistan pipeline" facts. When you go read up on it a bit (look for the links under Humanities, or just do a google search, its not hard) come back and discuss it. Your continued denial of its existence is futile - if you want to continue discussion then go research the facts. As Hobbes pointed out, these links have been posted. You can accept this and look for them, or you can call us liars. We have seen the evidence, we have told you how to find the evidence. Your insistence that the evidence doesnt exist is a waste of everyones time here.

Getting back to the quoted point....the expression of your extremist party affiliation also has no place in a rational discussion.

A) You can call Clinton what you like. He was president and a very successful one at that. I would suggest that a more balanced opinion might be more beneficial to your arguments. After all, he and his team played a major role in the talks in the North of Ireland, so your character assassination of him is not likely to work very well here.

Your nation is supposedly a democracy. The more I listen to you, the more I have to doubt that fact, or doubt you. Clinton was legitimatly elected. Gore legitimately argued his case. Your continued comments will not change these facts, nor the beliefs of anyone on these boards.

C) So far, America has not shed any dishonour in its new presidency.Bush initially took the line that he would let the rest of the world sort its own problems out (disgruntling many governments in the process), and that America would look to itself. Since then, his only major actions of note have been to do with Afghanistan, where the actions of America are being called into question with more and more frequency.

Save us the rhetoric. We supposed to be here to discuss politics.

jc

bonkey

If people wish to discuss Johnny Walker, please take it to another thread.

This was supposed to be about the environment, and American over-consumption.

Can those of us who have been sidetracked try and get back on track please.

Thanks

jc

Hobbes

The man has admitted going to al Qaida training camps and meeting bin Laden several times. He admitted he was about killing Americans, and that he was happy about the deaths of the Americans on 9-11.

Can you point me to some linkage please? I checked a number of sites (initally because someone told me he had been killed) and I haven't seen that comment.

As for being happy about 9/11. He wasn't the only one in the world? Does that mean you should jail them too? I believe the US has this thing called freedom of speech, which protects even stupid people (like Mr Walker).


But you do not know that was his ultimate motive.

Yes, yes, he could of been secretly fighting an invasion of aliens from the planet zorg under the command of Col. Saunders and his secret sauce.

I am basing my opinion on all information I have found on him. If you have proof that he wanted to join Al Quida please share it. According to the Terror Manual that you can read on www.usdoj.gov he would not of been allowed join Al Quida due to certain rules they have (which is why they are the hard to infiltrate).

They know he's guilty

How pray tell do you know this? From what I gather they were willing to hand him over, only not to the US because they believed he would not get a fair trial (kill on sight orders tend to do that).

and we know he's guilty.

Well you don't really, all you have is what Bush told you and all that was "Trust us".

You are not a party to this so your opinion is just backseat driving.

Hmm, by that rationale if I see another person killing another in the street I should stand back and do/say nothing?

There is another concept in America, if you help a murderer in anyway knowingly,...

And there is another concept in America and in the Human Rights Charter that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The US has yet to give conclusive proof that he planned and order the attack.

If you obstruct in the apprehension of a murderer

Well they weren't really obstructing, at least not up until the US attacked. Bin Laden was under house arrest pending actual proof of his wrong doing and they said he was going to be handed over.

I agree, he should be stripped of his U.S. citizenship or renounce it, and be tried by military tribunal as a foreigner taking arms against the U.S.

Yes, the Bush Administration are a bit upset about all this. It appears he is not liable for military trial under the new laws passed.

Hmmm, so American Terrorists are OK but forgien ones aren't?

Btw, doesn't the consitution prevent US citizens from denoucing thier citizenship? (if they were born in the US). Thought I read something about that, might be wrong.

Hobbes

Bonky in the Admin options at the bottom of the threads you can split a thread apart if it's breaking off into other topics.

dahamsta

George W. Bush bows only to his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ indeed.

adam

JustHalf

Originally posted by Hobbes
You will also find links off to news stories where the US states it was planning to invade Afganistan around late September/October of 2001. Again long before the actual attack happened.

I'm pretty sure America has plans drawn up to invade pretty much everwhere, or at least potential trouble spots. Afghanistan has been a potential trouble spot for over a decade, so I see nothing wrong with the US planning an invasion. It's a responsible thing to do.

I also find it unsettling that people will accept without a doubt such stories, from sources that seem only to be talking about it now. Surely a responsible journalist will bring news to light at the time it happens, and not when it will aid their political viewpoint?

dahamsta

I'm pretty sure America has plans drawn up to invade pretty much everwhere, or at least potential trouble spots. Afghanistan has been a potential trouble spot for over a decade, so I see nothing wrong with the US planning an invasion. It's a responsible thing to do.

Getting involved may be ok - although some might say that it's none of anyone's business but the Afghanis - if it's to broker peace, but do you honestly think an "invasion" is "responsible"? I don't see that at all. I see it as the U.S. trying to build an empire through the backdoor. Badly.

adam

JustHalf

Sometimes invasion is necessary, like when Germany was invaded in the 40's.

Lets not get OT though.

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
I also find it unsettling that people will accept without a doubt such stories, from sources that seem only to be talking about it now. Surely a responsible journalist will bring news to light at the time it happens, and not when it will aid their political viewpoint?

Correct. 100%. Now, for bonus marks, draw the conclusion about the responsibility of mainstream journalism

jc

JustHalf

Originally posted by American
If you obstruct in the apprehension of a murderer then you are an accomplice and equally guilty of the original attack.

Surely you are guilty of obstructing the course of justice, and not "equally guilty of the original attack"?

JustHalf

Originally posted by bonkey
Correct. 100%. Now, for bonus marks, draw the conclusion about the responsibility of mainstream journalism

The fact that they don't uphold that responsibilty?

dahamsta

Sometimes invasion is necessary, like when Germany was invaded in the 40's.

Apples and oranges.

adam

Hobbes

I'm pretty sure America has plans drawn up to invade pretty much everwhere

Prehaps I should of elaborated. In a BBC news report (online, go look) some time long before the attacks the US approached Britain and other countries to tell them they planned to invade Afganistan.

It's a big difference then battle senarios.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Hobbes
Prehaps I should of elaborated. In a BBC news report (online, go look)

The onus is on you to prove your point, not me.

Hobbes

Originally posted by JustHalf
The onus is on you to prove your point, not me.

Not my fault if you don't pay attention to what's going on, and TBH I'm getting a bit bored of reposting links (the news story has already been linked). At least try to read half the crap I post.

Von

It's been three years since Congress discussed removing the government of Afghanistan to make way for an oil pipeline: (See the Hearing before the Sub-Commitee on Asia and the Pacific of the Commitee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, February 12,1998.)

It's been six months since the US Government told India there would be an invasion of Afghanistan in October: (See the Special Report in the Public Affairs Magazine: indiareacts.com called "India in anti-Taliban military plan", June 26, 2001)

It's been five months since BBC heard about the planned invasion of Afghanistan: (See the BBC News' article by George Arney quoting Niaz Naik, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, who was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action would go ahead by the middle October, September 18, 2001.)

It's been nine months since Jane's Defense News got word of the planned invasion of Afghanistan: (See article by Rahul Bedi called "India joins anti-Taliban coalition" March 15, 2001.)

And of course, only three months since the attacks on the World Trade Towers that got the American people angered into support of the war that everybody on the planet BUT Americans had been told was on the way before September 11.