World politics, alternative fuels, and an odd GPU comment (was Ati's 9800 is out)

[g.l.amour]

"Really? Arent you?. Europe never "butted in" in the US/Uk vs USSR. Its was a show and tell war. US got a big missile, so did the russians. US got a brand new sattelite, so did the russians, and gave part of the info to the world. Show and tell.

Part two was the standoff. Do you really think the russians would go up agains a nuclear france, or uk , or even others . Simple, no. And had no problem with that in first place. And why the hell for? They had severe casualties during WWII , and Moscow came under attack. They had already experienced war for a lifetime. Against the US was simply a matter of "dick size", a competition, not a prelude to war. And in the end, you could see what that did to the russian economy, it was devastated. Even during the cold war, maintaining an army, in such a vast area, in an adverse conditions, they had very little chance to go into an allout war agains a full set of countrys."

really, so how come every country behind the iron courtain became russia's vassals.

[phreenet]

Well I was hoping to put a peaceful end to the fighting but... It continues. I totally agree with airspirt on his views though. It has been and always will be the left wing democrats goal to undermind republican presidents. Left-wing democrats are known for this feature, more or less pompas asses. The media isn't helping this situation out any at all. But then again, there is no money to be had if they didn't amplify noise and static to make news. More facts, France, Germany, and Russia have all contributed to Saddam's "success", all in hopes of getting favors in the form of oil. So now who's after the oil? F/G have two main reasons to reject everything the US will do. 1) They have a lot of dirty secrets with Iraq they don't want the world to know about. Under the Clinton administration they freely used his lax policy towards Iraq to beef their military in exchange for money/oil. When we go in, we will find plenty witnesses, and plenty hard evidence to support this. Probably even find weapons parts with "Mup ade in France" stamped in. 2) These countries are the main backers of this EU. Like the UN the EU will be a joke, full of countries with no loyality and quick to backstab each other. But, the dream of France to make a collective European super power with France being the big dicks of it all. So it will be their policy to reject everything the US has to further inhance their "appeal". You will see after this war, that all the countries that weren't with us will flock to ourside once we paint the picture. You might also see the unravelling of the UN as well. Bush and the US Govt. already know Saddam isn't going to cooperate in the least bit. The only reason he is even hanging around for a UN vote is so he can blast the UN and the people who voted against the US/England. And this will further exploit the ineffiecncy of the UN and even NATO. The US pretty much makes up 95% of the UN/NATO force, and currently only makes up 99% of its balls. Why all those talking heads are there, well..... I don't know...

[g.l.amour]

and teh big loser saddam can gloat over the fact that he drove a big wedge into the western alliances :-(

[TerraMex]

>that are tortured to get information from the parents?
>The chemical weapons use on his own people?
>Supporting that is now HUMANITARIAN?

How about the thousands of afgans killed, and the ones imprisoned who "disappeared" ? And the ones tortured by the army , to reveal others? Doest it make it right?

Or the ones that will be killed in an attack to Iraq ? And the children and sick that cant get anything because the embargos and sactions for 12 years ? What about those?.

And i say again, the US did use chemical weapons against Iraq 12 years ago, heck, they used in their own people. You cant make a point there. There isnt one.

The real point is, does saddam need to go ? Sure, it would be great, but i bet another Saddam would pop into place, no matter what. And here we go again. The whole history of that area suggests that. The culture, the mentality, they want a strong leader, they need it. Someone to follow. Its their way. Check Iran present history, it hasnt changed that much, they have a government, but still the strings are pulled in the shadow by the religious leaders, the ones who really have power. If you dont understand the people, how can you set them free?

>FACT: Saddam invaded his neighbor, prompting us to
>kick his ass.

Right, and thats what doesnt make sense. Just before the Iraqui army stepped into Kuwait, alreay the US forces were mustering. Did I miss something? Or doest it feel like a planned event? O

>FACT: To prevent us from fully conquering Iraq and
>removing him from power, Saddam agreed to disarm.
>This was 1991. Until he disarmed, sanctions would be
>imposed on him.

Dont know what you want. US and alot of european and asian countrys sold him alot of weapons during that time, why do you think they (US) know alot? It wasnt from intel, Powell clearly stated they kept the labs on the move, and well hidden. So they coulnd verify anything. But if they know who sold them, being them theirselfs or being the middle man, gave them a position to know alot more.

>FACT: From 1991 until 1996, Saddam sidestepped
>imposed inspections, refused to disarm, and illegally
>sidestepped sanctions to channel money to himself and
>his military, similarly misallocating funds that were
>SUPPOSED to go to feed his people. People starved
>and died. Many other got murdered, gassed, tortured,
>raped, and generally mistreated.

You fail to see the general picture. A non existant army would make Iraq a good target for the nearby countrys. Its common sense that he would rebuild the army, i would, its a strategic move. Having the inspectores poking around would harm his way. Im not agreeing with it, im stating that i know "why".

But , how about lifting sanction ? that would help the people. Or allowing them to buy medical supplies is supporting saddam? Or even food. How's that for humanitarian? Lets not give them anything and blame Saddam. Thats not an excuse.

>If you oppose war, you are pro-Saddam. If you are
>pro-Saddam, you advocate murder, torture, rape, and
>starving children. You are quite lousy, for
>humanitarians.

Standard american propaganda working. That bull we take every time. So if i dont like war, or agree with it... i advocate all that? I take it back, thats not bull, that's stupid. Its like stating if you dont like your neighbour , its ok to kill him. And its not.

Im not Pro War. Im not Pro Saddam. I like to take things cool, and get all sides and facts together. I've constructed my opinion on that .

I think to a real change happen in Iraq, is MUST come from the people, and not by exterior force. I bet that if you do attack, you will cause the next generation of Iraqians to consider the US evil for invading. It has to be an internal endeavour , it must change the mentalities, and those things dont happen by force. From the inside, the people see what they can really do, and what they can achieve by uniting. This way it would mould the future years.

PS :Check the Mandarins history (honest, its an interesting reading).

The other point is, you cant bypass every country in the world and tell others what to do, and declare war on them when suits you. Thats why alot are against you. Its not about the victims. Its about "how" you do it.

Victims are everywhere. Why not help alot of countrys in africa? Angola, Moçambique, Serra Leoa? Or Asia, by that matter? Dont they count? . They do, but when there's something to gain to the US. Thats part of the main issue.

>The difference is that while the Israelis have repeatedly
>offered terms to the PA, the PA will never quit until
>there is NO ISRAEL. There is no peace to be made
>there. The PA is a joke, and it just serves to channel
>money to terrorist organizations. Killing children must >be humanitarian too, huh?

Dunno, ask the survivors of the gulf war, or of the afgan bombing, plenty of children killed. Uk had the same problem with IRA, they used force and came out empty. Now with negotiations, peace talks, been very quiet.

The PA wants the old city back, its an historical and a religious place, so do the israelits. Thats the main point of disagrement. Because none of the two whats to give in. Only that. The rest, borders, criation of the Palestinian Government, they have agreed in all that, check the peace talks. The point is that particular place, 1 mile x 1 mile . Personaly, blue helmets, and call it an international place, and settle the darn thing. Israel isnt going to disappear, neither are the palestinians. Eventualy it will cool off, and the dispute die down... but it will take some time.

> The UN is a crock of shit. NATO is outdated. Those >operations were normally just the US and a few token
>brigades from other nations anyway. You guys are the
>most ungrateful people I've ever met.

Very true on the NATO and UN . They are not working properly. When they do something.

And why are we ungrateful? For you guys solving problems you created ? And solving them by force?. Sorry, i'm not with that.

>I'm done now. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people
>who refuse to open their eyes. I need a frickin' beer.

I never assume im always right. But i do state my opinions. You should try not to assume that either. And try to be more open minded to what you read.

American beer sucks dude, we have bud and stuff like that here, and ours is waaay stronger .

PS :

>As far as your history, Terra, it is completely fscked, and
>I don't know what perverted stuff they teach in
>Portugal, but it wasn't until after the bomb was used
>on Japan that they surrendered. I've heard that rumor
>spouted by the left wing, and it is completely false. It is
>like denying the holocaust.

Actually, its an historic fact. The initial message was received 3 days before the first blast. And was disregarded and then "lost". They say it was fluke of the translation department. I cant really state as a fact that it wasnt a fluke, but it did happen. My personal opinion and of others is that it wasnt in the best interest of the US to stop the use bombs. It would be the best of excuses, and a statement to the world. Cant say it didnt work . It was a powerfull message.

Besides, japan already had the navy and the army beaten and only had a few pockets of resistance to the overwhelming american army. It would be a matter of time. The intense incendiary bombing of the japanese towns was getting stronger, and they had little to respond with.

PS 2:

Last three things, its clear the difference in opinions (thats what we're giving) between two intelegent (im assuming ) people but raised in different countries. Its quite interesting.

Second thing, werent we supposed to talk about the new ATI card?

Last thing, why is it so bad being a liberal? Are they contagious? How about a little tolerance? Wouldnt hurt.

[TerraMex]

Just to say a few thing about Europe.

You're right in assuming it doesnt work properly, never did. The needs each individual country has can be so different , that resultions that work for some, dont work for others, and the rift always existed. Its mainly a financial rift.

The Euro is controlled by the Deutch (german) bank, the Bundersbank. But the Bundersbank only is interested in the stability of Germany, and acts acordingly. Because the rest of the euro markets depend on the mark , they are directly affected by the rulings . And most of the arent beneficial for the rest of the Europe. Its one of the downsides of the united currency. And one of the thorns in the rose. Another one is the quotas each country has for producing this, that and the other thing. They have to be debated, fought for, and most countrys dont really like what they get. And it doesnt stop there...

So its not surprizing that disagreements occurs very often. Europe is and will continue to be, an agreement between countrys, and some global issues solved in conjuction, but each country has its own identity, and ideias.

> And this will further exploit the ineffiecncy of the UN
>and even NATO. The US pretty much makes up 95% of
>the UN/NATO force, and currently only makes up 99% of
>its balls. Why all those talking heads are there, well.....
>I don't know...

Very true in some points. Usualy it is the american army (tm) to actually do something. But thats a part of the problem to the UN. Having the US dictating certain events is very unconfortable to some countrys. And i have to agree that to some extent, a unilateral response can be a bad thing, having a good support would make things less ... well, akward .

Anyway, in Europe, we dont really think of "who's the big cheese" , we dont really work like that. A good example was the division of opinions. Each has his, and we're cool with that. We dont have to agree with everybody. France has her reasons . Portugal supports the attack by the way. I dont for the reasons i stated.

>US troops go away, we can deal with our problems
>alone.

A very common sentiment. Everybody likes to get a helping hand, but, in their own terms. When its necessary, not when other think its needed.

I find your lack of faith... in the world and their hability to hadle the problems... disturbing .

PS : I think the use of that image in that context is of bad taste. but thats just me.

>really, so how come every country behind the iron
>courtain became russia's vassals.

Define those vassals... what did they do? declare war? built weapons of mass distraction (pun intended) ? Invaded someone? No. They had economical relations with the Soviet Union. If that's being a vassal ... But you can say the same for some of the US friends, like England. Im gonna shoot the dog...

[airspirit]

All I have to say about the "Evil Americans" is if our history played like yours, at the end of WW2, we would have cranked out as many nukes as possible and taken over the world.

Oh, wait, instead we picked both our friends and enemies out of the rubble, dusted them off, and paid to rebuild their countries.

Wait, somebody has a problem? Let's call the US and ask them to fix it.

Wait, somebody needs money? The US is rich! They'll give some to us!

It's hogwash ... the US bashing needs to stop. The world would be a much worse place if it wasn't for us taking care of everyone constantly.

As far as the Saddam thing goes, you can close your eyes to it like you're advocating, or we can stop it. Isn't it better to stop it? If you say yes, you're for taking him out. If you're for no, then you're ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. There is no fence-rider position there.

As far as surrender with Japan, if they had surrendered, why were their troops and ships still fighting? Isn't that funny how that works? The peaceniks make up all sorts of funny stories, don't they .... Besides, if they really wanted to surrender, don't you think they would have been on the red phone after the first bomb?

NEWSFLASH, GENIUS: they weren't, because they didn't. There was no foul up.

As for the USSR ... gee, weren't they aggresively trying to expand everywhere but Europe? Gee, could it have been because of the pathetic (call a spade a spade here) and destroyed militaries housed there, or the bigger threat from the US? When you compare the handful of nukes of all the combined European nations with the thousands of the USSR ... gee, do you think they'd have done anything but laugh at you?

Peace is bought by war. That is always and has always been the way it has been done. This is historical fact. It can be seen in every civilization ever to exist. The reason you guys have no appreciable military and can scoff is because your big brother the US babysits you and protects you from the bullies. Think about it: if somebody tried to invade France right now, what could they do except say: "Table for 100,000?" The same goes for your little nation: what could you do except beg for our help?

Get off your high horse, because we aren't listening. The truth is that the US is the leader of nearly the entire world. You guys may piss and moan about us and govern yourselves, but it is by our protection and benevolence that you exist. The US has done more to promote worldwide peace than any other country ever to exist, so don't preach to me about peace.

I don't know why I bother. Talk to me after we're through with Saddam.

[gmat]

Gee cool down people this has gone way too far.
Airspirit: whatever the US did, anytime, anywhere, good or bad, it's no excuse for an unneeded war. Back to the basics, there's absolutely no evidence that Irak is a threat to anyone but the Iraki... And again you're supposing that Israeli, and Iranian secret services are dumb, blind, deaf and inefficient. I guess not.
Am i anti war ? Most of the time, yes, it's the worst solution.
Does that makes me pro-Saddam ? Never.
Does Saddam need to leave ? Not to be replaced by another dictator. How could that happen ? Only by the people themselves. NO don't feed us with the EU saved by the USA angels during WW2. Freeing an *invaded* country is not the same as changing a country political system.
Does that make me pro-Chirac, by the way ? Never his interior policy is sh*tty to say the least. Of course he said what he had to say before the UN, to make himself important and all. Good move. But that's all.
Does that make me pro-terrorist (or pro-palestinian etc.)? i see no relation at all there. BTW the palestinians are defending their homes, their land. That's called "resistance". Of course thei invading side calls that "terrorism".
Finally claims of BS about history need to be checked out. Airspirit, last time i checked, the exact course of events that led to the release of the Nuke bomb on Japan was public (in your National Archives). It happened exactly how Terramex described, according to the US archives... So far for a left-wing conspiracy. There are even videos and interviews of scientists, confirming all that. But it's far, far away from our topic...

Terramex: you said it all dude. About revolution, i like that spanish sentence: "No pasaran". That, is the spirit of resistance.

[phreenet]

It seems France's general philiosophy towards hostile countries is to automatically go into penif sucking mode and try appeasement. WWII wasn't THAT long ago... Seems that nothing has changed. Blind cowards.......

[TerraMex]

>All I have to say about the "Evil Americans" is if our
>history played like yours, at the end of WW2, we would
>have cranked out as many nukes as possible and taken
>over the world.

No evil americans. Just bad calls from the administrations, some arrogants, some just money driven.

You couldnt on the long run. You didnt have a long range bomber that could fly directly into Europe. It had to be a missile, and by that time, Great Britain and the USSR were developing their own programs. They also had german cientists from the V2 and V3 projects.

>Oh, wait, instead we picked both our friends and
>enemies out of the rubble, dusted them off, and paid to
>rebuild their countries.

I was hoping you'd say that.

Another news flash. The Marshall plan wasnt supposed to happen by those terms. The beaten down europe had a dire need for anything, but the USA was reluctant to give it, with good reason. The Pacific war had starting, the national economy wasnt very good due the war effort, the investments in the war effort by the government was overwhelming. They were, to say, at least, reluctant in giving monetary aid, and supplys. I can understand that.

But the european countrys knew how to tip the scales. The russian , who had a very vigorous industrial production, and hands on a significant number of raw materials, was more than willing. They wanted to get europe on their side. And Europe knew that.

So, europe played their hand. They told the US if they didnt help them, fast, they'd get help from the russians. And the marshall plan was created. No way the US would let that happen. No bull on this. I was small "blackmail" from europe that "facilitated" the marshall plan. Historical facts.

>Wait, somebody has a problem? Let's call the US and >ask them to fix it.

Sometimes. And sometimes The US thinks someone has a problem and fixes it even when not asked. Sometimes goes right, some dont. The problem is when it doesnt.

Same here. He "might" have nuke or gas or something. He "might" support terrorists. He "might" be planning to attack. No real evidence, or the international community would back up US. I can tell you that for a fact. Happend 12 years ago.

As for the humanitarian part, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons doesnt make it righteous.

See another example. Vietnam, Korea, didnt do much, killed alot of good american men, and the outcome was still the same. And was a war to fight off the "evil comunists".

>Wait, somebody needs money? The US is rich! They'll
>give some to us!

But thats exactly what happens. See Korea, for a good example. They want to be payed off. What drives the US to fix the problems they feel suits them, can also backfire on them.

>It's hogwash ... the US bashing needs to stop. The
>world would be a much worse place if it wasn't for us
>taking care of everyone constantly.

Now thats a joke ... right?

>As far as the Saddam thing goes, you can close your
>eyes to it like you're advocating, or we can stop it. Isn't
>it better to stop it? If you say yes, you're for taking him
>out. If you're for no, then you're ALLOWING IT TO
>HAPPEN. There is no fence-rider position there.

Dont close the eye, i dont even like him . But i dont think that annoucing a war at his doorstep is not the way to go. At least get some agreement at the UN about it, then take a joint strike force IF needed. A good diplomatic endeavour can do some good, but the US keep bashing the inspectors, and keep bashing the UN and the time given to the inspectors. Thats not helping.

>As far as surrender with Japan, if they had
>surrendered, why were their troops and ships still
>fighting? Isn't that funny how that works? The
>peaceniks make up all sorts of funny stories, don't they
>.... Besides, if they really wanted to surrender, don't
>you think they would have been on the red phone after
>the first bomb?

Its called breaking of the communication lines. A few month after the war was officialy over, there were still some fighting. They had no way of knowing because of those lack of communications. Besides, even after the german surrended the war lasted a few months more due to pockets of fighers.

>As for the USSR ... gee, weren't they aggresively trying
>to expand everywhere but Europe? Gee, could it have
>been because of the pathetic (call a spade a spade
>here) and destroyed militaries housed there, or the
>bigger threat from the US? When you compare the
>handful of nukes of all the combined European nations
>with the thousands of the USSR ... gee, do you think
>they'd have done anything but laugh at you?

Thats not the point . A nuclear strike , even a small one (like 10 warheads) would collapse the world's enviormental stability. Take Chernobil for an example. It irradiated 33% of the globe it went from russia all the way down to Uk and Portugal (look at a map), and also to the pole. Could you see what a few dispersed warheads could do? Doesnt matter who wins, they will rule a radiated , nuclear winter, economic collapsed, type planet. Not much of a win. Thats why we have nuclear standoffs, not because the destruction of "a" city. And thats why its ridiculous. It only takes few to screw everybody up. And that what im also afraid of.

Think like this, you're saddam, you're having your way in Iraq. So far so good . Now for no "real reason" , the US threatens you, and re-sends the inspectors. Reluctantly you let them. And destroy some weapons, and some more for show. But they still come. And start beating the crap out of your army, and going for your throat. If he has any weapons of mass destruction (wich i'm not sure he does have), he WILL use them now. He has nothing to loose here. And probably be able to flee to another country, be more participant in terrorist activities and use his personal fortune and contacts to do so. Its like disturbing a wasps nest. Get my general idea?

You dont even have to shoot a country, drop a nuke in one of the poles and you'll get world devastation due to the water rise. Think NY under water.

>Peace is bought by war. That is always and has always >been the way it has been done. This is historical fact. It
>can be seen in every civilization ever to exist. The
>reason you guys have no appreciable military and can
>scoff is because your big brother the US babysits you
>and protects you from the bullies.

US Army: Overrated these days. The world is no longer defined by those types of wars anymore. The ghost of the third world war is what keeps those types of mentalitys. Not saying that they dont do nothing, thats not true at all , they have helped alot of people and i give them credit when its due , but they shouldnt be the worlds problem solvers. Specially like this, going almost agains everybody (or calling them irrelevant).

>Think about it: if somebody tried to invade France right
>now, what could they do except say: "Table for
>100,000?" The same goes for your little nation: what
>could you do except beg for our help?

Nobody cares about portugal. We're pretty safe. Besides, we were invaded by nomad tribes, the romans, the arabs, the spanish, went to war with england , the dutch, the brazillians, several incursions in Africa, India, Japan and China (Macau), and we're sill here. So i think we will manage . We won the war on the spanish after a century of invasion. Dont question a motivated resistance.

>Get off your high horse, because we aren't listening.

We can tell. No high horse here, i see the facts layed before me, and take conclusions. If i was alone, we would have this conversation. And neither would the UN.

>The truth is that the US is the leader of nearly the
>entire world. You guys may piss and moan about us
>and govern yourselves, but it is by our protection and
>benevolence that you exist.

See? isnt that type of thought that goes against you. You dont own the world. And not by benevolence. Its called doing whats right. Taking over the world isnt. Thats the same type of mentality that Hitler brought to the people. And you know where that ended up.

US isnt the leader, but has alot of influence. Maybe too much. And thats why he's such a target. Its a sword of two edges.

>The US has done more to promote worldwide peace
>than any other country ever to exist, so don't preach to
>me about peace.

Not particulary, no. Alot of the peace talks was something Clinton decided to do, or even Jimmy Carter decided to do, as a person. Being in power or not, was a plus at max . Not the administrations. You do have a number of peace activists that have been extremely helpful , but as persons , but not "a" government. "The" governments have done alot to provoque conflicts. Iran , Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Venezuela, Colombia , etc. Because it suited them. The incrusions of the CIA , KGB and the Mossad are legendary in that area.

>I don't know why I bother. Talk to me after we're
>through with Saddam.

I'll be here . Hopefully, it will go according to plan, and in 2 or 3 years time, we can see the results.

Just for the record, i dont have to be right, actually, given the current situation, i hope im not. It would mean a very dangerous situation . A stirr in the economy, in the policies, and anti america sentiment in the muslim countrys, that can rise to a holy war. And thats something i dont want to see.

[Blackeagle]

".....the japanese were just starting to modernize." ??????? This statement more than most of your others proves your real ignorance of the true situation at the start of war.

The Japanese nation had at the time the most powerfull navy in asia and one of the stronger ones in the world. That navy boasted a number of state of the art aircraft carriers, and the largest most powerfull battleships ever built. The Yamato and Musashi were, and are, the largest battleships ever built by any nation. Ever. The air force boasted the Zero, the most manuverable fighter of the day in any air force or navy of the world. That plane came as a very rude surprise to our forces, which frankly were very overconfidant that the Japanese would never dare attack us. The really strange part is that our military had the plans of the Zero early in it's design stages. But declared it was impossibel to build a plane with such a combination of performances. Duh, thousands of brave but lesser equiped American pilots and sailors died for that vanity.

So much for your "just starting to modernize" Japanese. Fleets of that size and power take a great deal of time and comitment to build. And not by nations that are backward.

Your referance to the supposed surrender offer 3 days befor the first A-bomb being dropped is only true in one sense. It was a offer to end hostilitys on what the JAPANESE wanted as terms. Get a grip on reallity here guy. That's like having a jerk break your nose for you then tell you how much he wants you to pay him for the trouble. Duh.

In other words they were trying to save their gov. from falling in a unconditional surrender, most of all their emporer. Well in the end the emporer was allowed to remain, but otherwise a unconditional surrender.

And just how many Japanese do you think would have died during a conventional invasion?? Many experts think there would have been considerably more. And there was one for sure fact. American losses were prevented. As the ones who attacked without a proper declaration of war, the japanese paid a high price.

9/11 has some points in common with Peral Harbor. A cowardly attack without warning. But this time murdering civilians not military personel. If you think the majority of Americans will accept less than a high price being extracted in repayment, you're very wrong. Could it serve as a foundation for a further attack or attempted attacks, sure can. Will those trigger further and harsher retalitation? Dahm right. And with a loss ratio of thousands to one, they will in time get the message.

If that happens to end in the near or total depopulation of radical groups of the middle east, that is THEIR choice.

We americans can well learn a lesson from the Israelies in this area. The "Iron fist" that exacts an enormous price for any and all attacks aginst the Israeli people. Which is why Isreal still exists amidst the arab nations who have tried very hard to destroy them. Only the overwhelming retaliation metted out by the Israelis gives the majority of those arabs pause. Also one reason that some arabs hate the US, we don't condem the Israelis for fighting to survive.

And note: I did not for a moment suggest American withdrawl from the UN. Just a end to our massive support of the UN, and it's keeping it's headquarters on our soil. Just as France and others have long belonged and exercised a veto while paying only a tiny fraction compared to the US, we can and perhaps should do the same. Get them off our soil they seem to so hate, while exercising our veto power over anything we dislike, for whatever reason. No differant than the same being done to us, for many decades.

The massive hypocracy involved in wanting American monitary aid in large amounts while at the same time feeling they have a right to condem the US for any preceived fault has to end. I very much want our goverment to END ALL AID to nations who don't support us. Will allow us to save a good deal of money while INCREASEING the aid to nations who stand with us.

I hope the US always continues to stand up with, or for, nations who have stood with us. We should do more for these nations, in all areas. In trade, war or peace, those nations deserve our very best support and friendship. This is not isolationist, just plain good sense.

As far as the effect of the US economy on other world economys, yes ours does have effects on others. Not surprising, when Japan hit hard times with their economy it effected the US and many other nations as well. But that is the very real cost of growing globalization of economys.

The point on greedy corporate interests lobbying for advantages from goverments is indeed a problem in the US as well as else where. But better dealing with some problems like this than companys being shook down for pay offs in order to stay afloat by corrupt goverments in some other nations.

If the other nations of the world think they are much better than the US then they should step up to pay the tab and show everyone their ways/methods. Don't ever seem to happen, guess that makes the point. Like the old saying goes, " Stand up and put up, or shut up & sit down."

TerraMax,

You have a talant for cutting down on the ideas of others, in the guise of "your opinions". Well why don't you tell us of what YOUR nation is DOING to impove the world. Not what they are doing to hinder others, but what they are DOING. Where have they shown fresh ideas and innovations to impove life for their own and other peoples?

Loved the way you flipantly admitted you could not offer one instance of a dictator's not using force for conquest, then passing it off as "that doesn't excuse those of today". Not very original. But the liberals of the stripe you seem to be from have to be good at that. Due the fact that they are proven wrong when ever forced to try to deal with real facts, not emotions.

And the picture of those graves disturbs you because you don't like having to see such a reminder.

I feel glad to know that some in Europe honor the memory and sacrifice of those fine men. Not all those buried there in Normandy are Americans, although there are more Americans than the Canadians, Australians, free French and British that died in the massive losses in the first day of the Normandy attack. But they died together for a common goal. Just as British and American troops may soon do again. And as in the past many who do nothing will also benifit from the sacrifices they refuse to share and denounce in high toned fashions. Their retoric is hollow, as such announcements from those who take no stand or actions for themselves always are.

BigBen,

If you really believe for a instant that you are glad for the US being hit with terrorism like in Europe, then move there and enjoy it. Nothing like officers with H&K MP5's walking around in the airport to make you feel good about being a visitor there.

Airspirit,

"Red phone", a interesting comparison.

[TerraMex]

I do enjoy a good discussion.

im with black eagle on the japanese army/navy. but in the end, the use of radar by the american navy, was a brilliant strategic move, caught the japanese navy off gard and made some major victorys by attacking by night.

> Don't ever seem to happen, guess that makes the
> point. Like the old saying goes, " Stand up and put up,
> or shut up & sit down."

Well that depends, as long as money rules the world (and it does) , corruption will exist. The trick is to keep it under control. Here, being a small country, its pretty low, and the main problem is the political ceiling . Always the same faces, ideias. Its getting stale.

> Could it serve as a foundation for a further attack or
> attempted attacks, sure can. Will those trigger further
>and harsher retalitation? Dahm right. And with a loss
>ratio of thousands to one, they will in time get the
>message.

Thats the message already passed, and they arent stopping are they? You're just getting the next generation born in those countrys more mad at the US, cant you see thats the problem i think you should avoid ? Creating even more anti american sentiments is the problem, destroing their beaten economy is other. This generation (like the talibans) were raised by those standards. And the results are in plain sight. A direct result form the incursive US foreign policy of butting in internal conflicts of the countrys of that area, Iran was the same deal, so is Iraq. And after taking out saddam everything will be cool ? No, it wont. its utopic to think like that.

>If that happens to end in the near or total
>depopulation of radical groups of the middle east, that
>is THEIR choice.

Of course, they like being bombed for the past 30 years. Its their hobby. You have to understand why they do that, before taking action. And that hasnt been done at all. The attack wont stop the radical groups, it will help them get new supporters, new martirs, new hate.

>We americans can well learn a lesson from the Israelies
>in this area. The "Iron fist" that exacts an enormous
>price for any and all attacks aginst the Israeli people.
>Which is why Isreal still exists amidst the arab nations
>who have tried very hard to destroy them. Only the
>overwhelming retaliation metted out by the Israelis
>gives the majority of those arabs pause. Also one
>reason that some arabs hate the US, we don't condem
>the Israelis for fighting to survive.

You got it all wrong there. Even the international comunity has spoken against that. The only country that backs them up is the US.

The point in there is, the palestinians were invanded, killed, tortured, and to an extent, conquered. Nowadays, they are hunted, convicted of terrorism and executed. They have their houses "confiscated", to build israelit neighbourhoods. And this isnt an opinion, check your international newspapers. It happens all the time.

But what can a beaten people can do? Sit back until the invaders conquer all of the palestine ? They wont. And thats why there are these attacks. My points are not about right or wrong , they are about understanding the "why's".

If you also payed attention, one of the mais points in the unrest of the middle east is, and without a doubt, Israel. Nobody wants them there. Heck, 50 years ago it didnt even exist. And thats the main issue. Thats one of the main reasons for anti american feeling there.

I dont really think that can be solved by "taking them out of there". But i think the issue will die down, and some agreement will be met, by diplomacy, not by bombing the hell of the them.

Oh and the last point in this matter, best , well armed, trained, army of the middle east? Israel. No coincidence there. Worse , more close to inexistent ? Palestinian. Whos doing what to who ?

>You have a talant for cutting down on the ideas of
>others, in the guise of "your opinions".

Thats your opinion .

>Well why don't you tell us of what YOUR nation is
>DOING to impove the world. Not what they are doing to
>hinder others, but what they are DOING. Where have
>they shown fresh ideas and innovations to impove life
>for their own and other peoples?

We have won several inventor prizes , demos, and shows out there. Its a good effort by out universitys, in improving the world.

And we have one of the best police in europe. Often share methods and participate in summits. Also a good effort.

And have the one and only Porto Wine, and Moscatel . Always good drinks.

And ... well, if it wasnt for the Air Base in Lajes that every american military flight uses to enter europe , ... nothing much more. Its a small country, not even 10 million inhabitants.

Fair enough?

>Loved the way you flipantly admitted you could not
>offer one instance of a dictator's not using force for
>conquest, then passing it off as "that doesn't excuse >those of today". Not very original.

Not supposed to be. Its supposed to be exactly what i said . Group X used "terrorism" doesnt make it right to go there bomb the hell out of everybody that stands in the borders of the country they are in. It irresponsable. And in the case of the talibans, had very little pratical use except to get some good videos on CNN. Internally its still the same. Even the reporters confirm that. And now what? Back to square one? After deaths from both sides, civilians, military. I think iraq will go the same path.

> Due the fact that they are proven wrong when ever
> forced to try to deal with real facts, not emotions.

Still, your opinion.

>And the picture of those graves disturbs you because
>you don't like having to see such a reminder.

When was the last time you were in a civil war? Here it was 25 years ago, taking down a despot that lasted almost 40 . I have enough reminders , thank you.

>I feel glad to know that some in Europe honor the
>memory and sacrifice of those fine men...

I give credit when its due. If it wasnt for the american support , the war would have lasted alot longer, with larger casualties. We here havent forgot that, and have no intention on putting that in a bag.

The issue is not that. Its because we are not convinced he is a danger, we have no real proofs (its not a powell power point presentation that will convince the world), and the economy isnt doing that well . There are other more imediate problems needing attention, to waste resources, time, and probably another economical blow with a war based on a "might" and a "could be". Its been 12 relatively peaceful years there as far as saddam goes with the world. And now out of the blue, "we must take him down". I think its a distraction the Bush administration uses to divert the attention from the real issues. Safety starts inside, not blowing up other countries. Taking affirmative action doesnt have to mean an invasion.

[g.l.amour]

well, in my eyes those who oppose should just let the allied waiste their money and lives on saddam. why bother? if you don't care that the Iraqis are suffering under saddam, why bother if they would 'suffer' under an allied enforced regime change?

1)i think the real issue at hand here is that french foreign politics under chirac would like to regain some of its colonial grandeur. to again mean something. i can tell you clear and simple how europe would again become a voice to be considered. if we can for once come out as a single voice. not like the UK condemning the politic of lets say a Mugabe in zimbabwe and then Chirac shaking hands with him on an african summit. we are constantly backstabbing eachother (i haven't forgotten the french recently trying to enforce large tax increases on all beers between 6 - 10°, ooh, that's almost all the special beers from belgium. that would have made a bottle of belgian special beer more expensive than a whole bottle of wine). so europe can't stand as one continent behind something. i can understand that, it is not even necessary internally, but for foreign politics...

2)we have been able to cut our military expenses almost completely. for a little bit of foreign leverage it might be good if all countries alligned their military spending and gave a small 1% of their GNP. i don't say i want it like that, but credible foreign politics require a stick behind the door.

anyone care to elaborate on this quote?

"The psychology of weakness is easy enough to understand. A man armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger, inasmuch as the alternative — hunting the bear armed only with a knife — is actually riskier than lying low and hoping the bear never attacks. The same man armed with a rifle, however, will likely make a different calculation of what constitutes a tolerable risk. Why should he risk being mauled to death if he doesn’t need to?"

i know world politics is exponentially more complex. but try to understand for once why the US can preach a more active foreign politic than europe can.

[TerraMex]

> know world politics is exponentially more complex. but
>try to understand for once why the US can preach a
>more active foreign politic than europe can.

But thats not the point i trying to say. I think im not getting my main point across. I'll give it another try.

Think like this, most of the middle east is based on a different type of life, religion, culture, mentality. What we or others think is right, obvious, correct, doesnt necessarely apply over there. I'll elaborate.

If you see the middle east, its a history filled with conflict and disputes, where something like death , rape and skirmishes are everyday's agenda. Nobody likes nobody, but there is a sort of mutual respect given by each country to the soberany of the other. That changed with the incursion of Israel. Im not gonna rant about that incursion, there is no actual point in that, there are there, and thats not gonna change.

So , having a middle eastern country, althou not internacionaly regonized, Palestine, loose their soberany, as a people, to those "invaders" was a blow to the local equilibrium, and specially pride. They took it personally. And they know Israel had backup from the US and Europe.

During the last years, the influence of Israel, US , British and the invasion of the russians, fueled that hate of foreigners, and specially of the US and Russia, because he (US) was the most influent, and the catalyst for alot of incidents, and because Russia lost that front, they turned to the distant opponent. But nothing new here. Never the less, it explained a good part of the Anti-American sentiment still existing there.

So, to an extent, americans are evil, for them. No matter what they do, if its right or wrong. Even for their standards.

Ok, knowing that, lets fastforward to the present. Even if saddam is take out, and a new government is put in place, it will still be with people with that type of mentality, culture, beliefs. The change wont be that great. The population, who suffered 12 years ago, by american hands, belives that this is another invasion, and probably act accordingly. Even if you drop money on the streets they will still see the US with the evil eye. Its part of what they know, what they are, what they have been brought up hearing and believing.

To actually make a significant change, you need to change the mentality of the people of middle east. (damnit, i was about to write middle earth) Only then, with a favourable feeling towards the US, can the terrorism, the adversity , the hate be dissipated and eliminated. And then, only then, break the cycle.

The cycle is very simple. US (and others) acted in their interest there in the past, they know that, they hate them for it, they strike the "enemy", US strikes back, they hate them even more, and strike back again, redo from start, its almost like a crusade for them. Breaking the cycle wont be by force, it will cause death, feeling of invasion of privacy , loss of relatives, a pride thing and give new fuel to the terrorists, who will just say that you attacked once more , and probably get more supporters. And thats been my whole main point. I hope i made sense here, its not an anti american rant,

Althou cutting supply lines, money aids is a big step in reducing their activities, it wont stop them. Unless you stop the need of hate for the US and the need to retaliate.

Saddam and Middle east. Even if you conquer the entire middle east, the mentality wont change, the hate will just get stronger and stronger and the attacks will multiply exponentialy . It just be opressed by the new government. A government, that even if it is a good one, a better one, it wont matter, due to the mentality of the people, and what they think is right or not. Taking orders from foreigners it not right by them, they prefer a local despot, its how their culture works. Even if the have satan himself there, if he's iraquian, its better than a foreigner . The iraquians will see this action as a threat, not salvation. And will act accordingly.

Do you get my point? Its about what people think , and WHY they do what they do. Its not about war.

The reasons the US are actually going to Iraq, thats a whole other issue.

[gmat]

(just what Terramex said, he's far better than me for that )

Just about the japanese: "they were modernizing" doesnt mean "they were changing regimes". I still stand by the "modernizing". Would the Japanese be happy under an imperial regime ? How could one know ? These people do *not* think at all like us westerners.

Now the problem at hand was "US want Irak petrol". To that some ppl answer "if you're against that you're a <terrorist/coward>" or "you forgot WWII".
What the hell. During WWII all my family (my grandparents) were in resistance. I won't go into details but one of my grandparents bombed German trains and depots. Wa he a terrorist ? I don't think so. Do we remember WWII in our family ? Pretty much, thank you.
Again, why skewing the problem away, i see no relation at all with WWII, which was a *global* conflict, triggered by the invasion of Europe by Germany, and of US territory by the Japanese (well and SE asia..). Here we have the following situation: a small, shitty dictator, quite alone in his region both politically and religously. He has overwhelming powerful neighbours.
Remind me: there, who has invaded who ? Or who are they about to invade ? Tell me. I want to know. You seem to know far more than me.
Also: why justificating the motives on this invasion from the US, based on actions taken during WWII ? That's saying "hey we saved your ass 50y ago, so shut up, we own the world".
Finally: The France is not alone. Spanish and British governments are totally cut from their people now. In Spain 90% of people are clearly against a war in Irak. In UK that's more like 85%. And of course Germany, Russia, China share our position. In short the US government is about alone on this trip. Who is right who is wrong ? Not sure here, but it seems the rest of the world don't see the need of a war there. Because Irak is not a threat to anyone. If you pretend the opposite, you must justify.

What will happen anyway? War is likely to happen, then the regime will be overthrown. Saddam is not likely to escape, he's got about no friends outside. Then the US will take control of the oil, sharing with the Turks who wanted it anyway. A plan for a new regime ? No one has any. The so-called "iraki opposition" is a bunch of exiled, now british people. They don't even know what living in Bagdad means. They're totally out of place now. The US talk about installing a military regime. Go for it dudes. We'll watch.

[bigben2k]

FWIW...

It would be incorrect to assume that the technology we have today was available during WW2: there was no "red phone". In fact, communications was relatively non-existant back then. Today, we can communicate with anyone, at any time.

The navy doesn't need battleships anymore: an aircraft carrier is perfectly able to defend itself. Back in ww2, it was unimagineable to send out a carrier without a significant escort. So not only was communication difficult, information was also infinitely hard to obtain.


I posted earlier that taking out Saddam would stabilize the middle east, and the oil production. I didn't mean to imply that Bush had a monetary incentive, but rather, that we all (europeans and americans) are perfectly entitled to purchase oil at a stable price, and not let it cause conflicts within the middle east.

Saddam obviously has a different opinion. He is single handedly the biggest cause of market fluctuations, and political mischief.

Iraq suffers from a highly corrupted government, like Afghanistan did. Afghanistan should have been able to florish economically, but the Taliban made it otherwise. That affected not only the afghans, but also the surrounding countries.

Iraq, like much of the middle east, suffers from a highly divided social class: 5% are too rich, and 95% are poor.


In some of what I post, I play "devil's advocate": I will attempt to present the "other side", simply for the sake of making sure that all aspects are covered.

If ya'll ask me if I think that invading Iraq is something that I agree with, I'd have to say "yes", but at the same time, I'd like to see the fewest possible casualties. The purpose should be to remove Saddam from power, not kill him. Let him stand trial for what he did.

Of course "toppling a country's government" is never easy to accomplish.

Strangely, few people have mentionned this: the Iraqi population is actually in favor of toppling Saddam, but it's all hush-hush, because Saddam doesn't want to hear it...

As for the US involvement in world affairs, the USA is unusually ready, willing and able to fight any fight. The american technology surpasses most of everything else in the world. I'm always glad to see joint efforts, like the new joint strike fighter.

I think it's normal for some people to label the US as "bullish" or arrogant, wether it's because of jealousy, or because one has a hard time taking pride in their own country's military power, when it pales to what the US can do. Make no mistake: I'm not calling all europeans "jealous", I think we're entering an age of international cooperation, so we should all see ourselves on the side of "democracy and free will". It's up to each individual country to decide how they want to allocate their resources. The USA has made a choice to make world peace keeping missions a high priority (and really, when you think about it, considering that there's a huge ocean on either side of the USA, it's not a very practical objective).

We are way passed the time where country boundaries change. Since WW2, it's pretty well known that no country will take it upon itself to "redefine" boundary lines, with an invasion (minor exceptions excluded). Iraq tried it, and they were stopped. This is something that the US population (IMO) fails to understand, because it has never had to face this for itself: in europe, there is a long history of conflicts, throughout the centuries, so it is well understood (IMO). No one will take over France: it is here to stay.


Of course, we could discuss this to no end, and still not get at any conclusion, but we are all sharing our views and opinions, and I hope, learing a little bit on the way: I know I have.

[Quickmcj]

The main reasons why US wants that war:

1. Stable middel east. (They will continue...Iraq is not enough)

2. Cheaper oil, so that Ben in his big farmer truck that runs 1 mile pr. Tankfull can be happy.

3. To awoid a new Wall Street crack (Like the episode in 1929) because of the present bad economi in US (All the military equipment is build in US).

[bigben2k]

(I don't know why people think I'm even remotely interested in farming! LOL!)

We are all facing an energy crisis: the world supply of oil is only good for another 60 to 200 years.

On top of this, the USA depends on foreign countries for 40% of its oil.

So the US is highly motivated to turn around this trade imbalance however, the technology to do this is not "economically" practical.

But we're trying: we now have a number of vehicules available that do not depend so much on oil (ref: Toyota Prius, and the latest Honda), but we're still a long way.

I was thinking the other day: do ya'll know how incredibly inneficient the gasoline engine really is? Out of all the energy from the combustion of gasoline, only 30 to 40% is used to move the vehicule!

In every other application, we are all far more efficient than this.

[g.l.amour]

for starters; shouldn't we be using all that excess heat our pc creates for something good? i know it keeps my room nice and warm in the winter (although when outside hits the -10°C mark i would wish for some heating in that room other than my pc)

[TerraMex]

The internal combustion engine technoloy is obsolete . And the longer it takes to the industry to actually accept that, the longer the world will be dependent of oil . Most of the oil used is in the transport industry.

Take holland and switzerland. They're going Eolic. They have a plan on getting 60% or more of the countrys electrical needs, covered by eolic engines, and solar plants. And they have started this plan several years ago. Its viable. Same as Island. And they have started to create hydrogen refill points , and probably , in 20 years, we will see a mass production of H2 Fuel Cells.

http://www.h2fuelcells.org/

http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/animation.html

The most efficient , compact, viable energy source developed today is the hydrogen fuel cell . It uses hydrogen, oxigen, combines them and gives out water vapor. And an electrical current. Simple, clean, and more efficient.

The problems are many, and none from the design. No motor company will support the project while there is cheap oil, a demanding market , and a lack of international support for this type of technology . But the main support must come from the car manufacturers, who are not particulary interested. It would mean costs, low initial sales. Without that support, the mass production of h2cell powered cars wont happen. Neither will the mass production of hydrogen . So, they are expensive to manufacture ( the fuel cells). Its a loophole.
A hydrogen powered economy would be self sufficient in the production of hydrogen (cheap and simple to obtain), and would reduce dramaticly costs with pollution, health, gas prices, etc. I see a good future for this technology.

[TerraMex]

>for starters; shouldn't we be using all that excess heat
>our pc creates for something good? i know it keeps my
>room nice and warm in the winter (although when
>outside hits the -10°C mark i would wish for some
>heating in that room other than my pc)

I use the pc, monitor, the light projectors in the ceiling and the tv... keeps the room during the winter at a very respectable temperature. And saves money in heating .

[Blackeagle]

"They are going Eolic." ????????

Is this a Euro version of a fuel cell design? Would be interested in hearing/reading more about this. Info or links?? Thanks.

Fuel cell transport is the way of the future. Fossil fuel resourses should be conserved for conversion to fertilizers, plastics ect. And those posting that the auto makers and petrolium industrys will do all they can to avoid the needed changes are very correct. Education of the general public has been very slow in this area. Unfortunate, but the need is now being seen by increasingly large numbers of people. And only when enough of the public demands reasons for the lack of progress will goverment and industry move forward at other than a snails pace.

And now in a shocking return to the starting topic. Anyone read any good balanced reviews on the 9800 cards yet?? With a Ti 200 and Ti 500 as the most advanced cards in hand a upgrade sometime this year is something I really want to do. Question is just which card and at what cost. I'm thinking 9700pro or perhaps even a better one.

To those living in areas where heat from a PC can make any differnace in the temps of their homes, count yourself lucky. -20C might make for good benching but also high heating costs. Not to even mention what it feels like when you're outside in it.

[bigben2k]

Eolic: wind power.

The 9700 pro is your best bet, if you can/want to wait for a price drop. Personally, I refuse to pay more than $200 for a VC (unless I hit the lotery!).

There are many forms of energy available. Solar has always been around, and has crepted up quietly to assist water heaters (very smart).

It's also possible to harness the energy in water: tides come in and out, and drive propellers.

Hydrogen is an excellent fuel alternative.

The quirckiest scheme I've seen involves temperature differentials at different water depts. Oh, there's also the "solar powered ring": a giant ring/satellite that collects solar power, and transmits it to earth via microwave.

Unfortunately, all of the above are more expensive than what's being used now. The problem with getting an efficient car isn't so much with the manufacturers, it is indeed with the consumers who are used to their gas-guzzling, pull-you-in-the-back-of-your-seat monster machines, and that's what the new energy needs to replace. The manufacturers don't really have any objections, as long as they can make a profit. The Prius sells for about 50'000 USD.

Hydro-Quebec, the electric utility in Quebec, Canada, developped an in-hub (wheel hub) electric motor, for a car. It acted as both a driving force, and a brake, recuperating the power from the braking action. The idea was dropped due to lack of interest, but it's otherwise the smartest design I've seen yet.

Things are not going to change strictly based on principle: most of us have "ends to meet". Give me a tax break, or a tax credit that'll make up the difference, and sure, I'll buy a Prius.

[gmat]

Oh man. Ati releases the 9800, and we rebuild the world. "Blame the Canada" ((c) South Park)

In the mean time NVidia said its NV35 was "up and running". It seems they're blowing lots of smoke. Good thing, they've been put back in place. Now they'd better put something good on the market, i'd like to see prices fall a bit more...

[TerraMex]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794

A nice read.

[TerraMex]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/988265.stm

Also, this type of technology. (Compressed) Air powered engine. Dunno about efficiency but, its a good ideia .

Eolic :

http://www.xtec.es/~jpujada1/molins/baix_ebre.htm

Wave :

http://www.wavegen.co.uk/

What i said was they were cutting down the dependancy on fossil fuel (not only oil, but also coal) to power the country. Its a bold move, but it is going to a good pace, and seems to be in schedule.