The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Apart from it being crap, Am i the only one who things its not a very contraversial song, due to only 3 or 4 words in the whole ong. Its a lame attempt to keep sales high.
Page:
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> a load of crap about gw bush
Oh wow ! How constructive ! This so totally lends credibility to your argument......
> it is paranoia that has led mankind to the brink of
> self-destruction (and we ARE on the brink of self-destruction, it'll
> just take a hundred years or so to pan out) and it is the selfish
> paranoia of men like Bush that will push the whole planet over the
> edge.
Yawn, you think this opinion is anything new ? Every generation sees itself as being on the edge of desturction at some point. In the 1960's the Cold War was going to end all life... in the 1800's disease such as flu, 1700's new forms of travel....1600's technological changes...and so on. We'll still be here a 1000 years from now because of paranoia. Paranoia means you plan for everything, watch everyone, and react to everyone pre emptively before they get you, that's a very smart strategy to have, especially against terrorists. Whatever hits mankind over the next years, we'll still be here because when it comes down to it we can all work together if necessary - look at the war on terror for proof of that. You find a big threat to mankind and everyone can pull together, pollution isn't a big threat - but does give environmentalists something to do, and reason to raise funds to pay for their free holidays....or fact finding trips.....
> This is no longer a planet for individuals, be they individual people,
> individual firms or individual nations. We have no choice but to share
> this planet, and unless we can all get on amicably, we doom ourselves
> to ultimate extinction. Look at Europe, slowly banding together with
> the ideal in mind of eventual complete unity.
Okay, first off this is again just more new century anxiety. Corporations rule the world, no individual rights, individuals can do nothing, Barney runs the UN....not. The individual has as much freedom and influence as ever before, more so thanks to freedom of speech and human rights laws. True, a colelctive lookout for the planet is needed, but lets not pretend we want a true collective approach yet, hands up who wants to discuss the environment with Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, Somalia e.t.c. Sure, the big nations want to get together but they hold less than half of the world's population anyway. Europe ? Now that is a disaster wating to happen and again it's not unity, it's just the richer nations banding together out of mutual self interest and to keep out the poorer eastern nations. How many EU taxpayers are willing to fund agricultural subsidies in Eastern Europe ? Very few.... Russia is the exception to this and is receiving aid, but again this is linked to Russian acceptance into NATO eventually - this eleminates the need to keep troops stationed in Europe and allows them to be spread further afield, towards China - who incidentally, if you're looking at a big nation to have a go at, is a pretty good one - massive army, nuclear and bio weapons, stated aim of invasion of Taiwan and disputed territory on the Russian border and general anti freedom stance.
> Bush not signing it means only that he wants to keep his country as
> top dog at any cost to the planet. It's thinking like that that
> resists change, resists equity and opposes prolonged survival for the
> species as a whole.
Equity simply won't happen and it's a massiveley flawed theory because your idea of equity is to Western standards anyway. We won't all be the same because we aren't all the same anyway, are we ? Like it or not the world needs a "top dog" - Britain used to be it 100 years ago but we overstepped ourselves and deserved what happened to us, our rule was based on force, slavery and stealing others property. The argument you use now against America is the same as used against Britain 100 years ago - nothing really changes over time....
>
> We as a society need to change, damn it we HAVE GOT TO change.
> Arrogance and selfishness have no place in the future of mankind
> simply because we don't have enough room to satisfy wants for
> everyone.
>
Well are we really doing that bad ? This is a great communist inspired happy happy world theory you have here but it just won't work. Arrogance and selfishness are a human trait that has existed since the first humans, it's not going to go away like that. We don't have enough room for everyone, but 200 or so ago it was predicted that we wouldn't have any food left in 1901, gee that was wrong eh ? Technology allows us to beat the odds in most cases, and the fact there is overpopulation is because of do gooders, whose best intentions have made the situation worse - population control in India for example, China - ignored by the do gooders, has successfully halted overpopulation in urban areas without help from the UN in the main - yet the way it's done it means its blamed for human rights abuses ? Again, western intervention in Africa and Asia is to blame for overpopulation as many books on the subject have identified.
> People like Bush have to stop thinking about what they want. What they
> need, sure, they can have that. But for wanting? How about wanting the
> world to be an even playing field? Wanting everyone in the world to
> have the opportunity to show they can make a difference? Wanting to
> restrict ourselves in ways which ultimately make us better? Wanting to
> help the human race survive for more than the mere handful of decades
> it has left?
I'm not even going to bother responding to this....yawn.
> The prospects for the future of our species are bleak enough without
> powerhungry warlords throwing weight around to increase their already
> more than affluent share of the world. Get ready to change, or get
> ready to die.
I don't think so. For starters. Elected official like Bush and Blair are not Warlords as Warlords come to power by force and murder. Secondly, throwing your weight around is a good thing, look at Somalia - poverty, starvation, drought, all caused by the USA/UK/UN NOT throwing their weight around as you put it. If you're happy for the average Somalian to continue living in a warlord run civil war ridden state then that says a lot. it is now accepted military thinking that a small armed minority in certain types of states can control that state against the wishes of a majority who are unable to act without outside help. Look at Iraq, Saddam isn't popular, unless he's within view..... I know, why don't we withdraw all forces from Kuwait, then we can stop throwing our weight in there....or lets get out of Afghanistan, Indonesia, Israel, Russia, Japan, Taiwan..... Lets turn a blind eye to Iraqui, Koraean, Terrorist development of WMDS.... The moment the USA/UK stops throwing its weight around is the moment the world goes to hell. If we do what you suggest, sit back and chill and talk, then we will be finished. Thankfully we're not doing that.
We're not going to die, but the bad guys are...because at long last we're coming to get them, and about time too.
~~Belldandy~~
> Belldandy wrote:
> a load of crap about gw bush
Oh wow ! How constructive ! This so totally lends credibility to your argument......
> it is paranoia that has led mankind to the brink of
> self-destruction (and we ARE on the brink of self-destruction, it'll
> just take a hundred years or so to pan out) and it is the selfish
> paranoia of men like Bush that will push the whole planet over the
> edge.
Yawn, you think this opinion is anything new ? Every generation sees itself as being on the edge of desturction at some point. In the 1960's the Cold War was going to end all life... in the 1800's disease such as flu, 1700's new forms of travel....1600's technological changes...and so on. We'll still be here a 1000 years from now because of paranoia. Paranoia means you plan for everything, watch everyone, and react to everyone pre emptively before they get you, that's a very smart strategy to have, especially against terrorists. Whatever hits mankind over the next years, we'll still be here because when it comes down to it we can all work together if necessary - look at the war on terror for proof of that. You find a big threat to mankind and everyone can pull together, pollution isn't a big threat - but does give environmentalists something to do, and reason to raise funds to pay for their free holidays....or fact finding trips.....
> This is no longer a planet for individuals, be they individual people,
> individual firms or individual nations. We have no choice but to share
> this planet, and unless we can all get on amicably, we doom ourselves
> to ultimate extinction. Look at Europe, slowly banding together with
> the ideal in mind of eventual complete unity.
Okay, first off this is again just more new century anxiety. Corporations rule the world, no individual rights, individuals can do nothing, Barney runs the UN....not. The individual has as much freedom and influence as ever before, more so thanks to freedom of speech and human rights laws. True, a colelctive lookout for the planet is needed, but lets not pretend we want a true collective approach yet, hands up who wants to discuss the environment with Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, Somalia e.t.c. Sure, the big nations want to get together but they hold less than half of the world's population anyway. Europe ? Now that is a disaster wating to happen and again it's not unity, it's just the richer nations banding together out of mutual self interest and to keep out the poorer eastern nations. How many EU taxpayers are willing to fund agricultural subsidies in Eastern Europe ? Very few.... Russia is the exception to this and is receiving aid, but again this is linked to Russian acceptance into NATO eventually - this eleminates the need to keep troops stationed in Europe and allows them to be spread further afield, towards China - who incidentally, if you're looking at a big nation to have a go at, is a pretty good one - massive army, nuclear and bio weapons, stated aim of invasion of Taiwan and disputed territory on the Russian border and general anti freedom stance.
> Bush not signing it means only that he wants to keep his country as
> top dog at any cost to the planet. It's thinking like that that
> resists change, resists equity and opposes prolonged survival for the
> species as a whole.
Equity simply won't happen and it's a massiveley flawed theory because your idea of equity is to Western standards anyway. We won't all be the same because we aren't all the same anyway, are we ? Like it or not the world needs a "top dog" - Britain used to be it 100 years ago but we overstepped ourselves and deserved what happened to us, our rule was based on force, slavery and stealing others property. The argument you use now against America is the same as used against Britain 100 years ago - nothing really changes over time....
>
> We as a society need to change, damn it we HAVE GOT TO change.
> Arrogance and selfishness have no place in the future of mankind
> simply because we don't have enough room to satisfy wants for
> everyone.
>
Well are we really doing that bad ? This is a great communist inspired happy happy world theory you have here but it just won't work. Arrogance and selfishness are a human trait that has existed since the first humans, it's not going to go away like that. We don't have enough room for everyone, but 200 or so ago it was predicted that we wouldn't have any food left in 1901, gee that was wrong eh ? Technology allows us to beat the odds in most cases, and the fact there is overpopulation is because of do gooders, whose best intentions have made the situation worse - population control in India for example, China - ignored by the do gooders, has successfully halted overpopulation in urban areas without help from the UN in the main - yet the way it's done it means its blamed for human rights abuses ? Again, western intervention in Africa and Asia is to blame for overpopulation as many books on the subject have identified.
> People like Bush have to stop thinking about what they want. What they
> need, sure, they can have that. But for wanting? How about wanting the
> world to be an even playing field? Wanting everyone in the world to
> have the opportunity to show they can make a difference? Wanting to
> restrict ourselves in ways which ultimately make us better? Wanting to
> help the human race survive for more than the mere handful of decades
> it has left?
I'm not even going to bother responding to this....yawn.
> The prospects for the future of our species are bleak enough without
> powerhungry warlords throwing weight around to increase their already
> more than affluent share of the world. Get ready to change, or get
> ready to die.
I don't think so. For starters. Elected official like Bush and Blair are not Warlords as Warlords come to power by force and murder. Secondly, throwing your weight around is a good thing, look at Somalia - poverty, starvation, drought, all caused by the USA/UK/UN NOT throwing their weight around as you put it. If you're happy for the average Somalian to continue living in a warlord run civil war ridden state then that says a lot. it is now accepted military thinking that a small armed minority in certain types of states can control that state against the wishes of a majority who are unable to act without outside help. Look at Iraq, Saddam isn't popular, unless he's within view..... I know, why don't we withdraw all forces from Kuwait, then we can stop throwing our weight in there....or lets get out of Afghanistan, Indonesia, Israel, Russia, Japan, Taiwan..... Lets turn a blind eye to Iraqui, Koraean, Terrorist development of WMDS.... The moment the USA/UK stops throwing its weight around is the moment the world goes to hell. If we do what you suggest, sit back and chill and talk, then we will be finished. Thankfully we're not doing that.
We're not going to die, but the bad guys are...because at long last we're coming to get them, and about time too.
~~Belldandy~~
BellDandy, seeing as I don't at the moment have the time to discuss your post point by point, may I just commend you on your great cynicism of the human race...
George Michael sucks.
Literally
Literally
He has a hairy beard and got caught short in the bogs.
People have wrote an awful lot about things I won't enjoy reading. Where's all the creative stuff gone?
"His song is so controversial"
"No it's not"
"He hates America!"
"It's a desperate plea for attention to highlight his rapidly diminishing career!"
Whoa whoa whoa.
"George Michael is a big girl's blouse. You do know that don't you? If you ladies like him? You're a lesbian, end of story. He sucks, totally. Can't sing, can't dance and does commercials for diet soda. Even f####ing Madonna hocks real coke, you little puss"
Bill Hicks - 1990. Scarily ahead of the times
"No it's not"
"He hates America!"
"It's a desperate plea for attention to highlight his rapidly diminishing career!"
Whoa whoa whoa.
"George Michael is a big girl's blouse. You do know that don't you? If you ladies like him? You're a lesbian, end of story. He sucks, totally. Can't sing, can't dance and does commercials for diet soda. Even f####ing Madonna hocks real coke, you little puss"
Bill Hicks - 1990. Scarily ahead of the times
lol
Belldandy wrote:
> Oh wow ! How constructive ! This so totally lends credibility to your
> argument......
Compared to yours, it sounded quite intellectual.
> Yawn, you think this opinion is anything new ? Every generation sees
> itself as being on the edge of desturction at some point. In the
> 1960's the Cold War was going to end all life... in the 1800's disease
> such as flu, 1700's new forms of travel....1600's technological
> changes...and so on.
Not quite, until recent decades, the only "end of world" scenario was linked to biblical or other religious portent. Only in recent years, that we have been able to establish what it is that threatens us have we truly conceptualised a possible "end of the world" scenario. First from our own capacity to destory each other, but now more from our capacity to work for our own ends.
> We'll still be here a 1000 years from now because
> of paranoia. Paranoia means you plan for everything, watch everyone,
> and react to everyone pre emptively before they get you, that's a very
> smart strategy to have, especially against terrorists. Whatever hits
> mankind over the next years, we'll still be here because when it comes
> down to it we can all work together if necessary - look at the war on
> terror for proof of that. You find a big threat to mankind and
> everyone can pull together, pollution isn't a big threat - but does
> give environmentalists something to do, and reason to raise funds to
> pay for their free holidays....or fact finding trips.....
You don't get it do you? We WON'T be here 1000 years from now quite simply BECAUSE of situations that cause us to fight amongst ourselves, however noble the cause is. Oh we work together to kill a few people who themselves are incensed at how they themselves have been treated, because it makes us feel good about it. And how you can say pollution is not a big threat, when already in larger cities across the world it's causing people to die before their time is beyond me. Unless the issue is addressed NOW, it will only get much worse.
Paranoia is what has led to us being a successful species, and it will ultimately also cause our downfall. We can't afford to be afraid anymore.
> Okay, first off this is again just more new century anxiety.
> Corporations rule the world, no individual rights, individuals can do
> nothing, Barney runs the UN....not. The individual has as much freedom
> and influence as ever before, more so thanks to freedom of speech and
> human rights laws. True, a colelctive lookout for the planet is
> needed, but lets not pretend we want a true collective approach yet,
> hands up who wants to discuss the environment with Libya, Iran, Iraq,
> China, Somalia e.t.c. Sure, the big nations want to get together but
> they hold less than half of the world's population anyway. Europe ?
> Now that is a disaster wating to happen and again it's not unity, it's
> just the richer nations banding together out of mutual self interest
> and to keep out the poorer eastern nations. How many EU taxpayers are
> willing to fund agricultural subsidies in Eastern Europe ? Very
> few.... Russia is the exception to this and is receiving aid, but
> again this is linked to Russian acceptance into NATO eventually - this
> eleminates the need to keep troops stationed in Europe and allows them
> to be spread further afield, towards China - who incidentally, if
> you're looking at a big nation to have a go at, is a pretty good one -
> massive army, nuclear and bio weapons, stated aim of invasion of
> Taiwan and disputed territory on the Russian border and general anti
> freedom stance.
Again, you miss the point completely. I know individuals have rights, my problem is individuals have individual agendas, and it's this sort of thinking which is destructive. And as for Europe banding together to keep the poorer nations out? You must be missing something, because half of what they do is try to make it easier to work with the poorer nations. As for subsidies in eastern europe, we already provide the peacekeeping force that's keeping half of it together, and don't get all self-righteous saying we don't give them aid, since we're giving plenty of aid to other places the world over. You only have to look (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/ english/business/newsid_2071000 /2071222.stm#graph) to see the sort of aid going to Africa, and I don't see Russia on that list.
> Equity simply won't happen and it's a massiveley flawed theory because
> your idea of equity is to Western standards anyway. We won't all be
> the same because we aren't all the same anyway, are we ? Like it or
> not the world needs a "top dog" - Britain used to be it 100
> years ago but we overstepped ourselves and deserved what happened to
> us, our rule was based on force, slavery and stealing others property.
> The argument you use now against America is the same as used against
> Britain 100 years ago - nothing really changes over time....
Are you sick? The world needs America to rule as top dog? I think not. And as for the "great british empire" we actually gave most of it up. Forget not we were among the first to abolish slavery, despite the fact that our empire was built on it. And it isn't a hundred years ago anymore is it? We're more advanced, more civilised, more capable. We shouldn't be looking to squeeze more power for the sake of wielding it, we should be looking at more global issues, and for most of america, the globe consists of 90% USA. This is absolutely the worng attitude to have.
> Well are we really doing that bad ? This is a great communist inspired
> happy happy world theory you have here but it just won't work.
> Arrogance and selfishness are a human trait that has existed since the
> first humans, it's not going to go away like that. We don't have
> enough room for everyone, but 200 or so ago it was predicted that we
> wouldn't have any food left in 1901, gee that was wrong eh ?
> Technology allows us to beat the odds in most cases, and the fact
> there is overpopulation is because of do gooders, whose best
> intentions have made the situation worse - population control in India
> for example, China - ignored by the do gooders, has successfully
> halted overpopulation in urban areas without help from the UN in the
> main - yet the way it's done it means its blamed for human rights
> abuses ? Again, western intervention in Africa and Asia is to blame
> for overpopulation as many books on the subject have identified.
Population control isn't an answer to everything, ultimately, you can't control population with removing human rights. So although technology may keep us fed, it can't keep us all accomodated indefinitely. And you keep quoting what people thought a few hundred years ago - a few hundred years ago they didn't have a damn clue.
> I'm not even going to bother responding to this....yawn.
It's quite plain that you want to see Bush go ahead and carve the USA it's little niche in the world. Well that may seem all well and good, but eventually greed leads only to destruction. If we haven't learned that by now, we're doomed as a species anyway.
> I don't think so. For starters. Elected official like Bush and Blair
> are not Warlords as Warlords come to power by force and murder.
> Secondly, throwing your weight around is a good thing, look at Somalia
> - poverty, starvation, drought, all caused by the USA/UK/UN NOT
> throwing their weight around as you put it. If you're happy for the
> average Somalian to continue living in a warlord run civil war ridden
> state then that says a lot. it is now accepted military thinking that
> a small armed minority in certain types of states can control that
> state against the wishes of a majority who are unable to act without
> outside help. Look at Iraq, Saddam isn't popular, unless he's within
> view..... I know, why don't we withdraw all forces from Kuwait, then
> we can stop throwing our weight in there....or lets get out of
> Afghanistan, Indonesia, Israel, Russia, Japan, Taiwan..... Lets turn a
> blind eye to Iraqui, Koraean, Terrorist development of WMDS.... The
> moment the USA/UK stops throwing its weight around is the moment the
> world goes to hell. If we do what you suggest, sit back and chill and
> talk, then we will be finished. Thankfully we're not doing that.
All very well, but Bush is throwing most of his weight right into USA's pockets, and it won't come out any time soon. And people like you will always complain that some country or other isn't getting help, but how many can be helped at once? How many are already being aided, given food, money, troops? We can only effectively help so many people at once. As for Saddam, he is actually still revered in many parts of Iraq.
But notice also the plain reference to USA's sudden anti-terrorist actions. Just like in so many wars, they don't care it's happening until it starts happening to them. They're not fighting a war against terrorism to free the world from that type of threat, they're fighting a war against terrorism to stop it happening to them again, and them alone.
As for the world going to hell, half of it is already there, and without more co-operation, hell's right where it'll stay.
> We're not going to die, but the bad guys are...because at long last
> we're coming to get them, and about time too.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
"the bad guys" oh please. What bad guys? Terrorists? They're almost all political or religious extremists. To them, they're not the bad guys. To them, they aren't evil. Criminals like murderers and rapists however... they know they're evil, they know they're wrong, and they have no political motivation, simply their own greed. They are the bad guys. If you want to double efforts, put them there.
Are you american by any chance? or have you got links there? Condoning the actions of the USA is all very well, but so vehemently supporting them is a fanatic trait seldom seen outside the USA itself.
To put it simply, sure GW Bush Jr is doing a good job of looking after the USA for the short term, but long term his country will suffer for his decisions, and ultimately so will the rest of the world.
> Oh wow ! How constructive ! This so totally lends credibility to your
> argument......
Compared to yours, it sounded quite intellectual.
> Yawn, you think this opinion is anything new ? Every generation sees
> itself as being on the edge of desturction at some point. In the
> 1960's the Cold War was going to end all life... in the 1800's disease
> such as flu, 1700's new forms of travel....1600's technological
> changes...and so on.
Not quite, until recent decades, the only "end of world" scenario was linked to biblical or other religious portent. Only in recent years, that we have been able to establish what it is that threatens us have we truly conceptualised a possible "end of the world" scenario. First from our own capacity to destory each other, but now more from our capacity to work for our own ends.
> We'll still be here a 1000 years from now because
> of paranoia. Paranoia means you plan for everything, watch everyone,
> and react to everyone pre emptively before they get you, that's a very
> smart strategy to have, especially against terrorists. Whatever hits
> mankind over the next years, we'll still be here because when it comes
> down to it we can all work together if necessary - look at the war on
> terror for proof of that. You find a big threat to mankind and
> everyone can pull together, pollution isn't a big threat - but does
> give environmentalists something to do, and reason to raise funds to
> pay for their free holidays....or fact finding trips.....
You don't get it do you? We WON'T be here 1000 years from now quite simply BECAUSE of situations that cause us to fight amongst ourselves, however noble the cause is. Oh we work together to kill a few people who themselves are incensed at how they themselves have been treated, because it makes us feel good about it. And how you can say pollution is not a big threat, when already in larger cities across the world it's causing people to die before their time is beyond me. Unless the issue is addressed NOW, it will only get much worse.
Paranoia is what has led to us being a successful species, and it will ultimately also cause our downfall. We can't afford to be afraid anymore.
> Okay, first off this is again just more new century anxiety.
> Corporations rule the world, no individual rights, individuals can do
> nothing, Barney runs the UN....not. The individual has as much freedom
> and influence as ever before, more so thanks to freedom of speech and
> human rights laws. True, a colelctive lookout for the planet is
> needed, but lets not pretend we want a true collective approach yet,
> hands up who wants to discuss the environment with Libya, Iran, Iraq,
> China, Somalia e.t.c. Sure, the big nations want to get together but
> they hold less than half of the world's population anyway. Europe ?
> Now that is a disaster wating to happen and again it's not unity, it's
> just the richer nations banding together out of mutual self interest
> and to keep out the poorer eastern nations. How many EU taxpayers are
> willing to fund agricultural subsidies in Eastern Europe ? Very
> few.... Russia is the exception to this and is receiving aid, but
> again this is linked to Russian acceptance into NATO eventually - this
> eleminates the need to keep troops stationed in Europe and allows them
> to be spread further afield, towards China - who incidentally, if
> you're looking at a big nation to have a go at, is a pretty good one -
> massive army, nuclear and bio weapons, stated aim of invasion of
> Taiwan and disputed territory on the Russian border and general anti
> freedom stance.
Again, you miss the point completely. I know individuals have rights, my problem is individuals have individual agendas, and it's this sort of thinking which is destructive. And as for Europe banding together to keep the poorer nations out? You must be missing something, because half of what they do is try to make it easier to work with the poorer nations. As for subsidies in eastern europe, we already provide the peacekeeping force that's keeping half of it together, and don't get all self-righteous saying we don't give them aid, since we're giving plenty of aid to other places the world over. You only have to look (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/ english/business/newsid_2071000 /2071222.stm#graph) to see the sort of aid going to Africa, and I don't see Russia on that list.
> Equity simply won't happen and it's a massiveley flawed theory because
> your idea of equity is to Western standards anyway. We won't all be
> the same because we aren't all the same anyway, are we ? Like it or
> not the world needs a "top dog" - Britain used to be it 100
> years ago but we overstepped ourselves and deserved what happened to
> us, our rule was based on force, slavery and stealing others property.
> The argument you use now against America is the same as used against
> Britain 100 years ago - nothing really changes over time....
Are you sick? The world needs America to rule as top dog? I think not. And as for the "great british empire" we actually gave most of it up. Forget not we were among the first to abolish slavery, despite the fact that our empire was built on it. And it isn't a hundred years ago anymore is it? We're more advanced, more civilised, more capable. We shouldn't be looking to squeeze more power for the sake of wielding it, we should be looking at more global issues, and for most of america, the globe consists of 90% USA. This is absolutely the worng attitude to have.
> Well are we really doing that bad ? This is a great communist inspired
> happy happy world theory you have here but it just won't work.
> Arrogance and selfishness are a human trait that has existed since the
> first humans, it's not going to go away like that. We don't have
> enough room for everyone, but 200 or so ago it was predicted that we
> wouldn't have any food left in 1901, gee that was wrong eh ?
> Technology allows us to beat the odds in most cases, and the fact
> there is overpopulation is because of do gooders, whose best
> intentions have made the situation worse - population control in India
> for example, China - ignored by the do gooders, has successfully
> halted overpopulation in urban areas without help from the UN in the
> main - yet the way it's done it means its blamed for human rights
> abuses ? Again, western intervention in Africa and Asia is to blame
> for overpopulation as many books on the subject have identified.
Population control isn't an answer to everything, ultimately, you can't control population with removing human rights. So although technology may keep us fed, it can't keep us all accomodated indefinitely. And you keep quoting what people thought a few hundred years ago - a few hundred years ago they didn't have a damn clue.
> I'm not even going to bother responding to this....yawn.
It's quite plain that you want to see Bush go ahead and carve the USA it's little niche in the world. Well that may seem all well and good, but eventually greed leads only to destruction. If we haven't learned that by now, we're doomed as a species anyway.
> I don't think so. For starters. Elected official like Bush and Blair
> are not Warlords as Warlords come to power by force and murder.
> Secondly, throwing your weight around is a good thing, look at Somalia
> - poverty, starvation, drought, all caused by the USA/UK/UN NOT
> throwing their weight around as you put it. If you're happy for the
> average Somalian to continue living in a warlord run civil war ridden
> state then that says a lot. it is now accepted military thinking that
> a small armed minority in certain types of states can control that
> state against the wishes of a majority who are unable to act without
> outside help. Look at Iraq, Saddam isn't popular, unless he's within
> view..... I know, why don't we withdraw all forces from Kuwait, then
> we can stop throwing our weight in there....or lets get out of
> Afghanistan, Indonesia, Israel, Russia, Japan, Taiwan..... Lets turn a
> blind eye to Iraqui, Koraean, Terrorist development of WMDS.... The
> moment the USA/UK stops throwing its weight around is the moment the
> world goes to hell. If we do what you suggest, sit back and chill and
> talk, then we will be finished. Thankfully we're not doing that.
All very well, but Bush is throwing most of his weight right into USA's pockets, and it won't come out any time soon. And people like you will always complain that some country or other isn't getting help, but how many can be helped at once? How many are already being aided, given food, money, troops? We can only effectively help so many people at once. As for Saddam, he is actually still revered in many parts of Iraq.
But notice also the plain reference to USA's sudden anti-terrorist actions. Just like in so many wars, they don't care it's happening until it starts happening to them. They're not fighting a war against terrorism to free the world from that type of threat, they're fighting a war against terrorism to stop it happening to them again, and them alone.
As for the world going to hell, half of it is already there, and without more co-operation, hell's right where it'll stay.
> We're not going to die, but the bad guys are...because at long last
> we're coming to get them, and about time too.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
"the bad guys" oh please. What bad guys? Terrorists? They're almost all political or religious extremists. To them, they're not the bad guys. To them, they aren't evil. Criminals like murderers and rapists however... they know they're evil, they know they're wrong, and they have no political motivation, simply their own greed. They are the bad guys. If you want to double efforts, put them there.
Are you american by any chance? or have you got links there? Condoning the actions of the USA is all very well, but so vehemently supporting them is a fanatic trait seldom seen outside the USA itself.
To put it simply, sure GW Bush Jr is doing a good job of looking after the USA for the short term, but long term his country will suffer for his decisions, and ultimately so will the rest of the world.
Shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up.
Or at least talk about something else. Try and make it interesting this time.
Or at least talk about something else. Try and make it interesting this time.
Yeah.
George Michael sucks.
And he got busted acting the fool.
Hmmmmm...
Heh
George Michael sucks.
And he got busted acting the fool.
Hmmmmm...
Heh
Page: