Page 5 of 8

Don't you know

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:03 am
by MonroeDoctrine
Don't you know executing Sadaam is proof that we're bringing freedom and Democracy to Iraq! How embarrassing that we have such a foolish policy in Iraq.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:59 pm
by Saturn
You forget that it was an Iraqi [albeit US government backed puppet-government] court that tried and executed Saddam :wink:

It doesn't solve anything, it doesn't justify anything either though.

Well Steve

PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:45 pm
by MonroeDoctrine
Well Steve what you brought up with albeit puppet regime is exactly the point. One can conjecture based on the type of reaction this execution is trying to provoke some elements of the US or London must have been involved. Think about the fact that this is going to promote more sectarian violence. Remember Cheney is trying to exacerbate the Shia and Sunni conflicts. Apparently the footage of the lynching is being circulated; so a bunch of people are seeing Shia's kill Saddam. Clearly this is trying to stir up more provocations!

The Horn of Africa

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:54 pm
by MonroeDoctrine
It looks like there are some more insane operations being backed by the US in the horn of Africa. The Ethiopians are starting all out Warfare against Somalia. THe US is backing the operations because it is supposedly good to fight the war against terror. Unfortunetely Ethiopia is going after the "terrorist" in Kenya as well; what another unfortunate situation in world affairs.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:47 am
by Richard
MD where is Mnt Paranus Foot? :roll:
I'm a little islander, the island that brought the world everything worth having.......... at an appalling price, here we forgive that as an historical abberation, and are suprised to see the same old routine come round again.
Heavens there is no hope................personally i blame the parents.
(in the UK anyway.)
They treat their kids with disrespect, ignore them, are rude to them, lie to them, hurt them, are unjust to them................................................
oh i'm sure yiu get the idea. :(
do you know where Saturn is?
House!

It just got worse

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:08 am
by MonroeDoctrine
Now it is explicit that the US is unfortunetely involved in the conflict in the horn of Africa. It was bad enough the US was in support of Ethiopia's attacks on Somalia; it was recently revealed that US gunships attacked Somalia all in the name of fighting "terror." If anything this is another incentive to impeach Dick Cheney and Bush in that order.

I'm BACK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:50 pm
by MonroeDoctrine
Thank God for my political identity or the current world affairs part of this forum would die! Anyways it turns out the British hired Al Gore that's right Gordon Brown hired Al Gore! There is an attempt by an insane faction in the Anglo-Dutch elite to impose stupid environmentalist laws that are going to destroy the world, especially the developing world. It is not surprising that Fat Albert (Al Gore) would be pushing such an agenda since he's a racist. And the fact that he is a racist can easily be proven.

As a matter of fact Al Gore got his career started working for the FBI, framing up African American political leaders. The FBI was involved in a racist operation targetting all black elected officials, and Gore was a part of the Nashville Tennessee operation. The name of the man who was a victim of these racist operations in Nashville is Morris Haddox.

Oh and by the way CO2 is actually good for the environment, in case you folks didn't know CO2 is neccessary for all plant life, why is AL GORE against plants?

Re: I'm BACK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:32 pm
by Saturn
MonroeDoctrine wrote:Thank God for my political identity or the current world affairs part of this forum would die!


You think you are the only one who has strong views on politics? :roll:

This as you very well know is primarily a forum dedicated to literature, not geo or global politics there are plenty of places I'm sure one can discuss them.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:14 am
by Credo Buffa
CO2 by itself--when produced in a natural environment--isn't a problem. It's the current balance of it in the environment that is. Yes, plants "breathe" CO2. But the less plant life there is in the world, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere that isn't being absorbed by plants and turned into oxygen. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What's more is that we're artificially increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. So:

fewer plants + artificially produced CO2 = bad.

It's simple chemistry. Politics has nothing to do with the fact that we're screwing ourselves over. The sooner people figure that out, the better off we'll all be. No one is going to care about party lines when we're all frying or drowning or whatever other awful thing is going to happen to us if we can't get our act together as a coherent unit of people of Earth with only one planet to live on rather than Democrats or Republicans or Americans or Brits or whatever else we may be.

And that's all I have to say about that.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:21 am
by dks
Credo Buffa wrote:fewer plants + artificially produced CO2 = bad.

It's simple chemistry. Politics has nothing to do with the fact that we're screwing ourselves over. The sooner people figure that out, the better off we'll all be. No one is going to care about party

And that's all I have to say about that.


Can I get a resounding "Amen, sista!"

Please...

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:40 pm
by MonroeDoctrine
Most people that claim that there are less plants in the biosphere haven't even done any research to look into whether or not that is even true. For example in the United States because of reforestation there are more trees and plant life today than existed even twenty years ago. And even it were true that mankind is cutting down trees, mankind can begin to plant more trees. As a matter of fact trees that are younger have a better metabolism, so cutting down the old trees and planting new ones isn't a bad idea the young trees will gobble up that CO2 like it ain't nothing. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the potential for an increase of life on the biosphere, it is also well known that farmers have better yields when there is more CO2 and hence more food to deal with things like starvation in the world.

Now I just bring these discussions to the John Keats forum because I didn't know if you people realized that Keats is a humanist (As well as Shelly). Keats was not an environmentalist, and if you read To A Friend Who Sent Me Some Roses, it is pretty clear that Keats recognizes man's ideas as more beautiful than living processes in nature. It is written all over his writings and I think that Keats would be on my side fighting against people's irrationale romantic notions of man's relationship to nature.

One insane notion is the idea that there is some type of balance in the Universe. What is the balance between? No one has been able to prove that the Universe in its entirety tends towards a balance. Any biologist who is honest knows that the atmosphere couldn't sustain life until living processes transformed the atmosphere from Carbon Based to being an atmosphere than contained enough Oxygen to sustain life. That transformation disrupted a so called balance that use to exist on our planet. And that disruption of the balance was good! I'm happy about it.

And just to drive the point home, most CO2 that's emitted is not anthropogenic it comes from nature. And when people like Gore and the British tell third world countries that they should not develope because their anthropogenic CO2 will pollute the environment they are basically carrying out genocide premised on hysterical lies about human beings. And don't think that eliminating poverty is not going to require industry; without industry there is no way people are going to get out of poverty in Africa.

More happy love! more happy, happy love!
For ever warm and still to be enjoy’d,
For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above

Yes breathe humanity! Exhale your CO2 proudly!

By the way who created the IPCC?BRITISH IMPERIALIST MARGARET THATCHER! I'm sure if Keats were alive he would not be in support of a B**** like Thatcher and much less her environmentalist hysteria!

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:58 pm
by Credo Buffa
There are about a million and one ways I could refute pretty much all of those comments, but I won't bother. I'll just say that humanism is all fine and well, but it's hard to be humanist when the humans you're supposed to care so much about are killing themselves and their world. I'm sure Keats would really find it beautiful that man's ideas have turned so many of his free, natural lands into industrial hell-holes that are making his blue skies black and his fresh air smell like burning fuel.

Sometimes it's so easy to over-analyze and come up with contrived reasons for why bad things aren't happening just because we're too inconvenienced by the kinds of changes we have to make in our own lives to make a difference. Meanwhile, all you have to do is look at a once green countryside riddled with plastic bottles or watch someone die of skin cancer to realize that you're missing the point. If that's what you call the humanist glorification of man's ideas, then fine.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:22 am
by adonais
Hmmmm - well, to both Credo Buffa and MonroeDoctrine: I have a hunch that the environmental situation it's probably a little bit more complicated than either of you give it credit for ;) I am by no means an expert on the subject, but if I could make a wish, it would be that people apply a little more caution (and modesty, perchance?) in speculating about complex things that the best minds of this planet have not yet fully understood. It is ok to reserve judgement until the facts are in, is my view. The point about balance, is a salient one: unless you believe in the Gaia hypothesis, any apparent "balance" in the ecology is only accidental and temporary, and not some a priori condition that should or must exist on this planet. I've seen a lot of heated debates on global warming where people just get carried away by their feeling of what is right, rather than being supported by evidence. What is "right" is probably a valid question, and a much more interesting one than who is to blame. My 2c.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:36 am
by Credo Buffa
adonais wrote:I've seen a lot of heated debates on global warming where people just get carried away by their feeling of what is right, rather than being supported by evidence.

Well, when it comes to matters of the potential fate of your planet, I say better safe than sorry. I hate to think of all of us falling into a pit we can't get out of while waiting around for "evidence."

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:04 am
by adonais
Credo Buffa wrote:
adonais wrote:I've seen a lot of heated debates on global warming where people just get carried away by their feeling of what is right, rather than being supported by evidence.

Well, when it comes to matters of the potential fate of your planet, I say better safe than sorry. I hate to think of all of us falling into a pit we can't get out of while waiting around for "evidence."

Ok, fair enough. But if, for a moment, you'll allow me to play the devil's advocate, I'd say that this is pretty sloppy language that doesn't really mean anything. Can you truly say that you know what the "potential fate" of the planet will be if, for instance, a lot of effort and money is expended within the next 50 years on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, versus spending that money/efforts on something else? Or even, if nothing at all was done? You'd have to be very sure about the predictions made in different scenarios, in order to say with any confidence that your suggested course of action is the "safe" one. Are you really that sure? Are you not just projecting your uncertainties onto what seems like a lofty and worthy goal, hoping it will turn out to be the right thing to do? Where does your confidence come from? Maybe we'd actually be better off spending all that money on fighting diesease and poverty, supporting the developing countries, relocating population, boosting research in key areas, etc?