new Cold War Theory

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by khazadman: 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.

Just to bring you down to earth a tad - what America did to help Europe after the second world war was great. However, don't run away with the idea that it was disinterested altruism. Basically, it was about rebuilding markets. The US economy needs the European market to thrive, always has. Sheer native hardheaded shrewdness prompted that decision. I'm not knocking it, just pointing out the way it is.

Hmm. Interesting. 'The world might be a pretty screwed up place if it wasn't for US.' Really? So from where you're sitting, it doesn't look screwed up even with your involvement?

Take the situation in Palestine, for instance. You don't think American backing of Israel for lo, these many many moons might have something to do with the current situation in the middle east? (Although you probably don't know the full sum of it. The American media have reported the confict in a very one sided way so far, with a couple of exceptions.)

The truth is, America sticks its nose in here there and everywhere to protect its own interests, and isn't fussy about the means it uses to do it. Not being infallible, your government, CIA etc frequently ■■■■ up, and create situations which backfire on them, and the rest of the world, later. (Before you start talking about Europe/colonialism etc, don't bother. I know. The point is not America = Guilty, Europe = Innocent. There are no innocent parties here. America certainly isn't one of them. I find your viewpoint incredibly simplistic, I must say.)

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by flibulzbuth: 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!)

Hurrah, hurrah! Chomsky..... yesssssssssssss! The most intelligent man on the planet, in my view. Well, close anyway. I'll take a look at the sites, thanks.

I'm looking for a booklet he wrote that was banned in the US - I think it's called Counter Revolutionary Violence. It's about American activities worldwide, with particular reference to the CIA, etc, and what they've got up to in Africa, South America, well, most of the world really, in the interests of preserving 'the American way of life'. I would really like to get a copy of this document, which is fully referenced throughout.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by MagiK: Ya gotta think that at worst he has at least HALF the voting public behind him..and the fact that his aproval rating is still hovering around the 80% range, indicates that he is in fact, liked by quite a few more than not. Now normally I don't believe the poll statistics..but this is from the same pollsters as did the polling for clinton..sooooooo I guess I can at least believe they are not just making it up. (and Clintons aproval rating wasnt too shabby either, despite the fact that I didnt like him or his politics)

Hmm. This 80% approval rating. You don't think it might possibly have something to do with the war in Afghanistan, the proposed action against Iraq, etc? Politicians love war - it really can save their bacon for them. Bushie wasn't looking too clever til the Twin Towers, - it might have been a disaster for America, but it sure was pie in the sky for him. Saved by the death knell, you might say.

Margeret Thatchers rating shot up when she took us to war against Argentina, in the fight for the Falkland islands. If a politician knows how to manipulate public opinion cleverly, (ie. understands the nation s/he's heading) then war can just what the doctor ordered. Some of us have wondered about Bush's insane stance towards Iraq. Could it be that with the effects of the Afghan campaign on the wane, he needs a new issue to jump up and down about?

But it was only a question of time. Of course when the cold war ended, America had to find a new enemy. Many predicted that it would be the Middle East. And it is. And boy, are you doing great things out there when it comes to world peace and security. I see Powell has accomplished much when it comes to Israel/Palestine, not. Jeeze.

[ 04-23-2002, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[Sir Michael]

Man, where were you guys, when I was trying to defend myself in the evolution thread, which turned into a religious debate, which turned into an argument over whether humanity is destroying the earth or not? I make many of these same points over there, but I had to defend myself -- alone -- against a bunch who couldn't see how bad things really are.

I won't repeat myself, but the US has 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of the resources. We are pigs, that's for sure. We also have the time and money to be environmentally conscious, but what about other nations where other people struggle just to survive?

Also, India, for instance, has the fastest growing population, and the fastest growing middle class. As we slow down population growth, energy consumption and pollution, they are more than taking up the slack.

It comes down to that the whole world -- everyone -- is responsible for the planet, and until the whole world takes action, we will continue to spiral downwards.

[fable]

Originally posted by /)eathKiller: I think the cold war was great because it seemed to have no begining and no recorded end, it also never got "hot"...

Regrettably, I must disagree with you. The Cold War was very "hot" for those nations that lined up to be client states of both superpowers; and for the people who lived in those client states and put up with vicious dictatorships who received money, weapons and military training from either the Soviet or the US. Many problems in Africa today and many right-wing bloodbath regimes in South America can be credited to the US propping up mini-fascists or tearing down socialist regimes, while the Soviets had puppets in Africa, South America and Eastern Europe (remember Ceausescu, the man who destroyed Romania?). The "People's Republic" of China tended to concentrate their efforts in destroying southeast Asia. (The US is blamed for South Vietnam, but many people forget that China was responsible for Pol Pot, Cambodia's own answer to Adolf Hitler. Then there were all the people whose lives were destroyed trying to escape from Communist Eastern Europe, or who lived in societies under constant police surveillance.

Cumulatively, over time, the Cold War was very costly, and we're still paying its price, today.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Sir Michael: Man, where were you guys, when I was trying to defend myself in the evolution thread, which turned into a religious debate, which turned into an argument over whether humanity is destroying the earth or not? I make many of these same points over there, but I had to defend myself -- alone -- against a bunch who couldn't see how bad things really are. I won't repeat myself, but the US has 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of the resources. We are pigs, that's for sure. We also have the time and money to be environmentally conscious, but what about other nations where other people struggle just to survive? Also, India, for instance, has the fastest growing population, and the fastest growing middle class. As we slow down population growth, energy consumption and pollution, they are more than taking up the slack. It comes down to that the whole world -- everyone -- is responsible for the planet, and until the whole world takes action, we will continue to spiral downwards.

Aha, the evolution/creationism debate. Yes, saw a couple of your great posts. I've not been around for a while, - got tired of banging head against the same far right brick wall.... [img]smile.gif[/img] (Okay, right/left distinctions can be pretty meaningless, but they're all I've got at present...)

Agree with your energy consumption statement re the US - however, energy consumption in Europe is also far above what it should be. Some European countries are more concious than others when it comes to environmental issues. Unfortunately, the UK is having to be dragged into the arena kicking and screaming. Our current bunch of politicos aren't too keen on measures which might damage the prospects for business in the short term, and that means the environment isn't majorly popular. To take one example, there was a lot of talk about 'congestion charging' - we have the worst problems with gridlock in Europe, not to mention emissions. But congestion charging was about as popular as a smack in the face with the electorate as a whole, and so the idea has been dropped nationally, although some cities, such as London, may choose to implement it if the local council/mayor (in the case of London) decides in favour.

Short-termism. Dontcha just love it?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by lord_gabriel:

-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.[/QB][/QUOTE]
The following is a post made By Mordin THE ONLY person willing to look up and find the answers:

Moridin
Fzoul Chembryl


posted 09-09-2001 12:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D...can't remember where I posted that I would look at efficiency numbers (or was I just dreaming that ) but I did look around and found some interesting numbers and then did some calculations on Excel and this is what I found...they are very interesting and I am glad that I looked them up

Efficiency of oil use
Number of metric tons of CO2 emissions per barrel of oil
(i.e. In 1995 the US produced .0927 metric tons of CO2 per barrel of oil consumed)

....................1995........2000
US..................0.0927......0.0930
Japan...............0.1110......0.1104
Western Europe......0.1138......0.1140
Russia..............0.1187......0.1169
China...............0.1166......0.1177
India...............0.1174......0.1168
The US is relatively a lot more 'clean' when it comes to the use of oil as a fuel (i.e. car exhaust, power plants, natural gas)

Efficiency of Energy Use
Number of CO2 emissions per 1 Billion BTUs
(i.e. In 1995 the US produced .0427 metric tons of CO2 per 1 Billion BTUs of energy consumed)

....................1995........2000
US..................0.0427......0.0429
Japan...............0.0458......0.0447
Western Europe......0.0429......0.0426
Russia..............0.0453......0.0445
China...............0.0625......0.0617
India...............0.0575......0.0560
Again very interesting to see that the US is relatively more 'clean' (outside of Europe) in energy consumption (i.e. coal burning)

NRG Consumption vs GDP
A pretty good look at how much energy is needed to create $1 of GDP...had a couple of professors use this same calculation to show how 'efficient' we are in our production of products
This is in Millions of BTUs per $1 (i.e. in 1995 the US took 5.06 Million BTU's to produce $1 of goods or services)

....................1995........2000
US..................5.0670......4.5205
Japan...............2.2793......2.5223
Western Europe......3.0074......2.9503
Russia..............42.6284.....48.5857
China...............18.9175.....17.3452
India...............9.7675......10.0841
Japan and Western Europe are a little more efficient than the US, but Russia, China and to a smaller extent India, have a little catching up to do

NRG Consumption per capita
Basically a look at how much energy each person uses each year
(i.e. In 2000 in the US each person consumed 122.008 Billion BTUs of energy)
........................................2000
US......................................122.0088
Japan...................................66.1024
Western Europe..........................67.5638
Russia................................. 121.3296
China...................................12.5872
India...................................4.6994
Now we see that the US is a pretty large consumer of energy...while we are efficient in it's use, we could probably slim it down a little...note how much less Japan and Western Europe use per person and how much more efficiently they produce goods and services.

Just thought these were pretty interesting. This is by no means saying that the US should continue to stroll along their marry path, we do have room for improvement, but so do some of the other industrialized countries

edit: sorry about all the .... but it was the only way I could come up with to format it so it didn't all run together!

The original posts (Mordin's and my reply to him)can be found at http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...0;t=002714;p=5

Posted 23 April, 2002
John D.'s comments
Now as you can see the USA is more efficent in it use of GAS for cars the great myth that we are not clean. The rest of the world clean your act up on auto emmissions, before you even think about pointing a finger at the USA. Europe & Japan are more efficeint in the turning of energy to final products, but then the size of the area and distance the raw matterials must be shipped to manufacturing, the to the consumers must be factored in (if you wish to be intellectually honest). The USA covers a much larger area then Western Europe, or Japan.
As for who, or whom is using energy the least efficient (MOST WASTEFULL) Why look it is Russia, China, and India, the every people Koyto (or What ever) would have let slide. Yeah,let the most wastefull slide and punish the most efficient that sounds like a good plan to me.

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by lord_gabriel:

-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.[/QUOTE]The following is a post made By Mordin THE ONLY person willing to look up and find the answers:

Moridin
Fzoul Chembryl


posted 09-09-2001 12:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D...can't remember where I posted that I would look at efficiency numbers (or was I just dreaming that ) but I did look around and found some interesting numbers and then did some calculations on Excel and this is what I found...they are very interesting and I am glad that I looked them up

Efficiency of oil use
Number of metric tons of CO2 emissions per barrel of oil
(i.e. In 1995 the US produced .0927 metric tons of CO2 per barrel of oil consumed)

....................1995........2000
US..................0.0927......0.0930
Japan...............0.1110......0.1104
Western Europe......0.1138......0.1140
Russia..............0.1187......0.1169
China...............0.1166......0.1177
India...............0.1174......0.1168
The US is relatively a lot more 'clean' when it comes to the use of oil as a fuel (i.e. car exhaust, power plants, natural gas)

Efficiency of Energy Use
Number of CO2 emissions per 1 Billion BTUs
(i.e. In 1995 the US produced .0427 metric tons of CO2 per 1 Billion BTUs of energy consumed)

....................1995........2000
US..................0.0427......0.0429
Japan...............0.0458......0.0447
Western Europe......0.0429......0.0426
Russia..............0.0453......0.0445
China...............0.0625......0.0617
India...............0.0575......0.0560
Again very interesting to see that the US is relatively more 'clean' (outside of Europe) in energy consumption (i.e. coal burning)

NRG Consumption vs GDP
A pretty good look at how much energy is needed to create $1 of GDP...had a couple of professors use this same calculation to show how 'efficient' we are in our production of products
This is in Millions of BTUs per $1 (i.e. in 1995 the US took 5.06 Million BTU's to produce $1 of goods or services)

....................1995........2000
US..................5.0670......4.5205
Japan...............2.2793......2.5223
Western Europe......3.0074......2.9503
Russia..............42.6284.....48.5857
China...............18.9175.....17.3452
India...............9.7675......10.0841
Japan and Western Europe are a little more efficient than the US, but Russia, China and to a smaller extent India, have a little catching up to do

NRG Consumption per capita
Basically a look at how much energy each person uses each year
(i.e. In 2000 in the US each person consumed 122.008 Billion BTUs of energy)
........................................2000
US......................................122.0088
Japan...................................66.1024
Western Europe..........................67.5638
Russia................................. 121.3296
China...................................12.5872
India...................................4.6994
Now we see that the US is a pretty large consumer of energy...while we are efficient in it's use, we could probably slim it down a little...note how much less Japan and Western Europe use per person and how much more efficiently they produce goods and services.

Just thought these were pretty interesting. This is by no means saying that the US should continue to stroll along their marry path, we do have room for improvement, but so do some of the other industrialized countries

edit: sorry about all the .... but it was the only way I could come up with to format it so it didn't all run together!

The original posts (Mordin's and my reply to him)can be found at http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002714;p =5

Posted 23 April, 2002
John D.'s comments
Now as you can see the USA is more efficent in it use of GAS for cars the great myth that we are not clean. The rest of the world clean your act up on auto emmissions, before you even think about pointing a finger at the USA. Europe & Japan are more efficeint in the turning of energy to final products, but then the size of the area and distance the raw matterials must be shipped to manufacturing, the to the consumers must be factored in (if you wish to be intellectually honest). The USA covers a much larger area then Western Europe, or Japan.
As for who, or whom is using energy the least efficient (MOST WASTEFULL) Why look it is Russia, China, and India, the every people Koyto (or What ever) would have let slide. Yeah,let the most wastefull slide and punish the most efficient that sounds like a good plan to me.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Hey Great p[ost John D. [img]smile.gif[/img] SC should love these, she likes to see the figures..which I almost never take the time to look up and put down ion detail [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by lord_gabriel: quote: 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...[/QUOTE]LG Your sources are faulty..because I (me myself in person) was there. We did not fight, we did not send ships, we DID however Supply tactical and strategic information gathered at great cost and risk to myself and to others in our field. We supplied P3 Orion Sub hunters, We provided Radio Direction Finding we provided tacintel.

You probably wouldn't yell at me. People tend to be a little physically intimidated by me when face to face, not my fault mind you.
as I never outside of combat initiated any kind of physical violence.

I am far from naive, but that is sort of an opinion since naivete is often in the eye of the beholder.

Your wishes that more of my friends, family and countrymen in the Pentagon had been killed, would incite me to punch you in the nose if you were to say such a horrid thing in my presence. That is statement alone showsme that Ive been wasting my time talking to someone who doesnt deserve to be acknowledged.

[quote]Originally posted by fable:

Originally posted by /)eathKiller: [qb] Many problems in Africa today and many right-wing bloodbath regimes in South America can be credited to the US propping up mini-fascists or tearing down socialist regimes, .

Not a bad post but your use of the term "Right Wing" is inflamatory and inaccurate. When you use the term "Right Wing" in the USA it is usually derogatory term used for the Republican Party. Im pretty sure that neither the Dems nore the Republicans should be equated with totalitarian regimes. Even if some of their programs did help support such regimes ..these thngs were done with an eye toward the greater struggle between the USSR and the USA. (I dont approve of those programs either) I would also like ot point out that for much of the cold war the Democratic party had control of the House AND Senate and had a fair share of Dem. presidents too.