New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations via email. Please see Recruiting Topic for additional information. Write newmarsmember[at_symbol]gmail.com.

#51 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-09 15:08:00

Stockholders. Everyday. Following the strictest definition of your demand.

If you want a specific example of private investment and personal purchases that support what has become vital to modern life, take a look at the cell phone networks.

I've never heard of a private company deciding to build a route from Point A of to Point Z. Never. It's always the government who plans it and they hire private companies.

You can have a densely populated area with public transit, but your never going to eliminate the need for private transportation. That leaves you with a choice, either go the dictatorial route and ban private means of travel, or build suitable roads for private transport. Having a congestion tax and absurdly high gas taxes to punish so called "unnecessary" travel teeters dangerously close to the former.

No it isn't. If the people of London objected to the congestion charge they would have protested about it. The only ones who've done it were a bunch of Londoners who didn't want the CC zone increased to their affluent neighbourhood. In fact talk to most Londoners they like the CC. Why? Because it sucks to be stuck in traffic for hours.


Theres a lot to be said for spreading public commuter transport to a lot more central areas, and then using pedestrian, bike, or even local subways for the last few miles. And thats fine if you don't need to carry anything bigger than a laptop. But every business, at one time or another, needs a whole heck of a lot more material than that hauled around in order to function.

And every once in a while I'm going to want to haul home a couple 4'x8' sheets of plywood and a few 2"x4"s home on the weekend. And thats a right your going to have to pry out of my cold dead hands.

Using a car when you need it is ok. Using it so that you can live 30 miles away from your work is ridiculous. No government should make it illegal. They should just make it financially unfeasible.

Btw let me ask you. Where does Global warming and the environment come into this? Or are you one of those who don't believe in Global warming and think that God put us on Earth to do what ever we want to nature?

#52 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear » 2008-05-09 14:09:46

The Japanese were not getting anything productive out of China, and couldn't evacuate thanks to US subs. The Soviets outmatched the Japanese on the mainland in everyway, but were not a threat to the Japanese home island because they lacked the naval transport capacity. Only the US had that capability, and until the nukes, the Japaneses thought they could ward off an invasion by making such an operation so expensive in man and material.

The Soviets did have the military capacity to attack Japanese Islands. In fact they attacked several small Islands. How ever the Japanese surrendered before the Soviets got to big Islands (not counting Sakhalin). Besides several colonies in the mainland were considered part of Japan. Especially Korea. To take Korea would be to take Hokkaido.

By denying them the resources to rape mainland China? You can't be serious.

Denying them resources so that America could commercially exploit China. America had the same problem with UK and France who had large  colonies. The only differences between the British and the French was that they considered Japanese lower then Europeans.


Yeah, because ceasefires and armistices have worked so well ever since.

Much better then bombing cities and killing thousands of innocent civilians so that their morale can be reduced. YEAH!!!! In the end we can accuse them of war crimes and ignore our own.  roll 

The greatest injustice in the world wasn't letting the Emperor go. It was that British,Soviet and Americans were hanged like the war criminals they were along with the Nazis and the Japanese.


Since the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the atom bombs, wasn’t it an even worse war crime? Shouldn’t Roosevelt have been hanged?

But even before that, there was the bombing of Dresden in which the British were no shy participants. Shouldn’t Churchill have been hanged? Churchill could also be charged a whole of lot of earlier bombings; mostly at night when they even see what they were bombing. How can you get more indiscriminate than that?

All indiscriminate attacks on civilians should have been punished by hanging. The Luftwaffe reduced Rotterdamn and Eastern European cities to rubble. The people responsible for it should have been hanged and only one died that I know of (Goering). The Allies should have also hanged their own leaders like Eisenhower,Truman and Churchill.

Believe me. I have no love for Churchill. He was one of the greatest assholes in the history of the world. The fact that idiots in this country I live in celebrate him is sad. The fact that Americans glorify him is even sadder.

Churchill was there when Stalin and the poles planned to ethnically cleanse the Germans. When he didn't like Soviets he managed to make that an issue.

#53 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-09 13:59:05

Its not just a belief, it's been proven time after time. The politicos use the money to buy votes from minority's. People use the money to buy goods and make jobs for themselves and others.

If we had a government that took care of infrastructure, it would be one thing.

Give me one example when a citizens of an industrial  country invested their own personal money into something complex that costs billions.

If only there were some way of having people living and working in a densely populated area live and work in less densely populated area to put less of a demand on those cramped areas.

That doesn't make any sense. I'm going to assume that you mean live in a densely populated place and work in a less densely populated areas. Thats impracticable without using cars. It would be extremely expensive to build trains and buses to connect every single suburb in the same way areas in London are connected at the moment. It would also require massive use of Petrol by cars. Which would destroy the environment and cause hardship when Oil prices increase. Kinda like what your seeing now.
What are you going to do when you have to go to work but it's so far out that you lose money travelling there by car? Carpool? Yeah like everyone has access to that.


The perfect solution is to have a heavily dense city with buses and trains everywhere. Congestion charges at the city centre to stop people from travelling unnecessarily. People can get to work in time and the streets are clear for those who actually need it.

#54 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-09 12:32:51

No, you know what your problem is? You still seem convinced that the government can make better use of an individuals money than the individual can.

Actually thats the problem with America. Their belief in that the Government can't run things smoothly. Tell me. Who will invest in Mass Public Transit? The Government who collects money from high fuel taxes or the people who save money. I'm guessing the former because the latter will spend the saved money on clothes and coffees.

And decades of abusive taxation haven't gotten you the transportation infrastructure you need, cause London had in institute yet another tax, the congestion tax, just to keep cars, even the fuel efficient golf carts, off the streets. If your country has such a great infrastructure, thanks to stupidly high gas taxes, why the congestion?

The congestion has nothing to do with the public transport. It has everything to do with the fact that London is the one of the biggest financial centre in the world. Unlike America London is very old and the people who originally built the cities didn't actually think about traffic congestion so what you can do with the city is very limited.

I've seen pictures my cousins sent me of Oregon and Minnesota. The streets there are huge compared to the streets in the UK. They were smaller way before the fuel taxes came in to play.  In fact when Americans went to Paris in WW2 they found out the hard way that European cities have smaller roads because they tend to be hundreds of years old and in the case of London just under 2 millenniums.

Now Imagine thousands of people travelling to the Inner London on streets that doesn't have the capacity to take them all? The only way to make them wider would be to knock out some houses.

The other reason why congestion exists is because fuel efficiency laws here is stricter in the UK while cars that are efficient enough for American roads are illegal in China. People can afford to drive to inner London and relax in the congestion. The CC will add extra penalty to the driving.


By the way. Do you know what the government is doing to encourage people to get off cars? They are building more Public transport. They took some of the money they get from fuel taxes and spent it on a £16 billion ($31 billion dollar) railway that will connect small towns outside London and Outer London to Inner London. When it comes the amount of people using cars to get to central London will drop.

#55 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear » 2008-05-09 12:10:02

“the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets invaded and defeated their troops not because of the nukes.”

That is most historically inaccurate. It’s ridiculous to suggest that on August 15, 1945 a Soviet invasion of Manchuria was more of a deciding factor for the Japanese than the imminent possibilities of more atom bombs and a massive home island invasion with the potential for 10 million Japanese deaths.

I think to think other wise is just an example of Americans over inflating themselves in their contribution to WW1 and WW2. The use of nuclear bombs in Japan a war crime in my eyes that should have led to Truman being hanged killed less people the the Tokyo fire bombings killed more people then the nukes. If the Japanese weren't willing to surrender to the fire-bombs what makes you think they would surrender to nuclear attacks that killed less people?

Japan declared war on the United States and others on December 7, 1941.

I would like to add after the US acted like an asshole to Japan which pushed it into attacking Pearl Harbour.

On July 11, 1945 the Allies issued a declaration demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender and stating that "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

By the way, I also consider unconditional surrenders to be war crimes. Giving a nation an unconditional surrender will make it fight to the very end. In fact I was watching the World at War and it turned out that a large segment of Germans were against the war until Roosevelt blurted out the unconditional surrender. This made the remaining non Nazi Germans line behind the war because they had no other choice.

The Americans, with their code breading abilities, were aware that an internal struggle was going on in Japan, that Japanese cables insisted on the preservation of the imperial institution and contained “fight-to-the-death rather than accept unconditional surrender” rhetoric.

That what you get if you give nations an unconditional surrender.

“US couldn't leave. There were two giant Communist nations right next to Japan and several other small ones near by.”

In 1945 China was not a Communist nation. Could you name two of the “several other small ones near by?”

Do you know your history? In 1945 Japan was an Occupied country. The Occupation ended in 1952. In 1945 Americans  were to busy raping Japanese women to care about their well being. But in 1952 China and the Soviet Union were the enemy and the Japanese were innocent people who could be invaded and conquered by the Communists.

The US did leave in 1950. Most US troops went from Japan to South Korea when North Korea invaded the South. The new Japanese government was given sovereignty over its land and people.

It wasn't actually. Parts of Japan was ruled by America. Notably Okinawa. They only gave it back in the 70s.

Amazing that five years after the end of the largest conflict in human history, the Americans could just send their soldiers away to a new conflict without a worry about insurgency.

Actually they did worry about it. In fact a rule was sent that any Korean who didn't look like a soldier found in the walking near or to American soldiers was to be considered hostile and be killed immediately. So if you happened to be a Korean civilian walking to Americans for help tough luck.

#56 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-09 01:49:13

Do you know why you have that problem Spacenut? Because of low fuel taxes.

Look at me. I'm came back to the UK after helping my mother set up two businesses in Kenya. Now I'm unemployed but my situation is better then yours. My local shop is 5 minutes away. The local park is 1 minute away.

Yeah, because they can only go 25 miles without drowning.

hahahha funny. Not. Go and study up the geography of the UK.

Do you know why my situation is different from yours? Because people in the UK never moved out of the cities. We live either in the cities or just outside it.
I see the smugness of that Commodore and cIclops have over that. They aren't the only ones. Almost every American I meet make those excuses. Except for my cousins who actually grew up in a country with high fuel taxes so they learnt to live with it.

You people still have the mentality that it's your right to use petrol wastefully driving 60 miles a day. What happens when the high fuel prices make that damn unprofitable? You are stuck. Because you don't have a mass transit system. There were fuel taxes to fund them and your to spread out to make it unfeasible for every single suburb to be connected.


Do high fuel prices suck? Oh yeah. Are they good for the economy,the people and the environment in the long term? You bet. Except for the small haulers in the UK who can't adapt most businesses in the UK are well tuned to the high prices. Our government protects precious  from being built upon. 

By the way I was wronged when I said that people in the UK don't live 30+ miles from their work. There are actually people who travel more then that. They are mostly people who work in the financial centre in Central London and earn a lot of money. But instead of using their cars they use trains.

#57 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-08 17:00:28

Your statement is funny. Because It's the people of USA who are suffering more then the people of UK (expect for small haulers). In the UK the tax from our fuel is spent on public transport. It is possible for me to go to one end of London to another without using a car. It's a bit slower (all though London is a slow city due to congestion) but it's cheaper then a car. From what my family members in America tell me. That's only true for a tiny minority of cities like New York which have a subway system. The other cities in the country has been designed for cars and not pedestrians. A high fuel tax would have given your government enough money to build a proper mass transit system.

People in the UK actually live near their work and not some 30 miles out. Thanks to the high fuel costs people in the UK don't use a lot of petrol compared to Americans and unlike you guys we have been buying fuel efficient cars for years. No SUVs that waste petrol like a leaking bucket. No people whining because prices goes up by a dollar.
Americans dug themselves into their own hole because of cheap petrol prices. You guys lived a lifestyle that was never sustainable and you didn't even learn anything form the 70s. In Europe after the oil crisis of the 70s. The governments put high fuel taxes to stop us from being affected badly by shocks.  Thanks to your low prices. When ever the price of oil goes up just a tiny bit. You are affected more then us. We are used to the high prices. We have already adapted.

By the way the government didn't force us to live where they wanted us. They just made it economically unfeasible to live very far out. Which is a good thing because suburbanization is a terrible thing. It destroys good land just so that people can get away from "the hustle and bustle of cities".

It's actually sad since I have several cousins in America but I'm actually find it very funny to see people complain on the internet about the Petrol prices. It's amazing to see how so many people don't realise that the Earth is being destroyed unless they act. Driving 60 miles every day to go to and from your job is a big factor.

#58 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear » 2008-05-08 09:40:46

What we have is a large peacekeeping mission at the invite of the elected government. Not at all unlike the dozens of operations in the Balkins in the 90's. For some reason, those operations were never called occupations.

No the original poster was right. It is an occupation. It's not a peacekeeping mission because the UN haven't sent any troops. The Iraqis have no choose if they want the Americans to stay or not. The non Kurdish populace want them out and only the Kurds and parts of the Government want them to stay.

What it did do do is force Osama to engage us in Iraq to try to foil our efforts, because our ultimate successes would be a blow to his ideology. If you really think the Osama wouldn't try to do what says he would, please say so.

Again, what is one to conclude if the policies he stands for are blatantly harmful?

No it didn't. What it did was provide Osama a fertile ground to attack Americans. Before 2003 Al-Qaeda was shattered with the remains hiding in Afghanistan mountains and in Pakistan. What the Iraq war did was provide them a population that hated the US. Gave them several thousands of tons of supplies due to American forces focusing on the Oil infrastructure and not the Iraqi Army caches.  It also provided them a nice area to radicalise Muslim Youths.

Terrorist don't like competition. Unless they worked for him. Despite not being the Sunni Koran thumper the Osama would liked, he still persecuted the Shiite majority. Ultimately its a different edge to the same sword.

Saddam persecuted people Sunni,Shia and Kurd for one reason and one reason alone. If they challenged his power they had to go. The Kurds in 1980s became treasonous and helped Iran invade Northern Iraq. Saddam killed them and gassed them. During the Iran-Iraq war Shia men were giving their lives to Iraq especially Southern Iraq where they were the majority from Iran.

In the early 90s when the Shia and the Kurds revolted and killed his soldiers,police officers and intelligence agents. He massacred them.


Did he immediately bring all US troops in Europe home immedately after the Germans signed the Surrender Document? Did he leave Europe to the Russians? I'm sure Stalin would have been happy if Harry S. Truman immediately declared victory and brought all US troops home.

There was a difference between Post WW2 Europe and Iraq.

1: Germany officially declared war on USA even though USA were waging war secretly on the Axis nations it didn't declare war.
2: Germany was occupied. Thats why US troops were there.
3: After the Occupation ended the troops stayed to defend Germany from USSR.

Now has Austin said. Iraq IS occupied.

What about Japan, we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Japanese signed the Surrender document, did all US troops return home right then. Were the Japanese looking around afterwards wondering where all the Americans went?

Ah the biggest war crime in history to go unpunished. Well the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets invaded and defeated their troops not because of the nukes. Besides US couldn't leave. There were two giant Communist nations right next to Japan and several other small ones near by.


I learnt a long time ago that New Mars has pretty conservative posters but even you guys can't still be believing the crap that the Republicans spew after 8 years.


Oh and the Obama thing. Obama has denounced Rev. Wright who speaks 80% truth and 20% crazy talk. The real candidate you should be worrying about is McCain. He gladly accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. The man who hates Muslims like me,Catholics and thinks that New Orleans Hurricane was a punishment from God.

#59 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-08 09:16:16

I can't believe Americans are complaining. For years they have enjoyed cheap gases. For years they moved out of their cities and lived outside it leaving the poor ethnic communities. For years they have been buying large cars with low fuel economy. Now that it expensive to drive 30 miles to Wal-Mart people are complaining.

Do you know how much petrol costs here in the UK? Since petrol is sold in litres here and in British pounds I'm going to have to do some conversion which may not actually reflect reality.

The cheapest 1 US gallon of petrol in my neighbourhood is 7.9 US Dollars. The most expensive is 8.6 Dollars. In some areas of Scotland during the recent crisis where a refinery was closed and the production of petrol and unexpectedly natural gas was affected for two weeks. Petrol cost 11.11 US Dollars.

I'm not going to lie and say that no one minds the prices. In 2000 a nationwide fuel protest crippled the nation because petrol prices reached 66p per litre (3.5 US dollars per gallon at 2000 before the war changed the value of the dollar).

Now in 2008 when the prices are really high people are grumbling but the only one who are really pissed off are the small haulers. They are being killed by the prices and I've heard that a hundred or so of them have gone out businesses. Not surprising since filling up a single tank costs about 879 US dollars and doesn't last very long.

I'm rambling so I'm going to make my next point very quickly and short. The McCain-Clinton tax cuts are the stupidest thing to have ever been said  by a politician since McCain said that Iran trains Al-Qaeda twice and that Vladmir Putin is the leader of Germany.

All it would do is increase demand and prices. What needs to happen is that the US governments need to tax Petrol prices more severly. This will force people to move into cities and live near their work. Also the sales of efficient cars will increase while SUVs will die.

#60 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » The sham called "global warming" » 2007-04-11 08:59:47

Global warming isn't something that you can simply hide. I doubt that Crazy left wingers have such a control of the world that they can force the entire scientific community to shut up and manipulate the media to follow them expect for one or two crazy people. Channel 4 has been known to produce "controversial" programs. That channel is really sad. It would do anything for ratings. Example. The racism in this years Big Brother.

Anyway. I have always believed in global warming. What i really hate is people who spout global warming has if it is a new fad. They only believe in it because the media has picked it up. I really hate these people. Seems that global warming is the new fad after Poverty in Africa in 2005.

Personally in my opinion. Nothing can be done about it. People talk about how China and India are polluting the world. Yet Ironically USA burns more in a day then China and India can dream of. Last statistics i saw said that USA uses 80 million barrels of oil a day while China uses 20 million. All the FUD about climate change won't work.

You won't stop people from flying. You won't stop them from driving. If Tony Blair does introduce the Carbon Tax. That will be the Poll Tax of these ages. Introducing unwanted taxes killed Margaret Tatchers career and harmed the Conservatives in the UK irreparably forcing them to come up with an idiot who emulates Tony Blair.

I think we should focus on increasing the efficiency of appliances and engines while at the same time storing Carbon Dioxide.

#61 Re: Not So Free Chat » Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush » 2007-01-04 10:50:06

Yep that confirms Tom. Your brain is limited to what you want to hear. USA joined both wars after UK spent several years saving the world. Especially in World War 2. When UK spent years being the only thing that stopped the free world from succumbing to the Nazis. USA only joined the war when the tide was turned against the Nazis.  roll My last reply to you.

#62 Re: Not So Free Chat » Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush » 2007-01-04 10:21:21

I'm embarrassed that i even responded to you in the first place. Your probably going to tell me next that USA saved Britians ass during WW1 and ww2.  roll

#63 Re: Not So Free Chat » Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush » 2007-01-02 04:43:16

Basically if Saddam thinks you are a threat, he'll kill you, and if Saddam is very paranoid all the worse for you, if someone whispers in his ear saying your a threat then your dead. If one of your relatives does something threatening to him, he may come after you, torture you, or execute you just to get back at your relative.

Omg you love to make shit up don't you?  roll To be a threat you actually have to be a threat. Or you have to be in a group that threatens Saddam's power.

f you belong to a troublesom minority, such as the Kurds, then he will come after you whether you did anything threatening or not.

First of all there are millions of Kurds. Saddam only started a campaign to kill them when they were supporting the Kurdish terrorist  group Peshmerga who captured the Kurdish town Halbja (the town that got gassed) for Iran during the Iraq Iran war. He started the Al Anfal campaign to wipe out future recruits for peshmerga and to make an example.


I'd rather take a chance with a random bomb attack than have Saddam's police specifically trying to hunt me down or kill my relatives.

I don't think you understand.  roll  If you do nothing and you live your life normally. Saddam won't touch you. Now days in Iraq it is impossible to aviod the violence unless you escape to Syria or to Kurdistan in the north.


Saddam ran prison complexes that specialized in execution and torture, this isn't a random bomb placed here or there to kill some passer by, Saddam's execution squads were systematic and ruthless.

Oh you mean just like the Americans?


Terrorists don't control the countryside,

Are we talking about the same country? Al ANBAR PROVINCE IS OUT OF CONTROL. There are so many training camps in Iraq that USA. The Iraqi government wanted to pacify Baghdad. What did the Americans do? They took troops from Al Anbar and moved them into Baghdad. Baghdad is still violent and more Insurgent camps have sprung up. Now the insurgents are getting highly trained. They don't hide from the coaltion forces anymore. In November there was a battle between highly trained Sunni Insurgents and the Coalition forces that lasted for 40 hours. So much for hiding.


No, what they might accomplish is changing the requirements for governing Iraq, namely getting rid of them so Iraq can be governed. If the Sunnis refuse to get along, they will be kicked out amd made into refugees. Smart people know when to stop fighting, stupid people go the way of Hannible and Carthage.


Oh really? Please tell me how you are going to kick them out. Since the most sunnis aren't even involved in the insurgency yet. I find your statement just like everything else you write. Crap.


I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore. I'm afraid i'll end up in a kramer styled outburst.

#64 Re: Not So Free Chat » Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush » 2006-12-31 19:45:43

What's worse, a random terrorist bomb that just may get you as you happen to walk by, or Saddam's secret police hunting you down?

Damn it. You really know how to piss me off. You just answered your own question. A random terrorist bomb is much worse because it is random. It goes after people doing their normal activity. During the Saddam era. The security forces would only come after you if you did something that threatened Saddams power. Which means that you knew what you were doing before you did that.


Looks like you've fallen under the influence of Sauron, such hopelessness and despair,

please. Don't corrupt The Lord of the Rings.



What they want doesn't count since they are in the minority. In a democracy a minority doesn't gewt to rule over the majority, nor does it get to impose its religion over them, and now thanks to Saddam's death they no longer have a leader to rally behind, there is no chance of freeing him from prison and putting him back in power. All their violence does now is make the majority more angry at them, their is no telling what the majority might do to the minority once it gets angry enough, and with the US supply this government with weapons, the Sunni minority can hope for no succor. If the Shiites can live with the Sunnis because they as a group are too violent well, something may be done about it. Violence should avail the Sunnis nought, if they become refugees, that outcome would largely be of their own doing because of the hatred the raised through their violence. Who in the world cares about a bunch of homeless stateless Saddamites?


They are a minority that are heavily armed. A minority that have the backing of the entire Arab nations.


The Iraqis know what we will do to them if they host Al Qaedam, we aren't just going tro sit there and let them take pot shots at us.


Yeah. The troops will die. Most of the US deaths come from the Al Anbar province. That province is so out of control Al Qaueda were patrolling the streets announcing that they are creating a new nation.



I find it odd you say the Sunni’s don’t want secular government. It is not like they have the numbers to force there will on the rest of the people. If the Sunni’s have no will to compromise then they are to blame for whatever consequence could come in a future Iraqi civil war. If Al Qaeda is stronger then ever then so must be the American’s otherwise why don’t we see a significant escalation in the causalities.

Well lets see. The Kurds want their own country. The Shias want their own Islamic Republic. The Sunnis want their own Islamic Republic. Can the Sunnis force their will on the entire nation? Probably not. But can they make Iraq ungovernable? Oh yes they can.


If the Sunnis wanted a religious goverment, why didn't they have one under Saddam?

Saddam wanted a secular government. Most sunnis couldn't really care since the US sanctions were making their lives a living hell. After the invasion they got influenced by Al Qaeda.


You know Tom. Your the kind of guy that is going to get American troops killed. Your an idiot who talks out of your ass and you don't think what you say thoroughly.

#65 Re: Not So Free Chat » Saddam Hussein's Dead: Iraqi Justice brought to you by Bush » 2006-12-30 16:57:50

Really justice? Seeing that Life under US occupation is worse then Life under Saddam.

List of US casualties. Notice an Increase? Don't make me show you the Iraqi casualty graph.

iraqyn3.png

The violence in Iraq will just continue. The Sunni don't want a secular government any more. Now thanks to the Invasion they want an Islamic country.  Well done bush. You managed to turn them away from the secularity that you want Iraq to be. Now Al qaueda is in Iraq. Before when Bush was lying there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they are rooted in Al Anbar and they are stronger then ever. Stronger then they were in Afghanistan. They now also know more tricks and new ways to make explosives. They also have a new pool of recruits.

#66 Re: Water on Mars » NASA says liquid water on Mars NOW! » 2006-12-06 21:25:20

I hope it's true and not Carbon Dioxide. If it is. Then it would be another reason to go there.

#67 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Fishsticks: RIP 2048? » 2006-11-26 00:43:42

Better yet. We get the Navies to patrol sensitive spots. If a fishermen even tries to set a net. His ship would get blown apart. These greedy fishermen are evil. Right now they are killing the cod in the north sea and when every the environmentalist  call for action they whine "look there is plenty of cod there and if you stop us from fishing them we will be out of jobs". Dumb asses YOU WILL be out of a job if the stock collapse.

#68 Re: Human missions » The Race with China » 2006-11-26 00:31:24

China doesn't really have a lot of money to spend. They are desperately trying to keep their country together without having an economic meltdown. But just to piss you off. I do hope China get their first. American arrogance doesn't need to be feed.

#69 Re: Not So Free Chat » Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking » 2006-11-22 11:29:54

"Would you prefer Britain dominated Canada?"

I don't see anything wrong with this. LOL. I doubt the French-Canadians would accept UK back seeing how they fought for so many years to leave  Canada it's self.

#70 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bow Down Before Iran? » 2006-11-18 10:03:06

Iran has every right to nuclear power. They have every right to get a nuclear weapon. Why shouldn't they?

Because Iran signed the non proliferation treaty, and signing treaties engage the country which sign to respect them, unless the country has no more international credibility.

Countries are noted by banks, when they have poor credibility, they pay higher loan interest rates than countries with high credibility if they need money http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/7161.html
Countries which do not respect signed treaties are supposed to be respectless of contracts.


The NPT also calls for Nuclear disarmament. South Africa and Libya have done so. If the nuclear powers are failing to hold up to their part. Why don't they stick the treaty up their ass? Oh i forgot. Anyone remotely Anti USA is pure evil and will ony use the technology for harm. I am glad that Iran is standing up to USA and to ( i write this ashamed at Tony Blair) it's loyal dog UK. If Ahmadinejad  didn't stand up then USA would treat Iran differently. When Khatami listend to the americans. All he got treated with anger. When Ahmadinejad restarted the uraninum enrichment he got treated angry and a lot of empty threats came his way. BUT. USA offered the first diplomatic meeting for 20+ years. Now thats what i call backing down. USA doesn't have an option here. They can't attack Iran because the Nuclear facilities have been spread around the country (a lesson learnt from Israel attacking Iraq) and American troops and Israel would be vulnerable to attack. Also they can't sanction Iran because Iran has had a US sanction for years. It won't hurt them if USA tries to use the security council because Russia and China support Iran.

Must be bad to be Bush.  big_smile

#71 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bow Down Before Iran? » 2006-11-17 13:25:59

Iran has every right to nuclear power. They have every right to get a nuclear weapon. Why shouldn't they? Just because Americans don't feel comfortable  with them having nukes. After all who started all the trouble (Including Israel) in the middle east? Majority of them leads to America.

Please dont' compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler. Hitler was a brutal murder who first tried to get rid of the jews but when no one wanted them thought that he was given the silent yes to kill them all. Ahmadinejad HOWEVER. DOES NOT HATE JEWS. He hates Israel. There are 25,000 jews in Iran. They are proud to be jews and Iranians and they can make phone calls to Israel if they want. Why haven't they been murdered? Because they are protected. When a Newspaper made a fake article that said that Iranian jews were celebrating deaths of Muslims and showed a non related image jews celebrating their synagogue. The Police rushed to stopped angry crowds from destroying synagogues. They also get represented in the pariment. When Ahmadinejad made remarks about the Holocaust. Maurice Motamed the jewish mp sent an angry letter Ahmadinejad . Has far as i am aware he isn't dead yet. He has enough money to go to Israel if he wants but he doesn't.

So stop your bullshit Tom.



p.s. Do you think Iraqis support USA when American soldiers rape 14 year girls and murder their family? Or when contract soldiers are allowed to do what ever they want and they don't get checked. Before I heard about the rape charges. I wanted the occupation to end with has little blood has possible. But now i see i was foolish. The only way the American public and their government will listen and understand the hurt they cause to Iraqis is for American soldiers to die. So let them die. Even though most of them are just ordinary people who don't have a say if they want to go to War or not. After all 100,000-600,000 Iraqis who would have lived  under saddam died.

#72 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Solar Sails » 2006-11-08 19:15:55

Kind of Old. They said that they wanted to try again with Cosmos. They were looking for funding from their members. I hope they do get it. After all their members have to donate 50 dollars each.

5 000 000 / 100 000 = 50

#73 Re: Human missions » Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ? » 2006-11-08 18:47:48

Probably Democrat. Whats the democrat history on Space? So far all i know is that the democratic president JFK helped NASA and Republican Nixon nearly killed it.

#74 Re: Not So Free Chat » I'll take malaprops for *5* Bob - Apropos of Nothing continues. . . » 2006-11-08 18:45:28

Local promoters at the time gave everyone in the local Star Trek club a free pass to the premier of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Kahn, on the condition we went in costume. I was surprised so see they changed the uniform already. I was 20 at the time. All my clothes from that time seem to be 2-4" smaller around the waist, I wonder how that happened?

Good film. Really good film. Sorry to hear about your waistline.

#75 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Militia On Mars » 2006-11-08 18:42:49

paragraphs would help make your post more read able.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB