Earth Summit in Johannesburg - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-05-2002, 10:39 PM   #16
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spyplane


Simply put, you are calling me murderous. That is foul.


You volunteer to represent a nation of some 270 million individual citizens, each with their own thoughts and ideas? How big of you!

In all seriousness, neither your American citizenship nor your term in the military allow you to speak for an entire nation. An entire nation which is witnessing a slow and steady holocaust without giving a penny of its annual $10 trillion GDP. That is murderous.

However, in the spirit of ZooTV irony:




__________________

__________________
mug222 is offline  
Old 09-06-2002, 12:59 AM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Jeez, another stupid post by a typical anti-US liberal. Here's a point by point breakdown of your stupidity (I admit that I did a lot of copying and pasting from other sources because I'm tired of retyping this arguement word for word for every lefty):

"Meanwhile, Andrew Natsios of USAID shows up with a contribution of $4.45 million (million!) to provide clean water and sanitation to the Sahel region of Africa, a region of several hundred million people. That works out to a penny or two per person, which will of course accomplish nothing."

The U.S. gives $10 billion in foreign aid each year. When considered in relation to the percentage of GDP, we fall short of several other countries UNTIL you look at the estimates of private contributions, which even if considered conservatively, amount to
$34 billion annually.

-International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year
-Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually
-American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
-Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
-$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students
-Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000

Europeans, on the other hand, give most of their aid (high taxes) through their government rather than private corporate donations, foundations, etc.

I honestly wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about. I just returned home from the Earth Summit. The science was competely sound and would save tens of millions of lives per year if there was the cash behind it. Please tell me which
scientific discussions during these "sort of conferences" you find inaccurate (i.e. atmospheric sciences, the issue of biodiversity etc.) Additionally, you should be well aware that if the science is ever "politically motivated" it is always--without fail--motivated by U.S. politics and U.S. financial forces.
[/QUOTE]


Ahhh...where do I start. Well, how about global warming and Kyoto since that is such a hot issue among the lefties. The going theory behind global warming has always been that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases," which form a blanket in the Earth's atmosphere. The blanket traps heat, and warms the Earth. Environmentalists have used the crumbling foundations on which this theory is based on to claim that there will be a spread of drought and disease, and the melting of polar icecaps, which would raise ocean levels and submerge coastal areas and even entire islands. So, here are some appropriate questions:

Is the science conclusive?
Is there proof that the Earth is heating up?
Is that phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases (specifically carbon dioxide)?
What will the affects of Kyoto be on the US?

The computer models used by environmentalists and the U.N. have proven to be inconclusive time and time again. Apparently predicting global weather is actually a difficult thing to do! Who would have guessed? While temperatures on the surface of the Earth seem to be increasing by 0.10 to 0.15 degrees celsius according to thermometers, spatial measurements have actually shown a slight cooling.The problem with global average surface
temperatures is that people don't experience "average" surface temperatures. They experience "regional and local temperatures."

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_ud.html

"Even the most complex models, however, have one crucial quality that non-experts can easily understand: their accuracy can be fully evaluated only after seeing what happens in the real world over time. In other words, predictions of how climate will behave in the future cannot be proved accurate today. There are other fundamental problems with relying on GCMs (global climate models). The ability of many models to reproduce temperature records may in part reflect the fact that the scientists who designed them already "knew the answer." As John Firor, a former director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has observed, climate models "are made by humans who tend to shape or use their models in ways that mirror their own notion of what a desirable outcome would be." Although various models can reproduce past temperature records, and yield similar predictions of future temperatures, they are unable to replicate other observed aspects of climate, such as cloud behavior and atmospheric temperature, and they diverge widely in predicting specific regional climate phenomena, such as precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events. Moreover, it is simply not possible to know far in advance if the models agree on future temperature because they are similarly right or similarly wrong. So, these computers try to mimic climatic phenomena based on immense amounts of atmospheric data, such as information on temperature, winds, solar radiation, ocean currents and fossil-fuel use. By tinkering with certain variables in the computer program, such as levels of carbon dioxide, scientists can use the computers to make predictions about how the Earth's climate may be affected by similar changes in the real world. This is an important point because there are A LOT of variables to enter and plenty of room for bias.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/07/sarewitz2.htm

Here is a scorecard that compares facts with predictions by leading GCMs:

http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences in an article published by the Wall Street Journal claims that: "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming...
climate change estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius."

James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Space Institute and the first scientist to warn about global warming, has backtracked on his initial claims and is now saying that much of the CO2 increase is being reabsorbed by forests and that sulfates in the atmosphere may have a cooling effect that counters predicted warming effects. He also counters that our focus should be on other greenhouse gases.

What are the costs?

A Federal Reserve study by Stephen Brown -- released by the National Center for Policy Analysis -- found the Kyoto accord requires between two and seven times more carbon dioxide reduction by the U.S. than is justified even under the most dire global warming predictions. Brown determined that even using only the most economically efficient means, complying with Kyoto would reduce U.S. GDP by between 3 to 4.3 percent in 2010 -- a loss of $275.2 billion to $394.4 billion.

In February of this year, the Argonne National Laboratory completed a study for the US Energy Department on the economic effects of America's binding acceptance of the likely
Kyoto protocols. Among the study's findings of the impact of the treaty on US industry and American workers are these:

A loss of 100,000 steel industry jobs and a 30 percent reduction in the number of steel producers;

20 percent to 30 percent of the basic chemical industry would move to developing nations within 15 or 20 years;

All primary aluminum smelters would close by 2010;

A 20 percent loss in the output of petroleum refineries;

American paper production would be replaced by foreign-produced paper;

A quarter to one-third of the American cement industry would shut down.

Another recent study is even more compelling.Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates Inc. found that between 2001 and 2020, the loss per-household from the strictures of the
Kyoto accord would be almost $30,000; the average hike in home energy costs would be about $600 a year.

Dr. Lawrence Horowitz of the DRI/McGraw Hill research firm has estimated that to meet the emissions goals of the Kyoto accord, our gross domestic product would go down by 4.2 percent annually, which represents a loss of $350 billion a year in reduced production of goods and services. This, in turn, would lead to an estimated job loss of 1.1 million annually - for 15 years.

A study commissioned by six African-American and Hispanic organizations and published in July 2000, found that the increased costs forced by the Protocol would cut minority income by 10 percent (white incomes would go down only 4.5 percent) and 864,000 black Americans and 511,000 Hispanics would lose their jobs.

So, this hot scientific subject, which is championed by liberals such as yourself is full of holes and yet you demand that we damage our nation in response to your "whining". Why don't you demonstrate to me how the opposing viewpoints shown here were represented at the summit. Was doctor Hansen allowed to speak on the efficacy of Kyoto? Was the other viewpoint even acknowledged?

Oh, and here are 17,100 more scientists who agree with me:

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/pproject.htm#358

Another hot topic was genetically modified crops. This has more to do with my field since I'm a molecular biologist, so I'd love to debate you on that if you'd like.

Here is a website I found that looks at a lot of other "junk science":

www.junkscience.com

Yeah, these conferences have NOTHING to do with shaming us. See here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...t_world_summit

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rld_summit_186

Imagine if we sent Bush himself! He probably would have been killed by an ecoterrorist and there's NO chance that he would have been able to speak above all the booing by the econutjobs. Why would we want to willing give these groups a great opportunity to attack Bush and get a worldwide sound bite for all the left-wing news agencies? Powell wasn't taken seriously, how much respect would Bush have gotten? I'd say none.

I'm sure there were several important issues at this conference, but I believe that they are just the frosting on the cake of the core liberal hobbyhorse issues (i.e. kyoto).

I should be aware that we have the only politically-motivated science? AHAHAHAHAAHA

Yeah, because the socialist governments in Europe don't use their science to justify their politics, do they? Psht!

Hey, looks like you guys had quite a party over there:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._summit_junk_2
__________________

__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 01:53 AM   #18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3
Local Time: 12:54 PM
US doesn't want to buy Japanese cures

I'm going to keep this short because the last poster all he did was cite American research heavily biased towards the continuance of `old' economic standards and the stats on how much it would cost the US to adopt Kyoto are way way off.

The Japanese are the world's most innovative society in terms of heavy industry and if you blind eagle's would ever look outside your own borders at what is happening elsewhere you would discover:

the Japanese have almost every type of anti-pollution filter for every type of plant, vehicle, energy means etc etc and on and on.
Sure there is a price but that price has got to be paid. Instead of exercising your ability to talk circles arround a poor farmer and exhibit so called grace you could take a quick look for yourself at the world and know that if the price is not paid we and all except possibly the very rich and NASA will most likely end up enduring some pretty shitty future times.

Speaking for my own countrymen, doing this is not wrong!, more Canadians have travelled around the third world (without bibles screaming bloody Armageddon) and have come back to really appreciate what we have in North America and I know they know we all know the planet is gonna heat up pretty quickly pretty soon if we don't act. Mankind has incredible senses that will not be matched by Science but perhaps only obliterated by ignorance!!

If you want to start your research off this year in a great new direction why don't you start researching what the Japanese have been working on for 50 years since you A O's dropped your A - Bomb and wake up and smell the coffee. How many Evil imposters does it take to fool a burning Bush? Thousands!!!!
__________________
Jeshoe is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 01:59 AM   #19
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 12:54 PM
This is a ridiculous response that doesn't actually try to confront any of the issues I've presented except to say that he\she chooses not to accept the facts I've presented because it doesn't serve his\her arguement. This is childish. If you believe that global warming is truly caused primarily by CO2, then please contradict the points I've made to the contrary. If you want us to
pass such a costly treaty, then the burden of proof should be on your shoulders.

Saying things like "American research heavily biased towards the continuance of `old' economic standards and the stats on how much it would cost the US to adopt Kyoto are way way off." may pass with your ultra-liberal anti-globalization buddies, but a real discourse on this subject will require an adult arguement.

Grow up.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 02:17 AM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3
Local Time: 12:54 PM
just a bunch of Hot Air, harmless to Iceburgs

O buddy!! The Scientists are the problem on one hand and the solution on the other. Its bloody hot air mainly guy. And yes you will never be able to have one clear answer scientifically as to the culprit if the models can be manipulated. So while the rest of the world cleans up and the US continues to stagnate as it is and has been doing this Millenium you can all ride your Lincoln Side-steps into your own Armageddon. The USA is up against the whole world it seems this time.
In the future when your nation lays amongst the Third world and ten thousand scientists with differing opinions are battling it out still on whether those miles of black coal smoke are harming or not you will all be so so very sorry for the 20th Century and maybe even the 21st and how you all tried to steal the show.
Don't tell me to grow up, I may not be as smart as you but I am sure wiser. You go raise your attitude higher now ya hoke! The goal is ELevation (lol, bet you don't understand half U2's lyrics)

p.s. And I bet that if you go invade IRAQ they will have a big suprise for you this time. They have been waiting so hop on the peace train. They aren't stupid and they have been around a lot lot longer than the dinky usa. Why don't you let them work through their own problems in their region. You folks have got a lot of problems in your home country that you need to work on and exercising your `Machines of Death and WOrld Liberation' don't seem to be too popular anymore.
and to top it all off your whole country is propaganda, its sick sick sick sick sick!!! I pity you.
__________________
Jeshoe is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 02:18 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:54 AM
Re: US doesn't want to buy Japanese cures

Quote:
Originally posted by Jeshoe

If you want to start your research off this year in a great new direction why don't you start researching what the Japanese have been working on for 50 years since you A O's dropped your A - Bomb and wake up and smell the coffee. How many Evil imposters does it take to fool a burning Bush? Thousands!!!!
Now this is a productive way to make a point. It deserves an appropriate response......

In the words of Cartman from South Park

"BLAME CANADA"

Seriusly, The bomb ended WWII mate.



Peace to all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 02:55 AM   #22
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 11:54 PM

I am incredulous this place is filled to the brim with such intelligent, thoughtful, educated and carefully researched replies. Clearly this place attracts those with the smarts.

And you continue to insult each other with names and baseless insults.

What part of no name calling do you all not understand? All of you who have continued to do so, please reply in here and ask and we will go over it ONE MORE TIME. You are breaking forum rules. You are undoing the brilliance in some of your replies by adding such ridiculous insults to your replies.

It is beyond me how some people cannot see this.

The last chance for this thread's life starts now.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 04:05 AM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Re: just a bunch of Hot Air, harmless to Iceburgs

Quote:
Originally posted by Jeshoe
O buddy!! The Scientists are the problem on one hand and the solution on the other. Its bloody hot air mainly guy. And yes you will never be able to have one clear answer scientifically as to the culprit if the models can be manipulated. So while the rest of the world cleans up and the US continues to stagnate as it is and has been doing this Millenium you can all ride your Lincoln Side-steps into your own Armageddon. The USA is up against the whole world it seems this time.
In the future when your nation lays amongst the Third world and ten thousand scientists with differing opinions are battling it out still on whether those miles of black coal smoke are harming or not you will all be so so very sorry for the 20th Century and maybe even the 21st and how you all tried to steal the show.
Don't tell me to grow up, I may not be as smart as you but I am sure wiser. You go raise your attitude higher now ya hoke! The goal is ELevation (lol, bet you don't understand half U2's lyrics)

p.s. And I bet that if you go invade IRAQ they will have a big suprise for you this time. They have been waiting so hop on the peace train. They aren't stupid and they have been around a lot lot longer than the dinky usa. Why don't you let them work through their own problems in their region. You folks have got a lot of problems in your home country that you need to work on and exercising your `Machines of Death and WOrld Liberation' don't seem to be too popular anymore.
and to top it all off your whole country is propaganda, its sick sick sick sick sick!!! I pity you.

This thread smacks of ugly anti-Americanism and a MAJOR inferiority syndrome. You don't know that any of this is true or if any of this will happen. You just hate the fact that America has so much power and wealth and you WISH it upon us because of that. How very sad.

"Don't tell me to grow up, I may not be as smart as you but I am sure wiser. You go raise your attitude higher now ya hoke! The goal is ELevation (lol, bet you don't understand half U2's lyrics)"

How old are you? I'm guessing you're <18.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 03:18 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 01:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences in an article published by the Wall Street Journal claims that: "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming...
climate change estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius."
I find it strange that, while in the same post you make a (good) case against the use of complex environmental/meteorological models, you do not question the validity (sp?) of Lindzen's statement about the effect of doubling the amount of CO2. Are these climate change estimates made without the use of models?

I'm also very curious about these 'indications' he speaks of. Recent studies in the arctic circle have shown that an increase of mean anual temperature in the past has always been preceded by an increase of carbon dioxide. I also find the comment about carbon dioxide being reduced by forests ludicrous. Last time I checked, there was a large decrease of biomass (deforestation, for example...). Besides, why does anybody think CO2 reduction by forests solve the problem?

Unless anybody thinks a tree lives forever, the ammount of carbon will increase in every part of the carbonic cycle so it will also increase in the atmosphere. And even if there was an significant reduction by forests, carbon particles are known to stay in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years untill they move to another environmental compartment (for instance biomass).
This means the carbon which is (temporarely) immobilized by trees at this very moment, comes from the CO2 ejected at the start of the industrial revolution. And we all know emissions from around 1900-1920 pale in comparison to the ones from 2002.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 04:33 PM   #25
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


I find it strange that, while in the same post you make a (good) case against the use of complex environmental/meteorological models, you do not question the validity (sp?) of Lindzen's statement about the effect of doubling the amount of CO2. Are these climate change estimates made without the use of models?

I'm also very curious about these 'indications' he speaks of. Recent studies in the arctic circle have shown that an increase of mean anual temperature in the past has always been preceded by an increase of carbon dioxide. I also find the comment about carbon dioxide being reduced by forests ludicrous. Last time I checked, there was a large decrease of biomass (deforestation, for example...). Besides, why does anybody think CO2 reduction by forests solve the problem?

Unless anybody thinks a tree lives forever, the ammount of carbon will increase in every part of the carbonic cycle so it will also increase in the atmosphere. And even if there was an significant reduction by forests, carbon particles are known to stay in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years untill they move to another environmental compartment (for instance biomass).
This means the carbon which is (temporarely) immobilized by trees at this very moment, comes from the CO2 ejected at the start of the industrial revolution. And we all know emissions from around 1900-1920 pale in comparison to the ones from 2002.

Your arguement is all confused. Lindzen's model was used to point out that within the field very prominent climatologists can come to very different conclusions. I don't know what the answers are. I'm just saying that there is no consensus amongst the scientists.

:Recent studies in the arctic circle have shown that an increase of mean anual temperature in the past has always been preceded by an increase of carbon dioxide."

I'd appreciate it if you could show me the journal articles. Again, the old scientific adage of "correlation is not causation" applies here.

I also find the comment about carbon dioxide being reduced by forests ludicrous. Last time I checked, there was a large decrease of biomass (deforestation, for example...). Besides, why does anybody think CO2 reduction by forests solve the problem?

Last time you checked some environmentalist told you that the forests had all been destroyed!? Hahahaa...there are still plenty of trees in the world if you haven't ventured past suburbia lately. The amount that they rerelease back into the atmosphere is less than what they take in because much of that is fixed into creating structural components of the tree. If they're around for potentially hundreds of years (or even 50-100 yrs) and they trap CO2, then this could account for a lot of trapped carbon. And, unless trees are going somewhere anytime soon, they will continue to reabsorb this carbon when new trees form. Of course, this is all assuming for the sake of arguement that CO2 is the source of our problems, which I'm not convinced it is.

Here is a quote from a NASA webpage:
The land and oceans are known to store half of the total carbon emitted annually from fossil fuel burning and industrial activities. The other half is accumulating as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is thought by many to be responsible for global climate change. Researchers found that America's forests soaked up 140 million tons of carbon a year, while most Canada's boreal forests were found to be losing carbon. Russia, the country with most forests, accounted for almost 40 percent of the biomass carbon sink.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/carbonsink_20011211/
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 10:14 AM   #26
Acrobat
 
Ft. Worth Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 390
Local Time: 07:54 AM

Looks like Jeshoe couldn't come up woth facts to back up his beliefs! How typical. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that so many people hate a country that the world is dependent on. No United States, no free world. Gosh, I wonder who liberated Europe from Hitler? Who contained the SOviet Union in the cold wat? Without the U.S., Saddam would now be master of the Middle East. This is not to say the U.S. never makes mistakes, but seriously folks, think before you speak and look at HISTORY. We have never fought a war in a country and left them to build back up on their own. Remember the Marshall Plan? Also, we helped rebuild Japan into an economic superpower. So, next time you condemn the U.S. for being warlike, remember why we had to be like that.
__________________
Ft. Worth Frog is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 06:26 PM   #27
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo



Last time you checked some environmentalist told you that the forests had all been destroyed!? Hahahaa...there are still plenty of trees in the world if you haven't ventured past suburbia lately. The amount that they rerelease back into the atmosphere is less than what they take in because much of that is fixed into creating structural components of the tree. If they're around for potentially hundreds of years (or even 50-100 yrs) and they trap CO2, then this could account for a lot of trapped carbon. And, unless trees are going somewhere anytime soon, they will continue to reabsorb this carbon when new trees form. Of course, this is all assuming for the sake of arguement that CO2 is the source of our problems, which I'm not convinced it is.
I completely forgot about this thread, and it seems I owe you a full-length response, which I hope I can get around to sometime.

In the meantime, I'd like to take issue with this paragraph, which is riddled with half-truths.

First off all, please do not fall back on the "CO2 is not the issue" argument, which has been successfully refuted time and time again. Please show me a respectable study that indicates otherwise.

Secondly, the most recent research shows that the rainforest--formerly thought to be our greatest hope for carbon sequestration--is NOT NEARLY as successful a sink as we'd hoped. In fact, many studies have shown that it does not sequester carbon whatsoever. Biosphere 2, which conducts testing in its sealed rainforest environment, has all but reached this conclusion, as has the following study:

"Christian Korner, working in Switzerland at the University of Basel with rainforest species in a mesocosm, conducted an experiment which showed that photosynthesis and respiration remained balanced (there was no sink) as CO2 concentration of the air was increased. They suggest that feedback processes would tend to keep photosynthesis from exceeding respiration over time and limit the capacity of rainforests to act as sinks for atmospheric CO2. "

There is a real need for research into alternative methods for carbon sequestration. You just can't see the forest for the trees
__________________
mug222 is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 09:21 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 01:54 PM
mug comment might have been strong...the word murderous...should probably have read...negligent.


However The United States is the worlds only super power..and has to lead the way more than what it's doing....the status quo isn't enough right now. And the US being head honcho on the planet needs to take the first step in greater initiative.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 10:06 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V

However The United States is the worlds only super power..and has to lead the way more than what it's doing....the status quo isn't enough right now. And the US being head honcho on the planet needs to take the first step in greater initiative.
Does anyone here believe this president will take the lead on issues like this in economic times like these?

I agree the US needs to take the lead on these issues, but it seems that taking the lead (ie Iraq) is not what the world wants.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 09:03 AM   #30
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Dread I agree....I think the rest of the world has its' head up it's ass on the iraq issue....They dont' understand that the resolutions were passed..and they were broken, thye need to be enforced and it digusts me that iraq is actually dictating terms in the UN. A regime change is by far teh best thing for the iraqi ppl.



But...what's going on in africa may be the most important thing in the world right now. And the US at least needs to look like it's goign to do soemthign about it once iraq is off the plate.
__________________

__________________
V Nura is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com