Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
*who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.

They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
biggest hit on the US was done with knives.

Cheers,
Steve

 

I wasn't assigning cause and effect. Obviously, a healthy economic
system is more likely to be allocating resources to good water
supplies. Having said that, blue cars don't give you the ability to
grow lots of food. The number of blue cars in your country doesn't
affect the health of your population. The number of blue cars doesn't
have a bearing on how many people can live in a given area. Factorys
don't rely on blue cars (very much) as a major input to most
industrial processes. It's not surprising that there's a correlation.
Clean water is a valuable (though often undervalued) ingredient to a
healthy economy.

Cheers,
Steve

 

Here we go again, blame the US. It's easy to lean back and criticize the
US, which has been the one country that's provided the leadership and has
paid the high price to make the world a safe place for democratic societies
against despotism.

We all know that democratic government that recognizes the inalienable
rights of individuals and derives it's power from the consent of the
governed just "happens". Perhaps the US should have been a "good sport" and
left Europe after WWII. The Soviets would have done a fine job I'm sure.


Oh and by the way, oil fuels the WORLD economy... not just the US. Global
demand for oil is what drives middle east politics, not any US desire to
rule over others.

Now there's a famous last word.

I'm not sure there's a thing I can say to save you from that kind of logic.

I'll try.

1. I wasn't aware they had used WMD to any affect. But even so, the whole
point is not to wait around until they do.
2. The War on Terror is being waged BY the US not against the US.
3. Assuming you mean the 9/11 terror attacks...... Uh, yeah... the knives
weren't the problem.

Up yours.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html

 

People who think liberal application of government bureaucracy and
suppression of individual decision-making is the cure to everything.

 

Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they included DC in
the 2002 numbers though.

 

because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.

 

So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It does say
population by "state".

 

did a government employee make this document? That would explain the
"state" mess...

 

If that's an inference that private sector employees are more competent
that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise

: did a government employee make this document? That would explain the
: "state" mess...
:
: : >
: > : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
: >
: > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It does say
: > population by "state".
: >
: > >
: > > : > > >
: > > > : > > > >
: > > > >
: > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
: > > > >
: > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no
income
: > tax
: > > > but
: > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept
your
: > word
: > > > on
: > > > > > it./
: > > > >
: > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
: > > > >
: > > >
: > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
included
: DC
: > in
: > > > the 2002 numbers though.
: > > >
: > > >
: > >
: > >
: >
: >
:
:

 

Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy and
incompetant.

 

Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you

: Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy
and
: incompetant.
:
: : > If that's an inference that private sector employees are more competent
: > that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise
: >
: > : > : did a government employee make this document? That would explain the
: > : "state" mess...
: > :
: > : : > : >
: > : > : > : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
: > : >
: > : > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It does
: say
: > : > population by "state".
: > : >
: > : > >
: > : > > : > : > > >
: > : > > > : > : > > > >
: > : > > > >
: > : > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
: > : > > > >
: > : > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no
: > income
: > : > tax
: > : > > > but
: > : > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will
accept
: > your
: > : > word
: > : > > > on
: > : > > > > > it./
: > : > > > >
: > : > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
: > : > > > >
: > : > > >
: > : > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
: > included
: > : DC
: > : > in
: > : > > > the 2002 numbers though.
: > : > > >
: > : > > >
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:

 

Excuse me, but you clearly were - in your original statement ("If you
want to maintain your strong economy, it [striving for clean air and
clean water] makes sense, too. There is a strong correlation between
fresh water supplies and strength of the economy, worldwide") you were
clearly implying that keeping clean air and water leads to a good
economy - read the first sentence of yours in that quote. I'm not
saying I disagree. I'm simply saying that one doesn't necessarily
*cause* the other - there may be common factors - for example: Mexico's
economy is bad and Mexico's water is bad. I doubt if Mexico has a poor
economy because the water is bad. Both may be bad due to corruption and
an economical bootstrapping problem (proverbial cycle of poverty sapping
individual initiative, etc.), but if Mexico did nothing but clean up its
water, I doubt that that would turn its economy around.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Correct.
But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?

 

Wrong, Quiz Kid. I like reading idiotic statements from morons like
yourself. Have a nice daze


: Correct.
: But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?
:
: : > Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
: >
:

 

Glad I could provide you enjoyment. Try not to get so worked up on stuff on
usenet.

 

I'm not blaming the US. I am, however, pointing out that the US needs
to recognise that some of it's policies in the past have helped bring
us to the current situation.

Paid the high price? Make the world safe for democratic societies?
Don't make me laugh. Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
is history.

The US *has* done some great things. As you'll be happy to point out,
they were the driving force behind ridding us of both Nazi and Soviet
menaces. That's why I called the policies shortsighted, however. In
their zeal to win the cold war, they didn't think about the long term
effects of placing puppet dictators in control of oil rich nations, at
the cost of freedom for the locals. Right now, we're seeing the
results of those policies. You need to look at the big picture if you
hope to see real change in the future.

If the US really was the big teddy bear uncle of freedom that you'd
like to see it as, then why do so many people in the Arab war have an
axe to grind? No smoke, as they say...

Not if the CIA have anything to say about it. Not if the freely
elected government leans more to the left than the US would like. And
especially not if there's a whole lot of oil in the ground there.

Which country is the most powerful in the world economy? Which
country - understandably - wishes to protect its interests? US
politicians answer to the US people. Don't make the mistake of
believing the hype that the US is interested in looking after freedom
and democracy beyond its own shores, however. Historically, the US
has supported it where helpfull for it's own gain, and (sadly) crushed
it where not.

6 months wasn't fast enough for the UN. All of a sudden it's okay for
the US inspectors - who now don't have any opposition from the Iraqi
government holding them up - to take longer?

Iraq *had* used WMD *within their own country*, some years back.
Nevertheless, this is a spurious argument. Why shouldn't Pakistan
invade India using the same argument? Why shouldn't China attack the
US for the same reason?

It takes 2 sides to have a war. The "war on terror" is the easiest
moniker to put to all this mess. Call it what you will.

They weren't? THEY'RE the weapons that were used to take control of
the flights, weren't they? What are you going to do, invade every
country that builds Boeings? Or has the capability to build Boeings?
Or has plans to develop the capability to build Boeings?

Please, don't get me wrong. There is much that the US has to offer,
and there is much that I love about the USA. However, US foreign
policy has been shortsighted in the past, and unfortunately, I don't
see any signs of that changing now. It's alright for you guys,
because the US government does it for you guys. But it ain't doing it
for me, and it certainly ain't caring for the people of Iraq, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, or even, really, Australia.

Cheers,
Steve

 

Yeah, those lazy firemen and policemen that died rescuing others in the WTC.
Those incompetent servicemen fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Chink never follow the international agreement. Chink do their own way.
Don't blame pollution on America!
Wait until 3 years, you will see the Chink will overtake America as the
world #1 polluting nation.
Basically there is no environmental movement in China . Imagine you hold a
sign of no more pollution
in Beijing street, you will be arrest and jail right away. Chink commie can
kill you right away if you are protesting
against state policy. This is why America we still hold our freedom and
freedom to speak out. Remember that's I tell
people to never support Jap, Chink or any other foreigner product. They are
destorying our nation!

 

Perhaps it's easy for you to focus on the side effects or errors of US
policy. For me, I look at what the French and others have done for years.
A direct and purposeful policy of looking the other way. They give santuary
to terrorists in exchange for immunity from terrorism. Talk about short
sighted policy.

How about countries that gave Saddam his leverage by going around UN
resolutions and trading under the table and using Oil For Food money in a
self serving way. All the while, Saddam spent the money on weapons and
palaces blaming the US for starving children.

Absolutey. Who's soldiers, tanks and aircraft faced the Soviets for 40
years? Whose ships and submarines stood ready? Who cut off Communist
advances? You may focus only on the bad things that occured in that effort,
but I'd rather have a mess to clean up or mistakes to fix than live under
tyranny.

It's naive to think this wave of militant Wahabist terrorism is a phantom
and isn't a threat to free societies. Again, the US is out front dragging
the world kicking and screaming. It's the Europeans and leftists who want
to get along with despots and terrorists; they were the ones with big
Saddam contracts. They don't see the connection between lack of freedom in
the middle east and terrorism; they see no connection between Saddam and Bin
Laden.

You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history book
you read, but it ranks with mythology. Even so, these countries were never
really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and anti
communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not necessarily
to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what they
are now.

You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that went
bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US as
arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the right
thing to fight Communism.

Thank you, and I am happy to point it out.

The US didn't install puppet governments in the middle east. They supported
governments that were friendly to be sure. The stakes in the middle east
during the cold war couldn't be higher. The oil of the middle east was
vital to the western economy, which economy was vital to western democracy
and freedom. Had the middle east been in the Soviet camp, life in the
middle east would be far worse and life in the west wouldn't be
recognizable. That's the long view.

Because they see the US as a friend to Israel. These people have been
churned and manipulated to point to Israel (and thus the US) as the source
of their misery. Infidel is a powerful label in Islam. Germans were
likewise manipulated to hate and blame Jews for their misery post WWI.

Yeah, right. The CIA can't find anything better to do than run around
finding someone they can overthrow. Maybe Europe is next, they're hardly to
the right of the US.

The US has no more self interest than any other country in the world. The
need for oil is just as great in Europe and Asia as it is in the US. This
view of the US as some mindless monster of greed and gain is offensive and
wrong. The claim that the US itself has "crushed" freedom and democracy
just so it could gain some advantage is false and strange.

The proliferation of WMD is not just about Iraq. It's the defining threat
of the 21st century. The Wahabists have failed so far using pinprick car
bombs to chase the US away and to overthrow moderate Arab governments. They
need WMD. Unchecked, they'll acquire them someday from somewhere.

9/11 was the first non-pinprick attack and I'm sure they don't think they've
achieved their goals yet.

Obvious, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). But then China and the US
aren't really threats to each other. Pakistan or India might well have
thought pre-emption to be in their interest, but they each have a lot to
lose in such a conflict.

Al Queda has nothing to lose and won't hesitate to strike a blow the minute
they have the capability.

HUGE difference. It's what makes MAD ineffective and pre-emption necessary.

It's an important distinction. Calling the 9/11 attacks a part of the War
on Terrorism is plain wrong and misses the whole point of the War on
Terrorism. It shows a lack of interest for and lack of understanding of the
US point of view.

I'm not sure I know where you're going here:

Hijacked, loaded with fuel 767's flown by terrorists were the problem. Those
were the weapons. Regular 767's flown by real pilots aren't a problem. It
makes no sense to invade a country that makes planes that could be hijacked
and flown into buildings. It does make sense to wage war on people who have
sworn your destruction and are credibly gathering together the ability to
attempt to do so.

It's bad enough to try to defend against hijacked planes. It yet another,
quantum levels more dangerous, to defend against real WMD. Our "friend"
Saddam has a long and proven history of developing WMD and the willingness
to recklessly use them. We tried for 12 years to deal with him
diplomatically and all he did was flip the world the finger.

Now I know "knives" got lost here, but they should because they're
irrelevent. Even if they were used to hijack the planes.

I'll try. But I just plain disagree with the thing about shortsightedness.
There were side affects to the cold war and some mistakes to be sure. This
War on Terror, in an overarching way, seeks to transform the middle east
from a hodge padge of dictatorships and monarchies and theocracies into
democratic societies. It's a very long sighted view. Is it right? I
believe it is. Will it work? God knows, but it's a worthy effort because
terrorism will never end as long as the middle east remains as it is.

Saddam was a logical choice to get rid of. What a jerk and how dangerous.
One hopes transforming Iraq into a successful democracy works. It paves the
way for other middle eastern countries to follow suit peacefully by showing
Islam and democracy work well together.

What is shortsigted is hoping for and fighting for US failure in Iraq. Or
doubting that the middle east could ever become democratic.