the French

[billvon 3,067]

>causing the largest manmade ecological disaster in our lifeime.

I love this one. We're the leading cause of climate change from our CO2 emissions. Iur pollution may well destroy some coastal cities. Yet we arrogantly ignore Kyoto; indeed, we ignore any attempt to get us to pollute less. Our trucks get bigger, and we defend our need for a 5000 pound 4 wheel drive vehicle to haul our butts ten miles to work, alone, in an overcrowded city.

There are lots of reasons (good ones) that you could use to label Hussein an evil madman. Claiming that he caused an ecological disaster, and that we good, ecologically minded people of the US are shocked at this nefarious behavior, is about the farthest stretch I've seen so far. We'd be well advised to fix the beam in our eye before complaining about the mote in Hussein's.

[Shark 0]

Quote

>causing the largest manmade ecological disaster in our lifeime.

I love this one. We're the leading cause of climate change from our CO2 emissions. Iur pollution may well destroy some coastal cities. Yet we arrogantly ignore Kyoto; indeed, we ignore any attempt to get us to pollute less. Our trucks get bigger, and we defend our need for a 5000 pound 4 wheel drive vehicle to haul our butts ten miles to work, alone, in an overcrowded city.

There are lots of reasons (good ones) that you could use to label Hussein an evil madman. Claiming that he caused an ecological disaster, and that we good, ecologically minded people of the US are shocked at this nefarious behavior, is about the farthest stretch I've seen so far. We'd be well advised to fix the beam in our eye before complaining about the mote in Hussein's.

Saddam's actions were intentional and deliberate. Yes, the United States is probably the greatest contributer to CO2 emissions, but it's not our intent to destroy or deliberately pollute the environment. Maybe protestors should concentrate more on anti-pollution.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"causing the largest manmade ecological disaster in our lifeime"

As opposed to what? Chernobyl? The dust bowl in midwest US in the 20's? Amoco Cadiz, Exxon Valdez? Whilst on the subject of oil nasties, anyone here seen the Niger delta recently, or have they seen the Caspian sea around Astrakhan or Baku? Does anyone actually know what happened to the sea of Aralsk? How about the disaster that is about to happen in the form of the FSU's nuclear powered ice breaker fleet in Murmansk.

I agree with Bill and Harry, why hasn't the US agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? Its a rhetorical question so don't fret about answering it.
What on earth can be more important than protecting our environment, and our future?
Personally I see global climate change as a bigger threat to world peace than any other single effect we have seen to date. We just haven't seen the effects fully yet.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Snowflake 0]

Quote

Saddam's actions were intentional and deliberate. Yes, the United States is probably the greatest contributer to CO2 emissions, but it's not our intent to destroy or deliberately pollute the environment. Maybe protestors should concentrate more on anti-pollution.

Thats a joke. We damned well do know what were doing and could be doing something about it, but big business and the government could give a rats ass. Their still studying data because their not sure if C02 emmisions are really causing global warming. or "it's just such a pain in the ass and will cost to much money."

On a side note fossil fuel consumption is the one thing about skydiving I feel guilty about. I guess it doesn't leave me much room to talk.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"On a side note fossil fuel consumption is the one thing about skydiving I feel guilty about."

I wouldn't worry too much about it John, turbines are pretty efficient, besides, you keep me in work and that can't be all bad.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[skydivejersey 0]

I live 14 miles from France. Its a wonderfull country. Its just a shame about the population....

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>On a side note fossil fuel consumption is the one thing about
>skydiving I feel guilty about. I guess it doesn't leave me much
>room to talk.

If you're feeling bad about it, why don't you just pick up BASE?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

What if the US just fought Japan, and decided to debate Hitler in an anti US setting like the UN Securities Council?

Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Have they given up teaching history here?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Everything you say is true, but this too is also true. France used to be a colonizing country, and now it is not. France is weak, very weak, and they are looking for there big moment in the sun. There was a time when france had influence and now they don't. What they are trying to do is proove to themseves is that they still have world dominance.

It is like Napolean disease. The little man has to put up a big talking game to convince themselves they are not small and weak and reliant on the rest of the world!!!! My opinion of course.

Chris

France is one of a handful of nations that could rain fire and destruction on every major city in the US. If that's your definition of "weak, very weak" you have an interesting vocabulary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[KawiZX900 0]

viva le revolution'

Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky

[Gawain 0]

Quote

France is one of a handful of nations that could rain fire and destruction on every major city in the US. If that's your definition of "weak, very weak" you have an interesting vocabulary.

I'm not disputing that France is a nuclear power, they've been steadily reducing their delivery platforms. They still have a significant inventory, but without the means to deliver them en masse.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Have they given up teaching history here?

Not only that, Hitler only declared war on one country.......the US.

Furthermore, if it wasn't for the german's and WWII, the US military capabilities could very well have been very different. The US army, navy and air force was nothing special in 1939. Some items were actually quite laughable:

At the time of Pearl Harbor, the top US Navy command was called CINCUS (pronounced “sink us”)and the shoulder patch of the US Army’s 45th Infantry division was the Swastika.

[skydivejersey 0]

Quote

France is one of a handful of nations that could rain fire and destruction on every major city in the US. If that's your definition of "weak, very weak" you have an interesting vocabulary.

Yeah fine....but do they have an aircraft carrier????

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

France is one of a handful of nations that could rain fire and destruction on every major city in the US. If that's your definition of "weak, very weak" you have an interesting vocabulary.

Yeah fine....but do they have an aircraft carrier????

Jah, the Charles De Gaulle. Nuke, fixed wing CV ops, just like ours.

Edit to add URL to recent BBC story on carrier.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,067]

>Saddam's actions were intentional and deliberate.

And our firebombing of Dresden wasn't? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were accidents? Our destruction of entire forests with Agent Orange was just an unfortunate mistake? Iraq can't hold a candle to our destruction of the environment, intentional OR unintentional.

> Maybe protestors should concentrate more on anti-pollution.

In the past, I have.

[blewaway5 0]

Quote

And our firebombing of Dresden wasn't?

"So it goes."

Truman Sparks for President

[skr 1]

>Have they given up teaching history here?

A long time ago.

An uneducated people is much easier to control,
they don't keep asking all these awkward questions.

Skr

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

And our firebombing of Dresden wasn't?

"So it goes."

That gets to be the problem with these discussions. If you want to do something, it gets debated for years to determine if "it is the right thing to do". It may be the right thing, but if there is some little 1% that is morally questionable to anyone, it gets discussed for another 10 years.

Then, if it passes the morality question on the current initiative, then it moves on to the "well, who are you to say what is right/wrong, look at your sins of the past..." discussion. There is no country or even trio of people with no moral splotches.

Yes, you can have splotches and still have an opinion on the actions of others. Even if we did it first, and it was bad, then when others do it, they are bad.

Perfectionism is the tool of inaction. People who attain a goal, generally move in the direction and make adjustments for errors.

If I was Bomber Harris and I had lived in England with the Germans randomly putting buzz bombs on my homeland civilians, I would have bombed Dresden and every other city flat. It is easy to sit here and say "tut, tut".

[billvon 3,067]

>If you want to do something, it gets debated for years to determine
> if "it is the right thing to do".

Debate is essential to any democratic society. Remove it and you have a monarchy. At the same time, endless debate isn't that useful, especially if it stops action. Congress even has a term for this - a filibuster, a use of argument to prevent action on a topic.

>Yes, you can have splotches and still have an opinion on the actions
> of others. Even if we did it first, and it was bad, then when others do
> it, they are bad.

Of course. However, we should formulate our response based on our best view of international politics, the risks to us in the future, the consequences of our actions, how the world views us, how our actions agree with our own morals etc. We should not set out to prove that everything we do is good and everything someone else does is bad; that's a poor way to devise policy, or even defend our actions. The most classic example of this is the effort to portray the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a good, morally defensible thing to do; any other country's use of WMD's is bad.

In reality, we killed 350,000 civilians because we thought it might end the war sooner. We will never know if we were right or not, and thought that a third of a million innocent lives was a reasonable price to pay so we didn't have to deal with that uncertainty.

Unfortunately, a great many people have a desire to be on the "right" team, to have their morals validated by the society they belong to. Few people want to be part of something seen as evil, or even moderately bad. They will warp their views of others, change their morals to accomodate a view that they (or the society they are in) is 'right', even change history to try to keep their team on top. You see it as much in terrorists as you see it in citizens of otherwise reasonable countries.

>There is no country or even trio of people with no moral splotches.

That is exactly right; hence the uselessness of an endless defense of the US as the paragon of morality and righteousness. We could avoid a lot of useless argument if we accepted that we're not always 'right.'

>Perfectionism is the tool of inaction.

Perfectionism is the enemy of good enough. We should strive to make decisions that are good enough; making fast and poor ones to avoid the label of perfectionism is a bad idea, just as waiting forever for consensus to emerge is a bad idea.

>If I was Bomber Harris and I had lived in England with the Germans
> randomly putting buzz bombs on my homeland civilians, I would
> have bombed Dresden and every other city flat.

We had no such experience yet we killed about the same number with our bombs. That's war; you do the best you can to destroy the enemy. It's not right, it's just what you do during war.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

You see it as much in terrorists as you see it in citizens of otherwise reasonable countries.

I have a different definition of terrorist than a lot of people. Mao said "One mans floor is another mans ceiling. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." Perspective. A man with a gun, or a bomb, is at war. Of course, I also think that the country of that man bears a responsibility. Hence, there are few non-combatants in a terrorist country. So I have no qualms bombing Hiroshima to remove Japans interest in fighting. You start it, you don't get to decide the rules. This extends to Dresden and Afghanistan.

Quote

We could avoid a lot of useless argument if we accepted that we're not always 'right.'

Accepted.

Quote

We should strive to make decisions that are good enough; making fast and poor ones to avoid the label of perfectionism is a bad idea, just as waiting forever for consensus to emerge is a bad idea.

This is always the problem. Do we invade to stop a "possible" nuclear event? Or do we do nothing and apologize for inaction if something occurs? All the second guessing by the UN is causing inaction. The stakes are a little high for saying sorry later.

Quote

That's war; you do the best you can to destroy the enemy. It's not right, it's just what you do during war.

A messy business. Once a committment is made (like WWII), you take every opportunity to flatten them without apologies in hindsight. I'm seeing too many apologies-for-history posts.

[harryskydives 0]

[Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way around.
Have they given up teaching history here?

Oh, Saddam has not tried to assassinate our president or declared our destruction???

You are right about no history

Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time...

[harryskydives 0]

Consider that most of us are weak, very weak, individually. If somone were to try to mug me, I'd let them have whatever possession they wanted.
Wendy W.

[billvon 3,067]

>This is always the problem. Do we invade to stop a "possible" nuclear
> event? Or do we do nothing and apologize for inaction if something
> occurs?

I think that we have to decide what standards of justice we want to apply. International policy need not be based on exactly the same standards we use for judging people here in the US, but one must follow from the other. We do not execute someone who _might_ kill their wife, although if they have a history of violence we may take their guns away and/or issue restraining orders. We do not imprison someone who might rob a liquor store, although we may well increase police protection of a store in danger of being robbed. I think the same basic philosophy (adapted to the different requirements of international politics) should prevail in our dealings with other countries.

Preemptive punishment for crimes based on near-perfect prediction of the future belongs in science fiction movies like "minority report." I don't believe it is a valid basis for international policy.

[billvon 3,067]

>Should not they kick down the door of a murder/ rapiest even if it is
> his innocent mother,s home where he is hiding.

You may kick down his door and enter the house if you think a crime is being committed, but you cannot punish him before he actually rapes or kills someone. You cannot be punished for a crime you did not commit; that's a basic part of US law.

>Oh, Saddam has not tried to assassinate our president or declared our destruction???

He has, just as we have announced our intention to assassinate him and destroy his government. Note that North Korea has done the same. As I mentioned before, the game of "who's-better?" is a pointless one to play.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

And why is'nt Iraq afforded that same right.
to protect their interests.

Same reason Hitler had to go!