Skip Navigation

Depressing topic but....

Travel Forums Off Topic Depressing topic but....

Page

Last Post

41. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

The US should take measures, to try to use only the amount of energy they can produce themselves.

42. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 9y

The only country that has ever used a Nuclear Bomb (twice) is the US.

I can clearly remember a documentary on Discovery about the first bomb being dropped on Japan. One of the crewmembers of the airplane that dropped bomb was actualy proud to have dropped such a weapon. That shocked me, it shocked me that someone can be proud of killing over 100.000 people.

And yes I know the arguments of why they were used, but to me still it could never be something to be proud about.

Is the US preparing an invasion into Iran? I can believe that there are scenario's made, on how to make such an invasion, but I don't think the US can carry out such an invasion at this moment. Simply because they don't have the material to do it. Or better: the material and people to carry out such a mission is currently occupied somewhere else. Also I can not believe that Bush would be so stupid, to start a third war in his (almost) last year of being in office.

Can Iran make a nuclear bomb? probably yes, will they use it? No. Iran knows one thing: If they will ever use that weapon, than Iran will be bombed to bits and pieces. If they would really have such a weapon, they can only use it to freighting other countries that want to attack Iran. I presume it is also a way to respond to the fact that Israel has nuclear arms.

43. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 9y

Quoting Mel.

The US should take measures, to try to use only the amount of energy they can produce themselves.

I disagree with you on that one. A country that can provide in their own needs, is a dangerous country. That is one of the lessons to be learned from Nazi-Germany.

A country that needs to buy and sell on the world market is much better for the world. It is a good thing that the US has certain things, they don't have themselves, this keeps them aware, that they also need other countries to trade, and need to keep them as friends. (or at least businesspartners)

44. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 9y

Quoting Mel.

They should not attack any more countries, without the agreement of Europe.

Mel

So you say, that if the US wants to invade a country, and Europe (you mean the EU) agrees, than it is OK to do so ???? Are you nuts?

In other words, you say that the US and the EU can be the bullies at the playground of worldpolitics. For a lot of reasons, that is something I do not want to see happening. If it would happen, that would upset, so many countries in Asia, the Middle east, Africa and South America, that you sit and wait for a respons. At this point I am only talking about countries and not included extremists.

If the US and EU needs to know one, thing, than it is that they are were they are today, in terms of wealth, because they robbed all other countries of there wealth (gold, silver, oil and even people) for the last 500 years. It is long overdue, but the time has come, to let other country develop themselves to modern countries, just the way 'the rich few' has done before. If that had happened before (and the chances were there), it would have saved us from a lot of trouble the last couple of years.

45. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Yes, it also shocks me that somebody can be proud of dropping the nuclear bomb.
It is as if such a person is not quite in touch with the effects of what they are doing. ie. They are cold.

The thing is I dont think most countries of the EU would have agreed to the invasion of Iraq, nor would they agree with an invasion of Iran. I think if the US attacking countries, had to be agreed to by Europe it would inject some logic and common sense into the situation. The US are behaving like war mongerers and need some controls put on them, at this stage.

Environmental issues aside, the US are using way more oil than they can fairly buy. Isnt this contributing to their aggressing against Iraq and Iran? They never have enough, and they war in order to get more at a lower price. I think they should introduce a program, so their country gradually needs less oil and then they should get what they need fairly from other countries or produce it themselves. Normally, yes it would be a good thing, if they trade with other countries, but this way the oil situation is out of hand.

Yes, we must let the third world countries modernise and develop, by trading fairly with them, but this is not possible if they do not have good governments. As it is, even if we trade fairly with them, it will be the governments of the third world who become wealthier, and the ordinary people will see none of it.

I think, EU has a good plan to spread the wealth. We are slowly incorporating more and more countries, into our community and helping them to reach our standard of living.

46. Posted by wotthefiqh (Inactive 1447 posts) 8y

Quoting Jase007

I have two thoughts on this:

1 = every super power needs an enemy, for without an enemy there is no need for a super power. This has been demonstrated time and again throughout history & is still very relevant today.
[/i]

Perhaps you could elaborate on thought 1 before I reply to thought 2.

Did -

1) the Roman Empire need Attila the Hun?
2) the Inca Empire need Pisarro and the Conquistadores?
3) the Chinese dynasty need Genghis Khan and the Mongel hordes?
4) Tsarist Russia need Marxist-Leninism?
5) the Byzantine Empire need moslem armies battering the gates of Constantinople for almost 800 years before Islam finally got a foothold in Europe?

Please demonstrate and make it relevant.

47. Posted by wotthefiqh (Inactive 1447 posts) 8y

Quoting wotthefiqh

Quoting Jase007

I have two thoughts on this:

1 = every super power needs an enemy, for without an enemy there is no need for a super power. This has been demonstrated time and again throughout history & is still very relevant today.
[/i]

Perhaps you could elaborate on thought 1 before I reply to thought 2.

Did -

1) the Roman Empire need Attila the Hun?
2) the Inca Empire need Pisarro and the Conquistadores?
3) the Chinese dynasty need Genghis Khan and the Mongel hordes?
4) Tsarist Russia need Marxist-Leninism?
5) the Byzantine Empire need moslem armies battering the gates of Constantinople for almost 800 years before Islam finally got a foothold in Europe?

Please demonstrate and make it relevant.

Hey Jase,
Are you gonna post any evidence supporting thought 1 or should I get straight onto thought 2? -

2 = as religion becomes more apparent in the policies of both the US & UK Goverment's (under Bush & Blair respectively) the tendency to goto war under it's banner increases. Blair said in addressing the NATO leaders in 1997 (just after being elected) "this is the first generation that will never have to goto war" (or something along those lines) and within his first year he took the UK into war (he's went to war more often than Maggie and she's supposed to be a war monger). These leaders have used their faith to 'cleanse' their book and actually declared war for other reasons (oil). If this trend continues (and the faiths are now a big part in who gets elected in the US and many other countries) more of these actions can be expected.

The Rancid Ronin

48. Posted by Jase007 (Travel Guru 8870 posts) 8y

Quoting wotthefiqh

Quoting wotthefiqh

Quoting Jase007

I have two thoughts on this:

1 = every super power needs an enemy, for without an enemy there is no need for a super power. This has been demonstrated time and again throughout history & is still very relevant today.
[/i]

Perhaps you could elaborate on thought 1 before I reply to thought 2.

Did -

1) the Roman Empire need Attila the Hun?
2) the Inca Empire need Pisarro and the Conquistadores?
3) the Chinese dynasty need Genghis Khan and the Mongel hordes?
4) Tsarist Russia need Marxist-Leninism?
5) the Byzantine Empire need moslem armies battering the gates of Constantinople for almost 800 years before Islam finally got a foothold in Europe?

Please demonstrate and make it relevant.

Hey Jase,
Are you gonna post any evidence supporting thought 1 or should I get straight onto thought 2? -

2 = as religion becomes more apparent in the policies of both the US & UK Goverment's (under Bush & Blair respectively) the tendency to goto war under it's banner increases. Blair said in addressing the NATO leaders in 1997 (just after being elected) "this is the first generation that will never have to goto war" (or something along those lines) and within his first year he took the UK into war (he's went to war more often than Maggie and she's supposed to be a war monger). These leaders have used their faith to 'cleanse' their book and actually declared war for other reasons (oil). If this trend continues (and the faiths are now a big part in who gets elected in the US and many other countries) more of these actions can be expected.

The Rancid Ronin

Na, bored of the subject at the moment more pressing things on.
The patronising school teacher comments on elaboration just ruined it
Maybe if I can be bothered having a debate when/if I get back home in a few months.
Go ahead and comment though, just don't strain the brain too much eh ;) I won't read anything with paragraphs over 7 line long

49. Posted by wotthefiqh (Inactive 1447 posts) 8y

par for the course

50. Posted by Jase007 (Travel Guru 8870 posts) 8y

Quoting wotthefiqh

par for the course

The thee wood or seven iron?