NationStates Jolt Archive

Here goes another story from Venezuela. Seems Chavez wants "peaceful" nuclear technology. His friends the Iranians might help him. So where does this "peaceful" nuke programs end? Are we going to have a global 3rd world nuke race?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/22/chavez.nuclear.reut/index.html

Woo hoo, more places to steal oil from...all in the name of freedom and democracy of course!

Good for him. But he should also get some nukes to defend his country against the US. Perhaps N-Korea would be willing to sell some to him.

When did nuclear powery = axis of evil?

I don't think he'll be a part of the Axis of Evil.

a. If they're Arab
b. If they're communist
c. If they've got oil that the US govt wants.

Oh, for God's sake. It's bad enough that Cuba is regarded as not far short of the ultimate evil, but Venezuela? Yes, they're socialist (oh, no!) and, yes, Cuba is oppressive and generally unpleasant. This doesn't make either of them evil plotters of global doom.

Grr.

Here goes another story from Venezuela. Seems Chavez wants "peaceful" nuclear technology. His friends the Iranians might help him. So where does this "peaceful" nuke programs end? Are we going to have a global 3rd world nuke race?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/22/chavez.nuclear.reut/index.html
It's already underway. :(

you can only have 3 countries in an evil axis (http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml)

Why don't we put everyone in an axis so then no one will be excluded. Also, how come we may have nukes but everyone else can't?

I'm going to laugh so hard if Venezuela and Cuba team up and somehow manage to kick our asses.

That is, of course, if we actually attack them.

Alright, every time I hear an American decrying how bad it is for someone to have nuclear weapons, I want a 10,000 word essay justifying the fact that the US has the most of them, conceived of them originally and used them on innocent people twice. Then I will laugh.

"WMD" is the poorest excuse I've seen for a war, let alone for calling a nation "evil."

Alright, every time I hear an American decrying how bad it is for someone to have nuclear weapons, I want a 10,000 word essay justifying the fact that the US has the most of them, conceived of them originally and used them on innocent people twice. Then I will laugh.

"WMD" is the poorest excuse I've seen for a war, let alone for calling a nation "evil."
It's good of you to wait until after the essay to laugh. I'm not sure I'd be so generous.

Votes for "Chadguay". :)

Chavez wants nuclear weapons. I suspect he has wanted them since that last article someone posted about Chavez being worried about a US invasion. Iran wants them too. This is blowback from the axis of evil/war on terror thing. And you know what? They are both right to be worried, and a nuke is thier key to peace and security.

But it would be funny if we put Venesuela, the peaceful, democratic South American nation, on the Axis of Evil. Because we all know that secretly Chavez is like a sexy, Latin Ayatolah Saddam Jong Il :rolleyes:

I've always wondered how anyone can defend nations with lots of oil (Iran, Iraq back in the day, Venezuela now...) are interested in nuclear power...

I see Venezuele is becoming the next new Cuba. Seeing that the old Cuba won't make it for much longer, I assume that Venezuala will now be the annoying little bad boy in America's backyard for the next few decades...

What a perspective! :rolleyes:

I've always wondered how anyone can defend nations with lots of oil (Iran, Iraq back in the day, Venezuela now...) are interested in nuclear power...

It is called thinking ahead. May be a good idea for some high pollution output countries, with severely dwindling natural resources to coinsider such a strategy. But then again it means thinking, which is rapidly becoming a forbidden activity there isn't it.

As for the US making the first nukes, they pretty much stole the technology off of the British, who were trying to make them to deter the Germans from making and using them (see 'The Heroes of Telemark' - mostly a true story). They then turned round to British and denied the technology to them to hurriedly make their own under threat of a Soviet attack.
But I digress. Anyhoo, even if all of these nations were able to make the A-bomb, a good number of them wouldn't be able to turn them into weapons that could be delivered by missiles (that's the hard part), so what's the worry?

It is called thinking ahead. May be a good idea for some high pollution output countries, with severely dwindling natural resources to coinsider such a strategy. But then again it means thinking, which is rapidly becoming a forbidden activity there isn't it.

Oh, good point you are bringing up pollution! Iran has really severe pollution problems (like, there are some 2 million cars in their capitol city, and catalytic converters are unheard - it must be horrible!). Thinking ahead as they are, they instead are interested in getting nukes. Of course the pollution is the fault of the evil, evil US imperialists, isn't it? ;)

Does anyone know if Venezuela is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

Does anyone know if Venezuela is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

Yes, i think they did.

Woo hoo, more places to steal oil from...all in the name of freedom and democracy of course!

I guess stealing oil is what has caused fuel prices to go up 50%. :rolleyes:

Yes, i think they did.

Well if they signed it then they can't go after it. THough I believe Iran was too but they are pursuing it in violation of the NNPT. North Korea at least withdrew from it so I can't pin they're drive for nukes as a treaty violation.

If Ven and Ira want nukes, they better pull out of the NNPT otherwise, everyone else is going to be very unhappy.

I guess stealing oil is what has caused fuel prices to go up 50%. :rolleyes:

I've learned along time ago that you can't argue the price of gas.

Well if they signed it then they can't go after it. THough I believe Iran was too but they are pursuing it in violation of the NNPT. North Korea at least withdrew from it so I can't pin they're drive for nukes as a treaty violation.

If Ven and Ira want nukes, they better pull out of the NNPT otherwise, everyone else is going to be very unhappy.
Unless I'm mistaking the US also signed it. And now they are developing mini-nukes.

Unless I'm mistaking the US also signed it. And now they are developing mini-nukes.

Actually, its adapting nuclear bombs to bunker busters. Something that we've already experimented with back in the 70s I think it is. Not to mention, we already had nuclear weapons. We also have tacticle nukes already too.

Actually, its adapting nuclear bombs to bunker busters. Something that we've already experimented with back in the 70s I think it is. Not to mention, we already had nuclear weapons. We also have tacticle nukes already too.
And how is this not in violation of the treaty where they swear to reduce their arsenal? Not expand it.

Oh, good point you are bringing up pollution! Iran has really severe pollution problems (like, there are some 2 million cars in their capitol city, and catalytic converters are unheard - it must be horrible!). Thinking ahead as they are, they instead are interested in getting nukes. Of course the pollution is the fault of the evil, evil US imperialists, isn't it? ;)

Um, why would the pollution be the fault of the "evil, evil, US imperialists"?

If there are such concerns of the car emission pollution, have you considered that in 1970 in the UK, car emissions, no catalytic converters, and rather more than 2 million vehicles, accounted for 22% of the CO2 emission, wheras all power generation (coal, oil, gas, and nuclear) accounted for 27%. The UK had nuclear power at the time. This reduced the power generation pollution load to nearly equal to that of unrestricted pollution from road use. Perhaps, Iran would like to do the same.

American paranoia seeing military threats in every corner of the world, gets very boring.

And how is this not in violation of the treaty where they swear to reduce their arsenal? Not expand it.

Because we're already adapting technology to already known technology. These nations don't have nuclear weapons nor a place to make them. North Korea just started that and may already have a bomb or 2. I'm waiting for a test before I actually believe them.

Iran is now trying to enrich uranium themselves so that they can start their own nuclear weapons program. Frankly, I'm not buying their comments on peaceful use of Nuclear power. That's fine under the NNPT. However, no one is buying it.

As for the USA, we already haev nukes and what we are doing is adapting 2 already existing technologies to eachother. Since we are already have nuclear weapons, how is it in violation of the NNPT?

a. If they're Arab
b. If they're communist
c. If they've got oil that the US govt wants.

again, lmao at the unsubstantiated "oil" charge.

next...

and BTW

we don't need a nut like Chavez getting nukes... he might use them. It's bad enough that Kim Jong Il, who allows most of his people to starve (such a nice communist), has them.

I guess stealing oil is what has caused fuel prices to go up 50%. :rolleyes:

yah, no kidding... that old, old argument holds absolutely no weight.... just a totally invalid cheap-shot from a bunch of "I Hate America" or (if American) "I Sort of Hate America" folk.

It is called thinking ahead. May be a good idea for some high pollution output countries, with severely dwindling natural resources to coinsider such a strategy. But then again it means thinking, which is rapidly becoming a forbidden activity there isn't it.

Aha. So all those folks saying back in 1975 that by 2000 there wouldn't be any oil left in the world... well, they were wrong, weren't they?

we don't need a nut like Chavez getting nukes... he might use them. It's bad enough that Kim Jong Il, who allows most of his people to starve (such a nice communist), has them.
One: your Chavez comment is hilarious - you're joking, hmm?
Two: you won't find many Kim fans here, even amongst the left. The two aren't comparable.

Alright, every time I hear an American decrying how bad it is for someone to have nuclear weapons, I want a 10,000 word essay justifying the fact that the US has the most of them, conceived of them originally and used them on innocent people twice. Then I will laugh.

"WMD" is the poorest excuse I've seen for a war, let alone for calling a nation "evil."


Your calling the WWII japanese innocent? Now thats a laugh.

Further more to my point here. America doesnt steal oil. Get that out of your heads. If you pay for something it isnt considered stealing. Now all you leftist out there that want to tax me to death. I consider that stealing. Get your facts straight about how things work. Im sure i will draw a long rant from SB here. But i bet SB is a loafer that lives off the government.

Chavez is a lunatic. It is clear as day. He is on the path of being a tinpot dictator that hates the US. Get over your own obsession of anti-American bashinging and realize that he is what he is. Being friends with bad people usually is a good indicator of ones self. This isnt a coincidence.

As far as Venezuela being this big exporter of oil. I would if I were pres put an embargo on them as well as any other nation that promotes hate against the US. We dont need Venezuela oil to survive. We dont need Saudi oil either. The US has enough oil of its own to survive for along time.

Chavez is a lunatic. It is clear as day. He is on the path of being a tinpot dictator that hates the US. Get over your own obsession of anti-American bashinging and realize that he is what he is. Being friends with bad people usually is a good indicator of ones self. This isnt a coincidence.
Nope, I reckon you're talking bollocks. Sorry 'n' all.

Chavez is a lunatic. It is clear as day. He is on the path of being a tinpot dictator that hates the US. Get over your own obsession of anti-American bashinging and realize that he is what he is. Being friends with bad people usually is a good indicator of ones self. This isnt a coincidence.
Opinion, unjustified, but funny. Who is the bad person? Bush or Chavez?

As far as Venezuela being this big exporter of oil. I would if I were pres put an embargo on them as well as any other nation that promotes hate against the US. We dont need Venezuela oil to survive. We dont need Saudi oil either. The US has enough oil of its own to survive for along time.
Then it is a very good thing for the US and the world economy that you are not the president.

I'm going to laugh so hard if Venezuela and Cuba team up and somehow manage to kick our asses.

That is, of course, if we actually attack them.

if we attack them, they won't get back up... i have a feeling we'll land an early knockout punch against any foe with nukes.

Nope, I reckon you're talking bollocks. Sorry 'n' all.

Well can say the same to you. Sorry if you dont get it.

Well can say the same to you. Sorry if you dont get it.
That's a completely fair response, given the circumstances. I'm sure you think I don't get it. Ah, well.

Alright, every time I hear an American decrying how bad it is for someone to have nuclear weapons, I want a 10,000 word essay justifying the fact that the US has the most of them, conceived of them originally and used them on innocent people twice. Then I will laugh.

"WMD" is the poorest excuse I've seen for a war, let alone for calling a nation "evil."

I can do it in far fewer than 10,000 words:

a)We would only use them to stop a global threat... even so, it would have to be the last possible solution. Think about it: we could have used them in Vietnam to shorten that war to a week or two, but went the conventional route and lost about 58,000 military people in that God-forsaken sauna.

b)We used them before to shorten a war (Allies vs. Japan in the Pacific) and prevent the deaths of probably millions of people... had we decided to invade Japan to end it, the losses would have been in the millions.

c)Which country would you rather see with 10,000 nukes: Iran or the United States? Be honest.

d)Getting back to World War II: If we hadn't conceived of them first, then the Germans would have, and the Third Reich would probably still rule all of Europe and maybe Russia, Japan would rule China, etc. It was a great thing for the world that the United States beat Nazi Germany to the punch.

That should suffice.

Opinion, unjustified, but funny. Who is the bad person? Bush or Chavez?

This is rhetorical right? I'll answer anyway. Chavez.

Then it is a very good thing for the US and the world economy that you are not the president.

we're only talking oil here. nothing more. Besides, they'll just sell their oil to the highest bidder. That is what Venezuela is doing. They are selling to China who is willing to pay more for oil than we are.

What I don't understand is how you jump from "We want to develop nuclear energy" to "OMG! They are after nukes!"

Mexico has nuclear energy, Brazil has nuclear energy, I don't remember if the Argentinians got their plant running but were pretty advanced. Chile is after some, too.

Nuclear energy is a good way for a country to increase their power output, independently of what other energy sources they could have. What can the US do about it? Work with the countries that want nuclear power, sell technology, and use the already established international oversight mechanisms to make sure that the installations aren't used to weaponize nuclear fuel.

Or they can keep their threats up, panic, kill some people, and wonder why the rest of the world hates them.

Further more to my point here. America doesnt steal oil. Get that out of your heads. If you pay for something it isnt considered stealing. Now all you leftist out there that want to tax me to death. I consider that stealing. Get your facts straight about how things work. Im sure i will draw a long rant from SB here. But i bet SB is a loafer that lives off the government.

Chavez is a lunatic. It is clear as day. He is on the path of being a tinpot dictator that hates the US. Get over your own obsession of anti-American bashinging and realize that he is what he is. Being friends with bad people usually is a good indicator of ones self. This isnt a coincidence.

As far as Venezuela being this big exporter of oil. I would if I were pres put an embargo on them as well as any other nation that promotes hate against the US. We dont need Venezuela oil to survive. We dont need Saudi oil either. The US has enough oil of its own to survive for along time.

I agree with you 100%

This is rhetorical right? I'll answer anyway. Chavez.
It was more simply indicating that "bad" is a subjective term. From the point of view of a lot of the world, Bush is a lot more "bad" than Chavez. That was the point. Sort of rhetorical.



we're only talking oil here. nothing more. Besides, they'll just sell their oil to the highest bidder. That is what Venezuela is doing. They are selling to China who is willing to pay more for oil than we are.

It was a response to Marrakech II stating that: "We dont need Venezuela oil to survive. We dont need Saudi oil either. The US has enough oil of its own to survive for along time." Nothing to do with prices or highest bidders. The US does need to import oil if it wants to have the dollar worth anything more than 1 yen.

Nuclear power has a great mediatic impact ; After what happened with Iraq it surprises me, tho, how come people still fall into the same fruitless discussions. These arguments are known misdirections of the US propaganda . Talk abou objective journalism huh. But hey,for venezuela, a nuclear program would help greatly to fix infraestructural problems inside the country.

Chavez is a lunatic. It is clear as day. He is on the path of being a tinpot dictator that hates the US. Get over your own obsession of anti-American bashinging and realize that he is what he is. Being friends with bad people usually is a good indicator of ones self. This isnt a coincidence.

Cause the US was never friendly with "bad" people ehh? Osama, Saddam. Never helped "bad" people to power hmm? Pinochet. But I'm glad you said it. Being friends with bad people usually is a good indicator of ones self. This isnt a coincidence.

if we attack them, they won't get back up... i have a feeling we'll land an early knockout punch against any foe with nukes.

Yea, a nuclear attack would wipe both of them off the map no sweat.

But we've already learned that a crafty force of smaller, less technologically advanced troops can kick the asses of a larger number of high-tech forces from the Vietnam war, hopefully we've learned from our mistakes since then but it's still remotely possible that those two tiny nations could drag on fighting long enough to cause us to run off in defeat.

Cause the US was never friendly with "bad" people ehh? Osama, Saddam. Never helped "bad" people to power hmm? Pinochet. But I'm glad you said it. Being friends with bad people usually is a good indicator of ones self. This isnt a coincidence.

And most of Europe used to be genocidal, England used to commit atrocities in the hundreds in Scotland and other areas, and Germany and Italy once took orders from a one-testicled Austrian with a funny moustache.

Give it a rest. It's history. Yes, the United States aided Saddam and Osama's rise to power to fight back the 'big bad Communists'. YEARS AGO. Please note that, unlike some countries who's leaders have been around for decades, we change our entire damn government and national policy every four to eight years.

Chavez wants nuclear weapons. I suspect he has wanted them since that last article someone posted about Chavez being worried about a US invasion. Iran wants them too. This is blowback from the axis of evil/war on terror thing. And you know what? They are both right to be worried, and a nuke is thier key to peace and security.

But it would be funny if we put Venesuela, the peaceful, democratic South American nation, on the Axis of Evil. Because we all know that secretly Chavez is like a sexy, Latin Ayatolah Saddam Jong Il :rolleyes:

And Venezuelans have some of the HOTTEST :eek: miss Universe candidates too.

Seriously... it's all about the black gold... as it vanishes, he who ends up with the most oil reserves wins.

Cathenia

Seriously... it's all about the black gold... as it vanishes, he who ends up with the most oil reserves wins.

Oh. My. God. Will you dumbfucks EVER get it through your thick skulls that the United States is NOT AFTER YOUR PRECIOUS OIL?! For fuck's sake, if we're stealing "black gold" from every country we can, then why are gas prices $3.00 a gallon down here? Please explain that to me.

For fuck's sake, if we're stealing "black gold" from every country we can, then why are gas prices $3.00 a gallon down here? Please explain that to me.

:confused: so, whats your point??? :confused:

Cause the US was never friendly with "bad" people ehh? Osama, Saddam. Never helped "bad" people to power hmm? Pinochet. But I'm glad you said it. Being friends with bad people usually is a good indicator of ones self. This isnt a coincidence.

Why don't we add dirty dictators Ferdinand Marcos (yet another dirty dictator who supported freedom and democracy with Firing Squads and torture until his people booted him and - and he was flown to Hawaii courtesy of the USAF), Manuel Noriega of Panama, Suharto of Indonesia who was supported for 33 years despite atrocities in Aceh, West Papua, East Timor, and Tanjung Priok, Chun Doo-won of South Korea who shot hundreds of 'left-wing' protesters against his dictatorship while America either looked on or supported (sending a carrier for air support), Manuel Roxas (first president of the independent Philippine Republic and MacArthur's good buddy - despite being charged with collaboration with the Japanese during the occupation) oh and let's not forget Islam Karimov who just slaughtered hundreds of 'right wing extremists'.

America doesn't need oil - but China and the rest of the world does and whoever controls the oil reserves can dictate terms to the world. And that's the truth!

Cathenia

Why don't we add dirty dictators Ferdinand Marcos (yet another dirty dictator who supported freedom and democracy with Firing Squads and torture until his people booted him and - and he was flown to Hawaii courtesy of the USAF), Manuel Noriega of Panama, Suharto of Indonesia who was supported for 33 years despite atrocities in Aceh, West Papua, East Timor, and Tanjung Priok, Chun Doo-won of South Korea who shot hundreds of 'left-wing' protesters against his dictatorship while America either looked on or supported (sending a carrier for air support), Manuel Roxas (first president of the independent Philippine Republic and MacArthur's good buddy - despite being charged with collaboration with the Japanese during the occupation) oh and let's not forget Islam Karimov who just slaughtered hundreds of 'right wing extremists'.

America doesn't need oil - but China and the rest of the world does and whoever controls the oil reserves can dictate terms to the world. And that's the truth!

Cathenia

Please take a gander at the post I made a few posts back. Then shut the fuck up. You cannot blame the United States for actions done by previous administrations that have been out of office for decades. Because the US is no more guilty than the rest of the world.

Edit: Oh, and if the US REALLY wanted oil, we'd start bitchslapping around Saudi Arabia.

Because not only do those actions affect how the rest of the world lives today but they are repeated time and time again in the name of freedom and democracy. Quit lying to the world and to yourselves and just say what you're really after.

Take a look at your own history from Jamestown to Iraq 2005 and tell me straight that you're all about 'freedom' about 'Holding these truths self evident that all men are created equal' and 'are entitled to certain inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' If you really believed that you would just leave other countries to sort out their own mess because they're pursuing life, liberty and happiness the way THEY see fit. Just because it works in America, it doesn't mean it's the best for the world.

And by the way, you don't have to bitchslap Saudi Arabia because you're sucking up to each other, policy-wise.

Cathenia

Yes America is as guilty as Britain, Spain, France, Rome and other evil empires but America has the gall to lie to the world, to lie to its own people that they are fighting wars in the name of freedom, democracy and collective safety when all they want is a bigger piece of the pie.

Luckily the world's gotten wise to its act these last few years.

If you don't want us to blame you for what previous administrations have done - even to nations which are now considered VALUABLE ALLIES - then APOLOGIZE and REPUDIATE what you have done. Stop looking at the big bad Nazis and the big bad imperialist Japanese and open your eyes to your own history.

Cathenia

North Korea at least withdrew from it so I can't pin they're drive for nukes as a treaty violation.

:D

I will refer you to the sig. :cool:

Oh. My. God. Will you dumbfucks EVER get it through your thick skulls that the United States is NOT AFTER YOUR PRECIOUS OIL?! For fuck's sake, if we're stealing "black gold" from every country we can, then why are gas prices $3.00 a gallon down here? Please explain that to me.
Why the diamonds are so expensive? They are not that rare.

Price is far more complicated than that. I can't belive you don't know that already.

Here goes another story from Venezuela. Seems Chavez wants "peaceful" nuclear technology. His friends the Iranians might help him. So where does this "peaceful" nuke programs end? Are we going to have a global 3rd world nuke race?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/22/chavez.nuclear.reut/index.html
Yay, We are in too!!!!

Finland is building it's 5th reactor right now. And -oh my lord- a FRENCH one. Of course the reactor is just a cover up story and we're actually buying nukes from France. Then we're going to attack USA. You know, even our president opposes the US foreign policy...TERRORISTS! Run for cover!

Oh. My. God. Will you dumbfucks EVER get it through your thick skulls that the United States is NOT AFTER YOUR PRECIOUS OIL?! For fuck's sake, if we're stealing "black gold" from every country we can, then why are gas prices $3.00 a gallon down here? Please explain that to me.
The price is probably twice as high here (Finland). :D

The price is probably twice as high here (Finland). :D
to be honest, it's not
3$ is about 3,75€
gallon is 3,785 litres

about 1€ for a litre. Cheaper than in Finland but only slightly.

GASP! (= I'm surprised)

Oh. My. God. Will you dumbfucks EVER get it through your thick skulls that the United States is NOT AFTER YOUR PRECIOUS OIL?! For fuck's sake, if we're stealing "black gold" from every country we can, then why are gas prices $3.00 a gallon down here? Please explain that to me.
Are you asking how can you have the cheapest gas in the world if you are stealing it from everywhere else?

Kind of answering your own question, aren't you?

Are you asking how can you have the cheapest gas in the world if you are stealing it from everywhere else?

Kind of answering your own question, aren't you?

Places that have cheaper gas than the station across the street from me, right now (Stamford, CT in May 2005):
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

Panama (Panama City) $2.19
Russia (Moscow) $2.10
Puerto Rico (San Juan) $1.74
Saudi Arabia (Riyadh) $0.91
Kuwait (Kuwait City) $0.78
Egypt (Cairo) $0.65
Nigeria (Lagos) $0.38
Venezuela (Caracas) $0.12

...and if gas is $0.12 in Venezuela, why on Earth do they need nuclear power?? :rolleyes: ie: They could QUADRUPLE the cost and invest in solar! I hear it's sunny a lot of the year, down there on the EQUATOR!

to be honest, it's not
3$ is about 3,75€
gallon is 3,785 litres

about 1€ for a litre. Cheaper than in Finland but only slightly.

GASP! (= I'm surprised)

Yeah, but:
Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

...that's why Norwegians are paying $6.27 per gallon, even though they are an oil producing nation.

...and if gas is $0.12 in Venezuela, why on Earth do they need nuclear power?? :rolleyes: ie: They could QUADRUPLE the cost and invest in solar! I hear it's sunny a lot of the year, down there on the EQUATOR!

They'd probably be quadupling 0 if they did that. How much of $0.12 could be tax? Are the stations turning over a profit?

Places that have cheaper gas than the station across the street from me, right now (Stamford, CT in May 2005):
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

Panama (Panama City) $2.19
Russia (Moscow) $2.10
Puerto Rico (San Juan) $1.74
Saudi Arabia (Riyadh) $0.91
Kuwait (Kuwait City) $0.78
Egypt (Cairo) $0.65
Nigeria (Lagos) $0.38
Venezuela (Caracas) $0.12

So, the biggest net oil exporters have cheapest gas prices. Wow! That's a surprise.

Ok, so the US is not the cheapest place in the world to buy gas, but how about when compared to the rest of the net oil importers?


...and if gas is $0.12 in Venezuela, why on Earth do they need nuclear power?? :rolleyes: ie: They could QUADRUPLE the tax and invest in solar! I hear it's sunny a lot of the year, down there on the EQUATOR!
Why the heck not? Just because you or any US citizen thinks they shouldn't? Maybe they know oil is not going to last forever and would like to get a leg up and at the same time develop new technologies. It just makes sense as a long term energy production strategy.

Why does the US invest in nuclear energy? I hear about half of the US is also quite sunny. And the other half is pretty windy.

But no, surely Venezuela only wants to develop nuclear energy to have nukes and blow Miami away. Yup, there can be no other reason.

They'd probably be quadupling 0 if they did that. How much of $0.12 could be tax? Are the stations turning over a profit?

Sorry, I must have edited while you were replying. Quad the cost.
$0.48 less the $0.36 would probably fund a decent solar project down there, especially with the low cost of labor.

Aha. So all those folks saying back in 1975 that by 2000 there wouldn't be any oil left in the world... well, they were wrong, weren't they?
Do you honestly think that oil supplies will never run out?

Sorry, I must have edited while you were replying. Quad the cost.
$0.48 less the $0.36 would probably fund a decent solar project down there, especially with the low cost of labor.
Hey, or maybe they could fund a multi-pronged approach to energy sustainability, like thus: http://www.vtv.gov.ve/Ciencias.php?IdNoticia=235

Consideró apropiado instalar sistemas eólicos que permitan aprovechar los vientos de las sabanas y llanos venezolanos, así como la energía solar, para generar electricidad más barata y limpia que beneficie a la población de la provincia.


He (the president) considered that it's appropiate to install wind systems that can take advantage of the wind in the Venezuelan plains and savannah, as well as solar energy to generate cheaper and cleaner power to benefit the population in the province.

Do you honestly think that oil supplies will never run out?

I don't think they will.

So, the biggest net oil exporters have cheapest gas prices. Wow! That's a surprise.

Ok, so the US is not the cheapest place in the world to buy gas, but how about when compared to the rest of the net oil importers?[/QUOTE]

I was just pointing out that the US's prices are not the cheapest in the world. The US does produce gasoline. Specifically, 7.8 million bbl/day, vs. 2.356 million bbl/day for Nigeria. Thus, lower taxes + some production = why the US has lower prices than Europe.

Note the top of the link. Most of Europe's prices reflect higher taxes on fuel... Norway is also a fuel producer, yet pays nearly the most!


Why the heck not? Just because you or any US citizen thinks they shouldn't? Maybe they know oil is not going to last forever and would like to get a leg up and at the same time develop new technologies. It just makes sense as a long term energy production strategy.

Yep. And they go to Iran for the tech? Sorry, that's a little too much of a coincidence. What? The US, Russia, any given European nation, Canada or Japan weren't available?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/22/chavez.nuclear.reut/


Why does the US invest in nuclear energy? I hear about half of the US is also quite sunny. And the other half is pretty windy.

Not really. Solar panels are of VERY limited use anywhere north of Washington DC across to San Francisco. I myself have a portable solar panel for my laptop, but it only extends my battery life... it can't sustain it alone. (I live in Connecticut).

Wind isn't reliable except off the coasts and in the mountains... and since 90% of the nation lives within 100 miles of a coast, the mountains (or solar arrays in Kansas) are NOT an answer.
I'm all for wind farms and solar arrays, but they aren't a total solution for 300 million people. The US HAS been making investments in solar and wind since the Carter Administration.

Then one must go into the actual usage. The US, being the largest economy on the planet by at least a factor of 3 (or the same size as the EU), uses much more than Venezuela, and lacks the possibility of a totally geographically friendly solution. (Solar in their case.)

Venezeula has 25 million people. Maybe Florida could pull off 100% solar & wind. But how do you power Chicago? or Seattle?


But no, surely Venezuela only wants to develop nuclear energy to have nukes and blow Miami away. Yup, there can be no other reason.

If Venezuela hadn't been speaking to the Iranians about it, I might just take it as a possibility.
From the link above: "A self-proclaimed socialist revolutionary, Chavez says he is offering an alternative to U.S. "imperialism" and accuses Washington of trying to oust or kill him. "
...I think it's political, call me kooky.

Hey, or maybe they could fund a multi-pronged approach to energy sustainability, like thus: http://www.vtv.gov.ve/Ciencias.php?IdNoticia=235

He (the president) considered that it's appropiate to install wind systems that can take advantage of the wind in the Venezuelan plains and savannah, as well as solar energy to generate cheaper and cleaner power to benefit the population in the province.

Which is all great. I just have misgivings that he and the US are not on good terms, and that he went to (of all people) the Iranians.

Do you honestly think that oil supplies will never run out?

I think that *easy to remove* oil reserves will run low, yes. Run out? No.
The amount of shale out there is impressive, and technology has improved over the years that oil that was inaccessible in the 60s and 70s is being pumped today. All in all, I think that oil will likely remain in the $40-60/barrel range for a long time before going up.

I'm all for conservation and alternate energies, but I am very nervous about nuclear proliferation.

Yeah, but:
Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

...that's why Norwegians are paying $6.27 per gallon, even though they are an oil producing nation.
That's not true. Well, the fact that is heavily taxated is but gas is not that expensive in Norway. It's about 1.25€/litre and therefore only slightly higher than in Finland and 20-25% higher than in USA (if that 3$ is correct).

The oil that Norway produces (brent oil) is not as valuable as the oil produced in Middle East. They don't profit as much by it.

That's not true. Well, the fact that is heavily taxated is but gas is not that expensive in Norway. It's about 1.25€/litre and therefore only slightly higher than in Finland and 20-25% higher than in USA (if that 3$ is correct).

The oil that Norway produces (brent oil) is not as valuable as the oil produced in Middle East. They don't profit as much by it.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article889947.ece
Liter of gas to NOK 10.50 per liter (USD 5.96/gallon). That was autumn 2004, and things are more expensive.

I'll believe the CNN price of $6.27, unless you can come up with otherwise?
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

OOOOOOPSSS
I just realised I made a huge mistake. 3$ is certainly not 3.75€ it's the other way round. 3$ is about 2.4€

that would make about 0.65€/litre which is definitely cheaper than in Europe.

Not really. Solar panels are of VERY limited use anywhere north of Washington DC across to San Francisco. I myself have a portable solar panel for my laptop, but it only extends my battery life... it can't sustain it alone. (I live in Connecticut).

That's half the country! Perhaps a bit more even. Anyway, the biggest problem with solar energy is not really the amount of sunlight (which is enormous by any measure and more than enough to satisfy the energy needs of the US for many centuries) but the efficiency of the solar panels. They are simply too inefficient right now, but that doesn't mean that you can't get a better solar panel in the future.


Wind isn't reliable except off the coasts and in the mountains... and since 90% of the nation lives within 100 miles of a coast, the mountains (or solar arrays in Kansas) are NOT an answer.

What? 90% of the population lives close to where wind power would be produced and that makes it NOT an answer? That makes it the perfect answer! Since you don't have to send energy through hundreds of miles of cable, which is where most energy is lost, it makes it a much better alternative.

Wind farms don't have to be those ugly wind mills you see all over California, but can be a turbine or some other kind of wind collector on top of a building, under a bridge or in many other places. That would be a great solution for cities.

Still, I'm not saying these can totally replace nuclear energy, especially not in the short term.

Then one must go into the actual usage. The US, being the largest economy on the planet by at least a factor of 3 (or the same size as the EU), uses much more than Venezuela, and lacks the possibility of a totally geographically friendly solution. (Solar in their case.)

Venezeula has 25 million people. Maybe Florida could pull off 100% solar & wind. But how do you power Chicago? or Seattle?
You must also consider that Venezuela has much less money than the US to invest in the heavy research that solar and wind would require, and nuclear would be easy since most of the technology has been developed and can be bought from another country.

Also, power infrastructure and economic development go hand in hand. You have to make sure you have the infrastructure that heavy industry is going to require before it moves in. To do otherwise means slow growth or stagnation.

If Venezuela hadn't been speaking to the Iranians about it, I might just take it as a possibility.
From the link above: "A self-proclaimed socialist revolutionary, Chavez says he is offering an alternative to U.S. "imperialism" and accuses Washington of trying to oust or kill him. "
...I think it's political, call me kooky.
Of course there are political reasons behind his comments. He wants to be seen as the new Libertador of America, in this case fighting US domination. But that doesn't mean he is going to go and buy nukes off the Iranians or go into war with the US. Think more Mexico in the seventies when the joke was that Mexico waited to see which way the US voted in the UN to then vote the other way. It's just a show.

If you speak Spanish and follow the link on my other post, he said that "private investors should contemplate developing alternative sources of energy, and buying technology from countries like Iran" (my enfasis).

So, Venezuela is not in talks, the government has announced no plan to buy this technology, he is just encouraging the private sector to develop this technology, mentioning Iran as an example of where they can get it.

If the US is smart, they will take this opportunity to talk with the private sector in Venezuela and offer technology that's cheaper and more advanced than anything Iran has to offer and, at the same time, including ways to keep it from being developed into weapons.

to be honest, it's not
3$ is about 3,75€
gallon is 3,785 litres

about 1€ for a litre. Cheaper than in Finland but only slightly.

GASP! (= I'm surprised)
Wow, I always thought gas was way cheaper in the US. How can you afford those big cars? :p

(In Finland you won't find any gas for 1€/lit., more like a bit under 1.2€/lit., guess I wasn't miles off anyway)

Edit: Hehe, why can't everyone have the same currency and use the metric system. :p

Which is all great. I just have misgivings that he and the US are not on good terms, and that he went to (of all people) the Iranians.
Venezuela depends too much on trade with the US to do something that seriously damages the realtionship. And he hasn't gone to the Iranians yet. I think he's just showing off.

Wow, I always thought gas was way cheaper in the US. How can you afford those big cars? :p

(You won't find any gas for 1€/lit., more like a bit under 1.2€/lit., but I was miles off anyway)

I don't have a clue. Luckily, my family doesn't own gas guzzlers.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article889947.ece
Liter of gas to NOK 10.50 per liter (USD 5.96/gallon). That was autumn 2004, and things are more expensive.

I'll believe the CNN price of $6.27, unless you can come up with otherwise?
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
yep, you're right. I made a mistake and then drew conclusions by it... My bad. I compared Norway's price to Finland's price (which I know to be quite same)

Okay im pissed, if there is something this socialist can't handle its the mere stupidety of some right wing posters in this forum.

Chaves is a democratic elected president, get it?

Ofcourse such arguments hasn't stopped the US gowerment in the past :mad:

He maybe democratically elected but he is moving alot of business from the private sector to being controled by the Government. That is ringing alarm bells.

yep, you're right. I made a mistake and then drew conclusions by it... My bad. I compared Norway's price to Finland's price (which I know to be quite same)

Easy to do... :)

He maybe democratically elected but he is moving alot of business from the private sector to being controled by the Government. That is ringing alarm bells.

So has Sweden done before him (altough we are at moment doing the opposite)...should the US had acted agianst Sweden for that reason? Since the people wanted him in office mayby they prefer that the goverment controls certain things.

Okay im pissed, if there is something this socialist can't handle its the mere stupidety of some right wing posters in this forum.

Chaves is a democratic elected president, get it?

Ofcourse such arguments hasn't stopped the US gowerment in the past :mad:

So you're saying he should be able to persue any policies he likes, then?

If so, then then by your argument no one can condemn Bush. Have a nice day.

Okay im pissed, if there is something this socialist can't handle its the mere stupidety of some right wing posters in this forum.

Chaves is a democratic elected president, get it?

Ofcourse such arguments hasn't stopped the US gowerment in the past :mad:

Bush is a democratically elected president. Markreich is right. If you don't want people to criticize the policies of Chavez, you can forever surrender your right to complain about Bush. Forever.

Regarding Vanezuela's 'need' for nuclear power. Countries with higher oil prices may also tend to have higher base wages. So, Venezuela's oil price is only $0.12? Meaningless. The relative cost is what's interesting.

Of course, this may just give us the same conclusion.

He maybe democratically elected but he is moving alot of business from the private sector to being controled by the Government. That is ringing alarm bells.
That's not in itself an anti-democratic measure.

So you're saying he should be able to persue any policies he likes, then?

If so, then then by your argument no one can condemn Bush. Have a nice day.
At last we agree on something!

That's half the country! Perhaps a bit more even. Anyway, the biggest problem with solar energy is not really the amount of sunlight (which is enormous by any measure and more than enough to satisfy the energy needs of the US for many centuries) but the efficiency of the solar panels. They are simply too inefficient right now, but that doesn't mean that you can't get a better solar panel in the future.

It's less. Remember that place called Alaska? Also, north of DC is half of the top 20 largest cities: New York (1), Chicago (3), Philadelphia (5), Detroit, Indianapolis, Columbus (OH), Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Boston. NYC is 2.5 times the size of LA (#2).

I agree that it's efficency: so you need HUGE arrays of solar to get any real power. That's not going to work for even Hartford or Providence, let alone a big city. Yes, they get better over time, but they're still decades away from being really useful.

What? 90% of the population lives close to where wind power would be produced and that makes it NOT an answer? That makes it the perfect answer! Since you don't have to send energy through hundreds of miles of cable, which is where most energy is lost, it makes it a much better alternative.

How? They're concentrated on the coast, and due to land values there is little room for solar farms... and for most of the big cities, solar isn't very useful due to being too far north.
Offshore wind HELPS, but you can't power Seattle with it (much less NYC!), unless you made it the size of... oh, maybe another New Jersey, just off the coast. :(

Wind farms don't have to be those ugly wind mills you see all over California, but can be a turbine or some other kind of wind collector on top of a building, under a bridge or in many other places. That would be a great solution for cities.

If they produced enough power. It'd be a great help, but it's not a solution.

Still, I'm not saying these can totally replace nuclear energy, especially not in the short term.

:cool:

You must also consider that Venezuela has much less money than the US to invest in the heavy research that solar and wind would require, and nuclear would be easy since most of the technology has been developed and can be bought from another country.

They also have workers that live on $900 a year, so implementing technology and building infrastructure is cheaper.

Also, power infrastructure and economic development go hand in hand. You have to make sure you have the infrastructure that heavy industry is going to require before it moves in. To do otherwise means slow growth or stagnation.

Right, but that'll be the same regardless of if it's nuke or solar or wind or oil produced power.

Of course there are political reasons behind his comments. He wants to be seen as the new Libertador of America, in this case fighting US domination. But that doesn't mean he is going to go and buy nukes off the Iranians or go into war with the US. Think more Mexico in the seventies when the joke was that Mexico waited to see which way the US voted in the UN to then vote the other way. It's just a show.

Exactly, and exactly. And look where the show got Mexico... even until the early 90s it was a basket case.

If you speak Spanish and follow the link on my other post, he said that "private investors should contemplate developing alternative sources of energy, and buying technology from countries like Iran" (my enfasis).

So, Venezuela is not in talks, the government has announced no plan to buy this technology, he is just encouraging the private sector to develop this technology, mentioning Iran as an example of where they can get it.

If the US is smart, they will take this opportunity to talk with the private sector in Venezuela and offer technology that's cheaper and more advanced than anything Iran has to offer and, at the same time, including ways to keep it from being developed into weapons.

One can hope. :)

That's not in itself an anti-democratic measure.

In some, I repeat, some circles, it can be construed as such

Yeah, you'll attack ANOTHER innocent country because of WMDs that DO NOT EXIST. And torture some more people while at it. By the way, Chavez was democratically elected. Yep, the US government is doing its liberating work all right. Bring on the oil, with a side of pain and blood.

Yeah, you'll attack ANOTHER innocent country because of WMDs that DO NOT EXIST. And torture some more people while at it. By the way, Chavez was democratically elected. Yep, the US government is doing its liberating work all right. Bring on the oil, with a side of pain and blood.

Saddam fooled the entire planet. The whole planet thought he had WMD. Even the French said so as did the Russians, the Germans, the Brits, The Spanish, the Polish, etc.

As for the falsely proclaimed oil line, proof please?

Yeah, you'll attack ANOTHER innocent country because of WMDs that DO NOT EXIST. And torture some more people while at it. By the way, Chavez was democratically elected. Yep, the US government is doing its liberating work all right. Bring on the oil, with a side of pain and blood.

* Since you knew all about WMDs in Iraq AT THE TIME, (when even the UN woudln't state it one way or another) why didn't you stop it?

* What torture? The Red Cross hasn't commented, now have they? If you call humiliation torture, I recommend you go look at the work of Mr. Pol Pot.

* Saddam was also democratically elected, as was Hitler.

* Yep. I'm sorry we're not great like Japan, Canada and France, who stepped up to the plate in Darfur or Rwanda.

[/sarcasm]

Sorry Markreich, I was confusing you with Marrakech II.

You have all the the right to think that Chaves is doing something wrong and raising your voice in protest.

But thos thr US have any right to trash the Venzuelaen democracy and removing their president? Just because they are acting independenly and that Chaves is remaking the society into something better for the people?

Hell no! Over my dead body, if neccesary!

You have all the the right to think that Chaves is doing something wrong and raising your voice in protest.

But thos thr US have any right to trash the Venzuelaen democracy and removing their president? Just because they are acting independenly and that Chaves is remaking the society into something better for the people?

Hell no! Over my dead body, if neccesary!

Really, if you persist in the paranoid delusion that somehow the US wants to overthrow the Chavez government by military invasion, you'll have to seek medical attention.

Yeah, you'll attack ANOTHER innocent country because of WMDs that DO NOT EXIST. And torture some more people while at it. By the way, Chavez was democratically elected. Yep, the US government is doing its liberating work all right. Bring on the oil, with a side of pain and blood.
I don't think anyone is attacking Venezuela anytime soon, besides Iran and North Korea are ahead in the queue. :p

You have all the the right to think that Chaves is doing something wrong and raising your voice in protest.

But thos thr US have any right to trash the Venzuelaen democracy and removing their president? Just because they are acting independenly and that Chaves is remaking the society into something better for the people?

Hell no! Over my dead body, if neccesary!

Care to point out where we want to overthrow Chavez?

Sorry Markreich, I was confusing you with Marrakech II.

That's alright. I've been called worse. ;)

I don't think anyone is attacking Venezuela anytime soon, besides Iran and North Korea are ahead in the queue. :p

LOL!

Funny but somehow accurate :p

The...whatever they're called (for the sake of conveinience I'll call them the left) have once again been soundly defeated. Now I await the nonsensical retorts or withdrawals from the discussion,

The...whatever they're called (for the sake of conveinience I'll call them the left) have once again been soundly defeated. Now I await the nonsensical retorts or withdrawals from the discussion,
After reading this thread, I don't see how anyone has successfully proven Chaves is an evil dictator trying to obtain nuclear weapons, or are you foaming at the mouth over something else?

Assuming that's true (though after reading this thread, I don't see how anyone has successfully proven Chaves is an evil dictator trying to obtain nuclear weapons, or are you foaming at the mouth over something else?
In order to "win" we don't have to prove anything about Chavez.

I would think that the original poster would first have to prove that the United States is going to invade Venezuela. A most laughable and unlikely scenario.

Yeah, you'll attack ANOTHER innocent country because of WMDs that DO NOT EXIST. And torture some more people while at it. By the way, Chavez was democratically elected. Yep, the US government is doing its liberating work all right. Bring on the oil, with a side of pain and blood.
I don't think anyone's said anything about invasion, yet. That doesn't mean the US are not keeping a close eye on things, but I doubt the US will ever invade Venezuela. That's what the OAS is for.

In order to "win" we don't have to prove anything about Chavez.

I would think that the original poster would first have to prove that the United States is going to invade Venezuela. A most laughable and unlikely scenario.
Only, the original poster wasn't trying to prove anything, simply opened to opinion what was stated in the article.

Good to see your comprehension skills still haven't improved though.

Only, the original poster wasn't trying to prove anything, simply opened to opinion what was stated in the article.

Good to see your comprehension skills still haven't improved though.


Thanks for the summary. Some people overlook the obvious.

Thanks for the summary. Some people overlook the obvious.
It's still ridiculous. The US, as asserted many times in this thread, isn't invading Venezuela. Isn't overthrowing Chavez.

Sometimes I think that Chavez floats that out there so people will have an "enemy" to fixate on instead of fixating on their miserable lives.

It's still ridiculous. The US, as asserted many times in this thread, isn't invading Venezuela. Isn't overthrowing Chavez.

Sometimes I think that Chavez floats that out there so people will have an "enemy" to fixate on instead of fixating on their miserable lives.


Well of course that is what he is doing. The same way Castro,Iranian Mullahs,that idiot from malaysia,and anyone else that wants to deflect attention. Problem is that alot of people buy into this 3rd world propaganda. Either to further there anti-American agenda and or to hide there own mis-behavior. Its almost comical at times. But I stop laughing when i realize how serious this garbage can get. In the end its most likely going to lead to violence. When is the world going to see past there noses and really see what some of these leaders are up to.

Well of course that is what he is doing. The same way Castro,Iranian Mullahs,that idiot from malaysia,and anyone else that wants to deflect attention. Problem is that alot of people buy into this 3rd world propaganda. Either to further there anti-American agenda and or to hide there own mis-behavior. Its almost comical at times. But I stop laughing when i realize how serious this garbage can get. In the end its most likely going to lead to violence. When is the world going to see past there noses and really see what some of these leaders are up to.

I just figure it's a matter of time before the promises he made don't take place fast enough for the people's appetite.

Then they'll kill him.

Your calling the WWII japanese innocent? Now thats a laugh.

He's calling the WWII japanese civilians which constituted the majority (if not totality) of the casualties from the nuclear tipped terrorist attacks innocent.

He's calling the WWII japanese civilians which constituted the majority (if not totality) of the casualties from the nuclear tipped terrorist attacks innocent.

The so called "innocents" were being trained with bamboo spears, etc to try and defeat a US invasion.

The bombs were NOT at terrorist action. The bombs saved millions of Japanes AND Chinese lives. Not to mention at least a hundred thousand American service mens lives too.

Oh. My. God. Will you dumbfucks EVER get it through your thick skulls that the United States is NOT AFTER YOUR PRECIOUS OIL?! For fuck's sake, if we're stealing "black gold" from every country we can, then why are gas prices $3.00 a gallon down here? Please explain that to me.

In case you don't know gas is a lot cheaper in the U.S. than it is in the EU. This disproves your point.

Civilians members of a nation with which your nation is at war are considered legitimate targets. Eliminating an enemy's ability to produce war materiel, to grow crops, and destroying the homes of its workers is considered legitimate.

Doing it with a nuclear weapon might be overdoing it, but it was a first time - it looks like the US learned not to do it anymore, after the Japanese surrender.

In case you don't know gas is a lot cheaper in the U.S. than it is in the EU. This disproves your point.

No it doesn't disprove his point. I suggest you follow that line of debate.

The so called "innocents" were being trained with bamboo spears, etc to try and defeat a US invasion.

The bombs were NOT at terrorist action. The bombs saved millions of Japanes AND Chinese lives. Not to mention at least a hundred thousand American service mens lives too.

Yeah, the September 11 attacks also saved millions of Americans...

Any attack on non-combatants or combatants who have laid down their weapons constitutes a terrorist attack in my book. Twist this around however you like but I'm still right.

Civilians members of a nation with which your nation is at war are considered legitimate targets. Eliminating an enemy's ability to produce war materiel, to grow crops, and destroying the homes of its workers is considered legitimate.

Doing it with a nuclear weapon might be overdoing it, but it was a first time - it looks like the US learned not to do it anymore, after the Japanese surrender.

So the September 11 attacks were totally legitimate too.

As were German attacks on London, Coventry in WWII?

So the September 11 attacks were totally legitimate too.

As were German attacks on London, Coventry in WWII?

Apparently, nations may make declared war.

The Sept 11 attacks were not carried out by a nation state. So dubious there.

Coventry is a legitimate attack.

He's calling the WWII japanese civilians which constituted the majority (if not totality) of the casualties from the nuclear tipped terrorist attacks innocent.

lol @ "terrorist attack"

we warned them, they had time to get out... it was an act of war.

and coincidentally, it prevented the deaths of millions more people.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the Japanese executives for not surrendering much sooner when they should have. Their people were already starving, they had little or no oil... pretty much there was no way they could wage war on the sea, which meant that they could only fight on their own land.

Originally posted by:Kervoskia.
Why can we have nukes but everybody else can't?
Why indeed? The US government has proven we can be just as under-handed and corrupt as any other nation in the world. For example:

1) On September 11, 1973 the CIA staged a coup. They assassinated the president of Chile and replaced him with one Augusto Pinochet a man as evil as Saddam Hussein ever was.

2) Speaking of Saddam: In the 90s, Haliburton gave the Iraqi government $3.28 million, so Saddam could repair his oil fields. :mad:

I don't think anyone in the world should be able to have nukes

This "axis of evil" ought to be renamed the "list of places we might want to invade at some point in the near future for economic or strategic reasons".

I think Venezuela is right to be wary of the USA. It's a military superpower, it's almost right next door, and it really really likes oil. For those who argue that the whole oil question is just an "old argument" that has no bearing on reality, first look at what the US economy would do without oil, then look how the US gets righteous and stirred up about the nations with high oil production. Then compare with economic imperialism throughout history.

The British empire was a mixture of informal control and formal annexation of lands and peoples around the world. People used to talk of the three Cs: "Commerce, Civilisation and Christianity", and a lot of people saw imperialism in a very rosy light. Nowaday it is pretty clear that though the idea of spreading civilisation and Christianity to foreigners was what made it popular with the British middle classes, it was really commercial interest that was the driving force behind creating and maintaining the Empire. A parallel can be drawn with America's reasons for invading Iraq. No doubt it gained popular support for the invasion by pointing out that Saddam was a tyrant and that it was going to bring democracy to the Iraqis (for this, read: Civilisation). Yes, the US came to "liberate" Iraq much in the way that Stalin came to "liberate" Poland. A cynical attempt at a hostile takeover dressed up as good will. Iraq lies in ruins, the democratic government has not yet been fully established (and one suspects it will be democracy very much on George Bush's terms), but the US is now benefitting from Iraq's oil. With its history as a former colony, imperialism is going to be a bit of dirty word for America, and it's tried very hard to deny its true motives. But they are obvious to most people - it is an old argument, and a true one.

Venezuela has a democratically elected president: this doesn't place him above criticism, but it does mean that America would have a very difficult time of justifying any act of overthrowing the man in the name of democracy. I would agree that the USA is not likely to invade Venezuela, it would much prefer to use it's mighty presence to intimidate the nation into co-operating and selling the oil to the USA and not Cuba (along the lines of informal empire). But if Venezuela proves resistant, and oil in Iraq starts running out, I wouldn't like to be in Chavez's shoes. So far the corporate dominated sectors of the media have made it their business to discredit him as thoroughly as possible and make him unpopular. I don't think this necessarily means they will invade, but the country is understandably a bit nervous and perhaps feels that a nuclear deterrent is in order. The way I see it, if the USA genuinely just wants to stop the risk of nuclear warfare, it should get rid of its own. But then, it wouldn't want to be in a vulnerable position (and I suspect that Venzuela feels much the same way). It's a massive double standard to say that America should have nukes because they're the "good guys" (subjective) and that these weapons are safe in their hands. I hope nobody will take offence if I say that I think George W Bush has proved just how itchy his trigger finger is, and I wouldn't consider his hands to be the world's safest.

News! Unconfirmed sources suggest that in addition to the axis of evil in the Middle East and the other one in Latin America, there is now a new UK based one consisting primarily of Northern Ireland (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-09-ira_x.htm) and the Bethnal Green and Bow area (no link required).

Yeah, the September 11 attacks also saved millions of Americans...

Made millions of Americans mad as hell is what they did

Any attack on non-combatants or combatants who have laid down their weapons constitutes a terrorist attack in my book. Twist this around however you like but I'm still right.

Care to show me where the Japanese laid down their weapons prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki considering after Hiroshima, the military government didn't surrender and after Nagasaki, it was the Emperor that said it was over and the military government tried a coup that failed?

So the September 11 attacks were totally legitimate too.

Actually, I will be honest and say that the Pentagon was the only legitamate target hit that day.

As were German attacks on London, Coventry in WWII?

That was legal since it was during the war. In that case Dresdan was legal too.

Coventry is a legitimate attack.

I don't think it is according to the Geneva conventions.

In case you don't know gas is a lot cheaper in the U.S. than it is in the EU. This disproves your point.

no it doesn't, per se... has gas not always been more expensive in the EU than in the US?

Is such is the case, then how could recent actions have been made to make it so?

This war is not at all for oil. There's no way we'd spend so much time, money and lives to influence an increase in the price of oil and resultant increase in the price of gas in the United States. Yeah, that makes sense.

I don't think it is according to the Geneva conventions.

Since it was done during wartime....

yes it was legal.

9/11 was an act of terrorism:

a)Aimed at civilians

b)Done through clandestine/non-military means

To the person who's actually stupid enough to suggest that 9/11 saved lives, I cannot adequately convey my disgust for your idiotic/unsupportable statement.

9/11 launched the necessary war on terror... because we can't have these evil/crazy nutjobs running around blowing civilians up on purpose for absolutely no discernible reason and in pathetic disguise because they're not man enough to join an army and fight the honorable way.

they need to be destroyed/killed/wiped off the face of the earth so another 9/11 never.. happens.. again.

The 9/11 attacks were about the dumbest thing those hell-bound maniacs could have done... it pissed off the most powerful country in the world so much so that these terrorist freaks will never be safe again until they're dead. Hopefully Al-Zarqawi dies soon... heard he's wounded, though that's not been substantiated.

Made millions of Americans mad as hell is what they did


So it you could say it kinda woke them up and "saved them from destruction that would have come in their sleep".


Care to show me where the Japanese laid down their weapons prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki considering after Hiroshima, the military government didn't surrender and after Nagasaki, it was the Emperor that said it was over and the military government tried a coup that failed?



The civilians living in those towns didn't have any weapons to start with


Actually, I will be honest and say that the Pentagon was the only legitamate target hit that day.


Does that mean that an attack on a military target in time of peace and by a non-sovereign organization is legitimate, while an attack on a civilian target is only legal in time of war?

I'll make up a scenario: The September 11th attacks were directed against the Pentagon only (somehow without civilians on the hijacked plane). As a result the U.S. declares war on Afghanistan, which causes the Taliban government to launch another attack, this time against the WTC.

Would all these events be legal and non-terroristic then?

The civilians living in those towns didn't have any weapons to start with

Does that mean that an attack on a military target in time of peace and by a non-sovereign organization is legitimate, while an attack on a civilian target is only legal in time of war?


Spurious. Cities have weapons? Huh? The whole beligerent nation is a target! You think London "had weapons" during the Blitz?

An attack of ANY kind is only legal in a time of war. That's why it's called war, and not terrorism!

Originally posted by Frangland:
It was an act of war.

Act of war or not, it was still despicable. Most likely another country would have developed them sooner or later, but it was the US who unleashed the threat of nuclear weapons on the world. If u ever get the chance, visit the Atom Museum in Hiroshima. Some of the things they have there will turn your stomach, i.e. I saw a trike behind glass that had belonged to a three-year-old boy who had been killed by the . A three year old! :(

Perhaps it would have saved thousands of U.S. soldiers but don't dismiss it so lightly.

Yeah, you'll attack ANOTHER innocent country because of WMDs that DO NOT EXIST. And torture some more people while at it. By the way, Chavez was democratically elected. Yep, the US government is doing its liberating work all right. Bring on the oil, with a side of pain and blood.No. Don't be giving quarter to Chavez. He has already declared his intention to attack the US. He is responsible for handing US citizens over to Cuba to be tortured. He is giving money and arms to the terrorist group FARC, in Colombia, which is involved in abducting and killing Americans.
He is creating a 1.5 million man army with which he vows to attack the US head on. And certain nations in Europe, the same ones who were selling weapons to Saddam, are selling him top notch military technology.

So it you could say it kinda woke them up and "saved them from destruction that would have come in their sleep".

:confused: This makes no sense whatsoever


The civilians living in those towns didn't have any weapons to start with

Wanna bet?

Does that mean that an attack on a military target in time of peace and by a non-sovereign organization is legitimate, while an attack on a civilian target is only legal in time of war?

If you can prove that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit civilian targets, which they weren't, yes. Be advised that the Firebombings of Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, and other places, killed far more than the 2 bombs ever did.

And you notice, I only said the Pentagon was the only legit target they hit. The WTC was not AND they didn't just kill Americans in the towers either.

I'll make up a scenario: The September 11th attacks were directed against the Pentagon only (somehow without civilians on the hijacked plane). As a result the U.S. declares war on Afghanistan, which causes the Taliban government to launch another attack, this time against the WTC.

Would all these events be legal and non-terroristic then?

Since the Taliban wouldn't have the capacity to order such an attack, this scenerio dies right there. Besides that, they wouldn't be killing just Americans but also British, Nigerians, Swiss, French, Belgians, Polish, Russians, Portugese, Spaniards, etc. Since Afghanistan doesn't want to piss off these nations, they wouldn't bother ordering such an attack. Therefore, the scenerio dies.

I think the only thing that people need to be concerned with is the actions of non-state actors who camp out in their country.

If a country attacks another country, someone gets angry and declares war.

Very good. Known rules, known situations. Everyone knows what they're getting into, and who will be involved.

When a country permits, intentionally or unintentionally, a non-state actor to attack another country, all bets are off.

Right now, terrorists abroad are vaguely defined by the US as anyone who is a member of the worldwide Salafist movement. That covers a lot of real estate.

But remember, the US didn't start this war. But we will finish it.

* Since you knew all about WMDs in Iraq AT THE TIME, (when even the UN woudln't state it one way or another) why didn't you stop it?

* What torture? The Red Cross hasn't commented, now have they? If you call humiliation torture, I recommend you go look at the work of Mr. Pol Pot.

* Saddam was also democratically elected, as was Hitler.

* Yep. I'm sorry we're not great like Japan, Canada and France, who stepped up to the plate in Darfur or Rwanda.

[/sarcasm]

* Hans Blix, UN chief inspector to Iraq found NO PROOF of WMD's in Iraq. This was well-known at the time the US launched "Iraqi Freedom". Maybe not on your censored media, but everywhere in the world it was reported. That's why so many people were against the war when it started.

* Oh right, there were such thing as torture :rolleyes: Looking at the work of Pol Pot? Sure, why don't we look to the Middle Ages? I'm sure torture was worse then. The fact that there was been horrible tortures doesn't make an excuse for doing it nowadays.

* And have YOU (the US) stepped up to stop genocide in Rwanda? Sure you have.

Two more things:

1) If u think about would not 1 ing have ended the war? As if 1 wasn't hideous enough, the U.S. ed Japan twice
2) Hiroshima had no military value: No factories, no bases, no nothing.

Im not trying to or hijack the thread. I think, if push came to shove, the U.S. would invade Venezuela. If u think about it, what with all the s*%@ going down @ Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, I think its safe to say the U.S. definitely doesn't care a whole lot about its image.

Two more things:

1) If u think about would not 1 ing have ended the war? As if 1 wasn't hideous enough, the U.S. ed Japan twice
2) Hiroshima had no military value: No factories, no bases, no nothing.

1. If Japan surrendered or ordered a cease-fire after Hiroshima then Nagasaki wouldn't have happened.
2. Hiroshima did have military importance. It did have factories. And it was being used as a base. Thanks for your opinion though.

* Hans Blix, UN chief inspector to Iraq found NO PROOF of WMD's in Iraq. This was well-known at the time the US launched "Iraqi Freedom". Maybe not on your censored media, but everywhere in the world it was reported. That's why so many people were against the war when it started.

...yes. AFTER the war started. Even until invasion day, he could not state that there were or had been WMDs in Iraq. Timing!

* Oh right, there were such thing as torture :rolleyes: Looking at the work of Pol Pot? Sure, why don't we look to the Middle Ages? I'm sure torture was worse then. The fact that there was been horrible tortures doesn't make an excuse for doing it nowadays.

...right. If the US was torturing anybody, I'd agree. But I don't consider a fictional flushing of the Koran or even nudity to be torture compared to bamboo manicures and being forced to eat feces... or REAL electrocution. :rolleyes:

* And have YOU (the US) stepped up to stop genocide in Rwanda? Sure you have.

Thanks for making my point for me: the US does SOMETHING. The rest of the planet mostly complains. (With a few notable exceptions.)

Just a guess: The Global Liberators' about 9/11 may have been just a little bit on the sarcastic side. :D

OK Markreich, how would u define REAL torture? Having a female soldier grope your crotch, maybe?

OK Markreich, how would u define REAL torture? Having a female soldier grope your crotch, maybe?
If I smash one of your fingers with a ball peen hammer, and then say, "Tell me what I want to know".

Or,

if I capture several of you, and then use a wood rasp to rasp out the first person's teeth, and then say, "tell me what I want to know".

Rather unmistakably torture there.

But if I use a modern technique, such as administering methamphetamine and Versed, and you come to believe I'm your best friend inside of 30 seconds, and you can't stop talking, and afterwards, you don't even remember getting the injection, much less anything you said or I asked, I don't think that's torture.

...yes. AFTER the war started. Even until invasion day, he could not state that there were or had been WMDs in Iraq. Timing!



...right. If the US was torturing anybody, I'd agree. But I don't consider a fictional flushing of the Koran or even nudity to be torture compared to bamboo manicures and being forced to eat feces... or REAL electrocution. :rolleyes:



Thanks for making my point for me: the US does SOMETHING. The rest of the planet mostly complains. (With a few notable exceptions.)

THAT'S COMPLETE BULLSHIT!

How can you said that, if when the war was launched the inspectors were gone two months earlier?? Get real!

About the torture... well, no comments. You've seen the photos.

Dammit, people! Get back on topic! *takes out cattle prod*

I have joust read through the posts and your right there is nowhone who has said anything about invading.

I still would go to Venzuela and fight if it became nesecery though.

For me Venzuela is a beam of hope, in a world were most third world countries a at the mercies of the global capitalism.

Is there anyone of from the rightwing who will back their words up about Chaves being a "tinpot dictator", or is it just a matter of convinience to call anyone who doesn't back the neol- iberalist order a dictator?

I still would go to Venzuela and fight if it became nesecery though.

If the US is never going to invade Venezuela, how would it be necessary?

Is Peru going to invade Venezuela?

I have joust read through the posts and your right there is nowhone who has said anything about invading.

I still would go to Venzuela and fight if it became nesecery though.

For me Venzuela is a beam of hope, in a world were most third world countries a at the mercies of the global capitalism.

Is there anyone of from the rightwing who will back their words up about Chaves being a "tinpot dictator", or is it just a matter of convinience to call anyone who doesn't back the new liberal order a dictator?

New Liberal Order?

I think America rejected that. Can someone tell me what the New Liberal Order is?

Originally posted by Frangland:
It was an act of war.

Act of war or not, it was still despicable. Most likely another country would have developed them sooner or later, but it was the US who unleashed the threat of nuclear weapons on the world. If u ever get the chance, visit the Atom Museum in Hiroshima. Some of the things they have there will turn your stomach, i.e. I saw a trike behind glass that had belonged to a three-year-old boy who had been killed by the . A three year old! :(

Perhaps it would have saved thousands of U.S. soldiers but don't dismiss it so lightly.

i don't mean to.

but imagine if hitler had gotten the nuke before we did. and besides that... an invasion of japan would have cost millions of lives... to admit less would be to underestimate the tenacity with which the Japanese armed forces and people would have defended their island.

Here's the first allegation of invasion:

Woo hoo, more places to steal oil from...all in the name of freedom and democracy of course!

If the US is never going to invade Venezuela, how would it be necessary?

Is Peru going to invade Venezuela?

I'd sell tickets for that! :D

Sorry i was talking about neo-liberalism.

Well gowerments has been topled before with support by US, i don't think there has been a major shift in the forign policy.

Sorry i was talking about neo-liberalism.

Well gowerments has been topled before with support by US, i don't think there has been a major shift in the forign policy.

Define neo-liberalism if you would for those that don't know please.

Sorry i was talking about neo-liberalism.

Well gowerments has been topled before with support by US, i don't think there has been a major shift in the forign policy.

I believe there has. In fact, I can point to two governments that the US supported that the US took down by using military force.

Iraq and Panama.


Maybe you should be glad that the US doesn't support Chavez, and that he was democratically elected. It means the US won't be coming by to clean house.

If Chavez was a pawn of the CIA, I would be worried.

But it would be funny if we put Venesuela, the peaceful, democratic South American nation, on the Axis of Evil. Because we all know that secretly Chavez is like a sexy, Latin Ayatolah Saddam Jong Il :rolleyes:

Venezuela democratic and peaceful? LOL! If it were democratic, would there be so many people demanding Chavez step down? No reason for anyone to demand his resignation if Venezuela had democracy. I think Argentina fits the "peaceful and democratic" category better.

My understanding of the term is that its about expanding the market, privitising the commens (water, oil, hospitals), removing trade barriers etc.

In my book th result of this policy is more maquilas and a wider gap between rich and poor. Also its creating problems for the european wellfarestate as many jobs are removed to third world countries.

Venezuela democratic and peaceful? LOL! If it were democratic, would there be so many people demanding Chavez step down? No reason for anyone to demand his resignation if Venezuela had democracy. I think Argentina fits the "peaceful and democratic" category better.
Venezuela is democratic. Democracy doesn't mean lack of dissent, even if it's violent from time to time. A lot of people demand that Bush and Blair step down, this doesn't mean that the US or the UK are not democracies.

And Venezuela hasn't attacked or threatened any of its neighbors, so it's peaceful in that sense.

My understanding of the term is that its about expanding the market, privitising the commens (water, oil, hospitals), removing trade barriers etc.

In my book th result of this policy is more maquilas and a wider gap between rich and poor. Also its creating problems for the european wellfarestate as many jobs are removed to third world countries.

Not bad.

This is how my book describes it:

"Analysts who believe the conflict and other ills that result from the anarchiacal international system can be eased by building global and regional organizations and processes that will allow people, groups, conuntries, and other international actors to cooperate for their mutual benefit."

I think I kinda like your definition better. Maybe because its shorter. LOL

Oh, but in both cases the "dog" had bittin its masters leg,
who wants a dog that no longer abides you commands?

My understanding of the term is that its about expanding the market, privitising the commens (water, oil, hospitals), removing trade barriers etc.

In my book th result of this policy is more maquilas and a wider gap between rich and poor. Also its creating problems for the european wellfarestate as many jobs are removed to third world countries.

if it's a poli sci book... that's quite a left-wing viewpoint... looking at only the negatives.

though i can't say i'm surprised.

if it's a poli sci book... that's quite a left-wing viewpoint... looking at only the negatives.

though i can't say i'm surprised.

Care to comment on my definition since its also from a poli sci book?

Of cource its a left wing look at it. And yes its a negative view.

But why don't you just tell me about all the good things neo-liberalism has given us?

Besides better profits for shareholders :rolleyes:

Edit:
Forgot to mention that its not something i took from a book, it whas just a matter of expression.

Of cource its a left wing look at it. And yes its a negative view.

But why don't you just tell me about all the good things neo-liberalism has given us?

Besides better profits for shareholders :rolleyes:

Competition.

In places like India and China, they now have economic booms - which the population at large is enjoying - not just "shareholders".

And in the new economy, anyone can be a shareholder - not just a few rich people.

And the new jobs are not all slave work for slave wages - India's economic boom is being fueled by high tech software development - and China's boom is in mobile phones and mobile phone software for sale in Asia.

Instead of waiting for the government to hand it to them, the Chinese and the Indians are going out and making money the good old fashioned way.

What's your country's excuse?

Of cource its a left wing look at it. And yes its a negative view.

But why don't you just tell me about all the good things neo-liberalism has given us?

Besides better profits for shareholders :rolleyes:

Competition.

In places like India and China, they now have economic booms - which the population at large is enjoying - not just "shareholders".

And in the new economy, anyone can be a shareholder - not just a few rich people.

And the new jobs are not all slave work for slave wages - India's economic boom is being fueled by high tech software development - and China's boom is in mobile phones and mobile phone software for sale in Asia.

Instead of waiting for the government to hand it to them, the Chinese and the Indians are going out and making money the good old fashioned way.

What's your country's excuse?

Venezuela democratic and peaceful? LOL! If it were democratic, would there be so many people demanding Chavez step down? No reason for anyone to demand his resignation if Venezuela had democracy. I think Argentina fits the "peaceful and democratic" category better.
OhmygoodgodaboveTHINK! That nation has held more (independently approved) referenda on its leadership in the past few years than you've had hot dinners.

Neoliberalism is interesting as a political designation, I think, as it seems to only refer to economic theory. Neoconservatism, or communism, anarchocapitalism, or whatever; these terms cover a broad range of positions, but neoliberalism basically boils down to open markets, with no social dimension whatsoever.

Ohh and your terms is aproxemely also right,

Neo-liberalism = A believe that free trade will make us all richer

Ohh and your terms is aproxemely also right,

Neo-liberalism = A believe that free trade will make us all richer

It's working for China and India.

It's working for China and India.
Actually, China is still highly protectionist. Free trade - or at least the neoliberal consensus - has screwed (or made no tangible difference to) the vast majority of developing nations.

'Neoliberal consensus' is not a term I'm using to be prejudicial; it's widely used by economists, etc.

If i may just critisice your statement? These countries that you are bringing thought, can't be said to have folleved a neo-liberalist development plan. But have used a wery protective economic policy in the development proces

I am not as such critesising capitalism (that will have to wait for a nother time), and yes you have major results in both countris. But there is huge gaps between rich and poor.

And while you have good results in some countries its dosn't seem to be for all.

At the same time both North America and Europa has great difficulties adopting to this new situation, fore me it can't be called good.

We need to at least break the power of the corps, or else we will have a race against the bottem on sallerys

If i may just critisice your statement? These countries that you are bringing thought, can't be said to have folleved a neo-liberalist development plan. But have used a wery protective economic policy in the development proces

I am not as such critesising capitalism (that will have to wait for a nother time), and yes you have major results in both countris. But there is huge gaps between rich and poor.

And while you have good results in some countries its dosn't seem to be for all.

At the same time both North America and Europa has great difficulties adopting to this new situation, fore me it can't be called good.

We need to at least break the power of the corps, or else we will have a race against the bottem on sallerys

I really hate to break this to ya but there's already a race to the bottom on salaries.

I really hate to break this to ya but there's already a race to the bottom on salaries.

Indeed. But I've noticed something interesting.

When there was a glut of Indian programmers on the US market, and then a glut of Indian firms writing software offsite in India for US companies, there was an initial race to the bottom.

But now, the salaries are going back up - because no matter what country they're in, no matter what country they're from, they want to be paid what they're worth.

So salaries, even in India, are coming up to US levels and rising. Quite a phenomena.

I'm not sure that a "race to the bottom" is anything more than an initial imbalance that gets corrected as soon as people wake up.

Indeed. But I've noticed something interesting.

When there was a glut of Indian programmers on the US market, and then a glut of Indian firms writing software offsite in India for US companies, there was an initial race to the bottom.

But now, the salaries are going back up - because no matter what country they're in, no matter what country they're from, they want to be paid what they're worth.

So salaries, even in India, are coming up to US levels and rising. Quite a phenomena.

I'm not sure that a "race to the bottom" is anything more than an initial imbalance that gets corrected as soon as people wake up.

I agree but alot of companies though are giving their jobs to other nations at dirt salaries. It'll take awhile for these countries to wake up unfortunately.

I know, but i will get worse :(

Things aren't loking good.

The funne thing, if you can call it that, is by doing this they are biting the hand who feeds them. If people in the so called western world loses byingpower, it could bring a economic disaster.

Yes but you are talking about high tech jobs that demands a lot of education.

A wery small group of people who are in a good position to get a good salery, because of the lack of competition.

Indeed. But I've noticed something interesting.

When there was a glut of Indian programmers on the US market, and then a glut of Indian firms writing software offsite in India for US companies, there was an initial race to the bottom.

But now, the salaries are going back up - because no matter what country they're in, no matter what country they're from, they want to be paid what they're worth.

So salaries, even in India, are coming up to US levels and rising. Quite a phenomena.

I'm not sure that a "race to the bottom" is anything more than an initial imbalance that gets corrected as soon as people wake up.

Yep. Until the Indians start outsourcing to the Romanians. Then the Romanians outsource to the Kenyans.

I wonder if anybody out there will work for free? :(

Originally Posted by Jargir
Ohh and your terms is aproxemely also right,

Neo-liberalism = A believe that free trade will make us all richerIt's working for China and India.

Exactly!

When I run for President in 2008, I'm going to advocate FAIR trade.

He's calling the WWII japanese civilians which constituted the majority (if not totality) of the casualties from the nuclear tipped terrorist attacks innocent.

nuclear tipped terrorist attack? Cmon you can show more intelligence than that. So I guess the Fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were terrorist acts. Basically anything that has to do with attacking another nation would suffice. Or is it just when America does something its bad? Mind you Japan and Germany both declared war on the US. Not the other way around. Maybe you didnt learn the term "Total War". Read up and you will find out that WWII was about that.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]The so called "innocents" were being trained with bamboo spears, etc to try and defeat a US invasion.
QUOTE]

And if a Japanese army was planning to land in Hawaii or Los Angeles or a British Army was planning to land in Boston or Washington DC and you were reduced to bamboo spears I think you'd be training with those too.

Maharlikana

9/11 was an act of terrorism:

a)Aimed at civilians

b)Done through clandestine/non-military means

To the person who's actually stupid enough to suggest that 9/11 saved lives, I cannot adequately convey my disgust for your idiotic/unsupportable statement.

9/11 launched the necessary war on terror... because we can't have these evil/crazy nutjobs running around blowing civilians up on purpose for absolutely no discernible reason and in pathetic disguise because they're not man enough to join an army and fight the honorable way.

they need to be destroyed/killed/wiped off the face of the earth so another 9/11 never.. happens.. again.

The 9/11 attacks were about the dumbest thing those hell-bound maniacs could have done... it pissed off the most powerful country in the world so much so that these terrorist freaks will never be safe again until they're dead. Hopefully Al-Zarqawi dies soon... heard he's wounded, though that's not been substantiated.

And if 9/11 happened somewhere else... in Tokyo, Hanoi, Manila, Cairo, Edinburgh... terrorism happens all over the world and, if America hasn't noticed, has been going on - sometimes even funded by American taxpayer dollars - for decades. Try Northern Ireland, Palestine, the Pyrenees...

Of course when it happens to America it's a different story.
Maharlikana

[QUOTE=Corneliu]The so called "innocents" were being trained with bamboo spears, etc to try and defeat a US invasion.
QUOTE]

And if a Japanese army was planning to land in Hawaii or Los Angeles or a British Army was planning to land in Boston or Washington DC and you were reduced to bamboo spears I think you'd be training with those too.

Maharlikana

So true but that makes them even more of a military target unfortunately.

It's working for China and India.

...something wrong about that?

Maybe it'd work for the US better, if there weren't so many socialists calling themselves conservatives, maybe if we actually gave free trade a chance instead of playing the national victimhood card. Hell maybe if we educated our citizens better and incouraged business instead of stamping it out like a virus, it'd work for us better. Why scrap the concept just because it doesn't serve the US 100% of the time and other nations 0%?

[QUOTE=Maharlikana]

So true but that makes them even more of a military target unfortunately.

The point, is they were a people faced with an invasion and they were preparing to defend themselves. If the British had nukes in 1776 and they felt that the Colonies were going to give them a hard time I don't think they'd have hesitated to nuke Boston.

The US should have never released the nuclear genie. It was done against the advice of even those who created it or developed the theories that let it come into being. Of course, all those tax-payer dollars needed to be justified somehow.

Maharlikana

Who is the bad person? Bush or Chavez?.
easiest question...

of course Bush is the bad person.

easiest question...

of course Bush is the bad person.

I don't see Bush taking over industries. I don't see Bush dismantling protests. Chavez is however, doing these things. Chavez has even tossed his political opponets in jail. Bush hasn't done that. If Bush was doing that, half of the Congress would be in jail. :D

Now why is Bush badder than Chavez?

The point, is they were a people faced with an invasion and they were preparing to defend themselves. If the British had nukes in 1776 and they felt that the Colonies were going to give them a hard time I don't think they'd have hesitated to nuke Boston.

Of course not. The British were the technological might and the world's superpower at the time. They also wanted to maintain that power through any means necessary.

The US should have never released the nuclear genie. It was done against the advice of even those who created it or developed the theories that let it come into being. Of course, all those tax-payer dollars needed to be justified somehow.

Maharlikana

So you would rather see millions of people dead by Chemical weapons and firebombings as well as by an invasion? Because that's precisely what would've happened if we didn't drop the bomb on Japan. It shortened the war considerably. Saved millions of lives in the process. What would you have done where you in Truman's shoes?

Why can't they have weapons? I would trust NK with nukes more than the US.

Why can't they have weapons? I would trust NK with nukes more than the US.

I would trust Iran before I trust N.K. and I don't like either country. At least the US is more responsible than EITHER nation.

I don't see Bush taking over industries. I don't see Bush dismantling protests. Chavez is however, doing these things. Chavez has even tossed his political opponets in jail. Bush hasn't done that. If Bush was doing that, half of the Congress would be in jail. :D

Now why is Bush badder than Chavez?

Exactly my sentiments. Since Chavez takes over industries, dismantles protests by sending in his elite troops and jails political opponents, I can hardly say there is democracy in Venezuela.

THAT'S COMPLETE BULLSHIT!

How can you said that, if when the war was launched the inspectors were gone two months earlier?? Get real!

About the torture... well, no comments. You've seen the photos.

1. Prove it.

2. So we should have started the invasion 2 months earlier? :rolleyes: The man had TEN YEARS to comply with resolutions, and the UN wasn't enforcing it's OWN resolutions.

3. Yep. I see lots of great psychological warfare going on. I have yet to hear of any actual electrocutions, beatings, etc.

OK Markreich, how would u define REAL torture? Having a female soldier grope your crotch, maybe?



If I smash one of your fingers with a ball peen hammer, and then say, "Tell me what I want to know".

Or,

if I capture several of you, and then use a wood rasp to rasp out the first person's teeth, and then say, "tell me what I want to know".

Rather unmistakably torture there.

But if I use a modern technique, such as administering methamphetamine and Versed, and you come to believe I'm your best friend inside of 30 seconds, and you can't stop talking, and afterwards, you don't even remember getting the injection, much less anything you said or I asked, I don't think that's torture.

Thanks WL, that's pretty much what I'd say.

BTW, Nidimor - Nope. If it doesn't leave a physical scar, I don't consider it torture.

Here is a good description of Neo Liberalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal - covering both the pros and cons.

Doesn't use the quote I would have used, namely "identifying a rapacious business state with every cherished human value", but then I'm hardly unbiased on the matter :-P

To the person who claims that Chavez has specifically declared that he intends to go to war with the USA, I would very much like to see a source. I know he has said he's against them on many occasions, but I've never seen anything where he's said he wants to start a war.

Woo hoo, more places to steal oil from...all in the name of freedom and democracy of course!

Yes! Ready the nukes! Long live Freedom and Democracy and God have mercy on America! ^_^

Edit: Must admit, when I read the title I thought this would be a nice flamebaiting referring to Germany or France or something like that. Disappointed... well, not really.

Yes! Ready the nukes! Long live Freedom and Democracy and God have mercy on America! ^_^

Edit: Must admit, when I read the title I thought this would be a nice flamebaiting referring to Germany or France or something like that. Disappointed... well, not really.

Sorry to disappoint. If you would like someone to post in such a manner just ask. Im sure someone would be willing to throw down on the French or Germans again.

Is there anyone who can back up the statement of Chaves having imprisoned teh opposition, as far as i know most of the media in Venzuela is actually on oppesitions hands.

You are maybe referring to that some of those people who tried to coup him is still under arrest?

Here is a good description of Neo Liberalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal - covering both the pros and cons.

Doesn't use the quote I would have used, namely "identifying a rapacious business state with every cherished human value", but then I'm hardly unbiased on the matter :-P

To the person who claims that Chavez has specifically declared that he intends to go to war with the USA, I would very much like to see a source. I know he has said he's against them on many occasions, but I've never seen anything where he's said he wants to start a war.
the february 21, 2005 issue of US News and World Report.

sourced here:

http://robertsworldview.blogspot.com/

Now why is Bush badder than Chavez?Bush started an ridiculously unecesary war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians...men,women and children..

of course there is other reasons.

but lets start with this one.

Bush started an ridiculously unecesary war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians...men,women and children..

of course there is other reasons.

but lets start with this one.
such lies

such liesare you talking about the WMD lies...

yes... I think they were just an escuse to invade iraq

Bush started an ridiculously unecesary war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians...men,women and children..

of course there is other reasons.

but lets start with this one.

*yawns*

Why is Bush badder than Chavez since Chavez is taking over industries and Bush isn't. Chavez has done away with the freedom to protest and Bush hasn't. Chavez has even tossed his political opponets in jail. Bush hasn't done that. If Bush was doing that, half of the Congress would be in jail.

Now why is Bush badder than Chavez?