new Cold War Theory

Originally posted by Thoran: Sigh... don't you hate it when a good Foreign Policy debate degenerates into partisan bickering.

Actually the whole thread was not about foreign policy, it was supposed to be about new theories concerning the cold war..which by the way there is no real secret to where the cold war started or how or why. It is all a matter of history. They used to teacht hat subject in US public schools, but have recently dropped history for multi-culturalism and self esteem classes instead.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by K T Ong: When one reflects on how the West in general and the US in particular are driving the whole world towards an ecological abyss, one is very much apt to wonder how much store one can set by any claims to a morally superior position on the part of the West as opposed to the rest.

The former Soviet Union and Asia are far far more hard on the environment than the west is. There are thousands of square miles where nothing can live due to wanton nuclear waste dumping and testing, places where humans are deformed and mutated due to radiation....Id say, the west isn't spotless but It is making more attempts to clean itself up than the east. The waterways around Hong Kong, and other industrial areas in the asian theatre are quite poluted. Im also pretty sure that it is not the Anglo population of North america killing tigers so men ca eat their testicles for virility.

You can't just point to one entity and say "They are responsible" for every problem on the globe, no nation on earth is THAT dominant.[/QUOTE]Quite true! We take more responsibility for pollution than most other countries. Of course, it can be argued that we have the money for it and they don't.

This brings to mind a news story I read about in Africa. Local villiagers broke a gasoline pipeline to steal the gasoline and sell it in buckets on the roadside. Countless gallons of gas spilled into the earth and nobody seemed to care. Eventually the gas soaked area erupted into flames, killing many who were still collecting the spilled gas and injuring many others. They also despoiled the entire field that was used for growing crops. They also contaminated their water supply. This is not the first incident of this either. Just the worst ending!

[lord_gabriel]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by lord_gabriel: ...btw, someone speaking seriously of an 'axis of evil' (although i dont know if her used exactly these words i merely tranlated them) has to be a little out of his mind... ...a few words to USA's morality : the USA will only act, if there is an economic advantage to gain. So far the USA NEVER acted out Morality. Noone conducts a multimillion $ operations just for being helpful, especially not the USA... ...Bush is after all a big joke, the leader of the worlds biggest democracy wasn't elected democratically... *muahaha*

Says you.
I personally took place in several actions that were not done for the amount of dollars it would reap for the US, but to assit an ally because we believed in them and in their cause.

Ask any british sailor who was aboard ship involved in the Falklands campaign about aide received from the US military. The billions of dollars of food and clothing given to Disaster victims around the world with no price tag or repayment nesecary, or the thousands of people from the USA who volunteerr their time and their efforts to give aide around the world. You sir are not speaking from a position of knowledge and wisdom, you are speaking only from politicaly derived hate. Ok it may not be hate...it might just be naivete....but Im betting its just politicly slanted slander.[/QUOTE]...well i took me a few minutes to review some information available in the I-Net and as far as i can see the US wasn't involved in the Falkland wars at all...

...i am not speaking from a position of political derived hatred but i must admit if we were face to face right now, i would yell at you, because i can't understand how ANYONE can be so naive...

...US have fought lot and lots and lots of wars and to my knowledge most of them where unjust (Granada, Afghanistan, Panama, Viet-Nam), and all of them were fought to gain certain political or economical advantages...

...i wished the attack on the twin towers had never happened and the attack on the pentagon was more succesful, but as always : the people who suffer are those not involved in the conflict...

[lord_gabriel]

Originally posted by khazadman: quote: ...btw, someone speaking seriously of an 'axis of evil' (although i dont know if her used exactly these words i merely tranlated them) has to be a little out of his mind... ...a few words to USA's morality : the USA will only act, if there is an economic advantage to gain. So far the USA NEVER acted out Morality. Noone conducts a multimillion $ operations just for being helpful, especially not the USA... ...Bush is after all a big joke, the leader of the worlds biggest democracy wasn't elected democratically... *muahaha*

yeah,germans are a pretty moral and upstanding bunch huh?when ever there is a big disaster who sends help?WE DO.who helped rebuild europe after it's second war to end all wars?WE DID.the world would be a pretty screwed up place if it wasn't for US.
and we did elect bush president despite what some people might think.[/QUOTE]-you did not build up any part of my country. you helped building up western germany ONLY to have security-zone against russia, not because you wanted to be helpful.
-The world would be a better place without the usa. ecologically in any case, maybe politically and in any case economically.
-most US-Citizens did not vote for Bush, thats certain.

[K T Ong]

Let's put it this way. Asia in general and China in particular have been around for 3,000 years or more. Had there been any global warming, acid rain, large-scale species extinction etc etc during this period? No. The ancient Chinese have been able to develop a highly civilised way of life without overexploiting the environment. Now look at the West. A mere 200 or so years of industrial development, and what has happened? And had it not been for the need to catch up with the West so as not to be trampled underfoot and humiliated, would the people of Asia have taken the path of industrialisation which they're travelling now, thereby contributing further to the problem of the environment?

As for the West claiming to cleaning up het act, there's no way you can ever clean up your act unless you dump the whole ideology of economic growth altogether. After all, if we cut down by half the amount of pollution a car produces and then merrily proceed to double the number of cars, we shall be back to square one.

All in all, I remain unshaken in my convictions. Sorry.

And BTW, please do not misconstrue me as saying that absolutely every Westerner is a baddie. I'm sure most of you folks on these boards would be goodies. But nevertheless, it is the ones in power in the West who are the baddies.

[ 04-23-2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[lord_gabriel]

Originally posted by Thoran: quote: Originally posted by K T Ong: When one reflects on how the West in general and the US in particular are driving the whole world towards an ecological abyss, one is very much apt to wonder how much store one can set by any claims to a morally superior position on the part of the West as opposed to the rest.

No offense KTOng but before you go pointing fingers at everyone else regarding ecological disasters I think you'd better take a hard look in the mirror.

BY FAR, the primary demand powering the EXTINCTION of rare and endangered plants and animals is demand in asia for those species... to be used in folk remidies and aphrodesiacs of all things.

As I said before, it's very easy for people to point fingers at others and feel all high and mighty, but truth to tell there's not many of us who are in a position to throw stones in this glass house we call the earth.[/QUOTE]your comment is by now the most ridicoulus one i have ever read. Extinction and ecological desaster has NOTHING to do with asians who believe to be better fuckers with some Rhino-horn. This is not about a rhino-species or something like that ! Its about pollution ! its about recources ! would every person on earth need as many recources like a single US-American u would need 4 planets like earth ! U are the most lavish people on this planet !

[lord_gabriel]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by K T Ong: When one reflects on how the West in general and the US in particular are driving the whole world towards an ecological abyss, one is very much apt to wonder how much store one can set by any claims to a morally superior position on the part of the West as opposed to the rest.

The former Soviet Union and Asia are far far more hard on the environment than the west is. There are thousands of square miles where nothing can live due to wanton nuclear waste dumping and testing, places where humans are deformed and mutated due to radiation....Id say, the west isn't spotless but It is making more attempts to clean itself up than the east. The waterways around Hong Kong, and other industrial areas in the asian theatre are quite poluted. Im also pretty sure that it is not the Anglo population of North america killing tigers so men ca eat their testicles for virility.

You can't just point to one entity and say "They are responsible" for every problem on the globe, no nation on earth is THAT dominant.[/QUOTE]i am quiete familiar with russia and i am sure you can point out one place or more where people are deformed and mutated due to radiation.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by lord_gabriel: your comment is by now the most ridicoulus one i have ever read. Extinction and ecological desaster has NOTHING to do with asians who believe to be better fuckers with some Rhino-horn. This is not about a rhino-species or something like that ! Its about pollution ! its about recources ! would every person on earth need as many recources like a single US-American u would need 4 planets like earth ! U are the most lavish people on this planet !

Extinction IS an ecological disaster, and to think otherwise shows a lack of insight that makes this debate pointless on my part... obvoiusly you're not able to see reality past the conclusions you'd like to draw, but what the heck, I'm on my lunch break.

I'm of the firm belief that ignorance propegates, one misfact is used by the next person and the more often applied the more "authentic" it becomes. CHANGING published data to fit ones desire to blame someone else for a problem does not exonerate you from your share of the responsibility.

In point of fact the study you're all quoting says that the INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD, not ONLY the US, is the major consumer of natural resources in the world.

Flash from the news room - that means YOU just as much as ME... of course if it's just the US then YOU don't have any RESPONSIBILITY do you? How convenient.

http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96-97/wr96dtem.pdf

This is an enlightening article published by the World Resources Institute... it indicates that as of 1996 Europe used MORE energy than ALL of North America and Mexico. Of course I would not be so ludicrous as to ridicule Europeans on their energy consumption patterns, that would be ASSENINE. In fact I know darn well that the US has a LONG way to go, and I fully take responsiblity for the fact that I personally am not as conserving as I could be. As more people take responsibility for the part they play in this little game, INSTEAD of looking to lay blame, the problem will be more and more understood... solving it of course is going to be the challenge of this coming Century.

[flibulzbuth]

Avatar,
this is not a new theory. It's just that it is OK to criticize the U.S. now that Dubya and his Nixon-era buddies have the finger on The Button.
USA has always been ahead in the weapon race (not always in number of warhead, but in strategic locations, etc...). Also, the USA rejected not once, but twice (in the 80s) an offer made by Gorbatchev to completely destroy their nuclear weapon stock (thanks to Reagan and Bush). I'm trying to find the book where i read that for your reference...

Thoran,
in a post you asked when american expansionism began.
(egemony would be a better word than expansionism since the US didn't invade other nations).
I suggest this small book:
Noam Chomsky, "What Uncle Sam really wants".
It's an analisys of the U.S. foreign policy since WW2. 110 pages.

Why is it that so few americans see things like most of europeans? Information of course, medias!
Just compare any large US media coverage of the middle-east crisis (or venezuela) with, for example, The Independent (UK). Next time you go on CNN, also check www.independent.co.uk, and compare the way the events are covered.

BTW, i'm not saying everybody is thinking the same way in the US. In fact, most of the opposition to Dubya's regime come from the inside.
They are many, but they are voiceless. No corporate corporate media will publish them, but they are there.
Try this:
www.zmag.org
www.michaelmoore.com (his last book is great!)

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by khazadman: hey you wanna talk racism take a look at your part of the country bub.you have far more hate crimes commited in other parts of the country than you do down here.of course everything you know about the south you learned by watching tv. you seem to have trouble grasping the concept of humor.i might not care too much for my ex but it doesn't REALLY affect the way i see northerners.hell,i think her family's wonderful.

Khazadman, are you army or ex army, by any chance? Just idle curiousity....