Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I think this is abut more than Oil. Peopel are very quick to explain all US foreign policy in terms of Oil.
    ok then...the sudanese pose no threat to israel...neither did the crisis in Rwanda...i suppose their policy is not really tied around oil.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Darfur is a tough one. You just cant send troops to the region, you end up having another iraq. The U.N. is no longer credible in most countries leaders oppinon. Sanctions will just drive sudan into poverty. What they are doing now is what they can only really do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Did I believe that though?
    You'll recall the following.
    "They should realise that this isn't a muslim vs Christian thing (well it is to a point) but an arab vs black thing. So interference by the west is not some sort of Christian crusade."

    Hence I 'wrongly believed' F*CK ALL.
    IF there's one thing that annoys me on this site it's people contradicting what they THINK they've read, and not what they HAVE read.

    Like I said, its an arab vs black thing, and the Muslim vs christian thing is a minor part of it (ie it may be part of the issue in some areas, but isn't iuniform across the crisis)

    Sheesh
    J
    I'll be honest in that I find the phrase, 'this isn't a muslim V Christian thing (well it is to a point) but an arab vs black thing', suggestive that you believed wrongly that the inhabitants of Darfur are Christians. I'm sure you'll agree if you read it back to yourself that you haven't made it clear (since you have now added another qualifying statement to it), I thought (wrongly as it now seems) that you thought the inhabitants of Darfur were mostly Christians but that the conflict was more about the 'race' not the religion. I'm also sure that you will accept my apology for this incorrect assertion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThornsnRoses)
    ok then...the sudanese pose no threat to israel...neither did the crisis in Rwanda...i suppose their policy is not really tied around oil.
    On that logic US foreign policy is built on two planks and only two planks, protection of Israel and oil interests, so please explain to me how intervention in Haiti and Liberia fit into that model.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    On that logic US foreign policy is built on two planks and only two planks, protection of Israel and oil interests, so please explain to me how intervention in Haiti and Liberia fit into that model.
    it doesnt, but americans do seem to be proud of their halos
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    See I would have just said 'shgut up you trolling fool' myself, but this post works just as well.
    For those who think this is an unfair comment, take a look at anti-liberals past posts...
    J
    To be able to say it you should at least know how to spell it. Troll? I think not. Just because someone isnt a brainwashed idiot doesnt mean he or she is a troll. I`ll be here as long as you will, so if i am a troll you are one too.


    Originally Posted by SJ No.18
    I'm quite surprised at his. I would of thought a european would welcome the chance of getting a pat on the back. Afterall wasn't the justification of many at the time on New Imperialism and after, that Africans needed to be civilized wasn't it and isn't it "White mans Burden" to go around acting like the good guys to bring light to these "half child,half demon" people. It's strange to me that a person like you who wouldn't look out of place as a senator in American parliament at the time of Darwinism, feel you have no need to go and show these people "civilized" ways. How can this be? .Maybe it's because you cannot exploit blacks/Semitics or thier countries like you use to, so lets leave them to sort out their own problem, we have nothing to do with these savages(to gain more like).

    People like you sir, will be the downfall of mankind. Once we realise and not to sound like a spiritualist, we are all one and came from the same place which you call jungle, we will not progress. This problem is the worlds and is a microcosm of the evil that has plagued the history of mankind.
    Keep on believing that all men are created equal, thats your right. But it doesnt make it true. In 10,000 years, black africans never invented a thing. They didnt invent a tool to help themselves other than a spear, they didnt even use wheels until whites showed up. They never invented a written language, they never wrote anything other than stick pictures on stones. Black africans never domesticated any animals to do their heavy labors.

    So why is it that they are equals to others that have started out with less than them yet progressed further? Dont give us the old liberal stance of "poverty" keeps them down. We arent talking about wealth, we are talking about coherent thoughts and mental abilities. They will not lift a finger to help themselves, yet we should be expected to take care of them, how pathetic is that?

    So no my liberal leftist friend, it isnt ppl like me that will cause the downfall of mankind. Its ppl like you that cannot see things in the world for what they really are that will cause the downfall of mankind. Its a cruel, unforgiving world we live in. Either deal with it and do whats best for your piece of the world or keep on believing the way you believe right now...and watch the walls come falling down on top of you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It has been suggested the Americans got rid of Aristeed as he was trying to spread the wealth to the poor by taking from the rich and giving to poor, which is against America's intrest. I'll read more about the Haiti situation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiLiberal)
    To be able to say it you should at least know how to spell it. Troll? I think not. Just because someone isnt a brainwashed idiot doesnt mean he or she is a troll. I`ll be here as long as you will, so if i am a troll you are one too.




    Keep on believing that all men are created equal, thats your right. But it doesnt make it true. In 10,000 years, black africans never invented a thing. They didnt invent a tool to help themselves other than a spear, they didnt even use wheels until whites showed up. They never invented a written language, they never wrote anything other than stick pictures on stones. Black africans never domesticated any animals to do their heavy labors.

    So why is it that they are equals to others that have started out with less than them yet progressed further? Dont give us the old liberal stance of "poverty" keeps them down. We arent talking about wealth, we are talking about coherent thoughts and mental abilities. They will not lift a finger to help themselves, yet we should be expected to take care of them, how pathetic is that?

    So no my liberal leftist friend, it isnt ppl like me that will cause the downfall of mankind. Its ppl like you that cannot see things in the world for what they really are that will cause the downfall of mankind. Its a cruel, unforgiving world we live in. Either deal with it and do whats best for your piece of the world or keep on believing the way you believe right now...and watch the walls come falling down on top of you.

    It is said that "when the Blacks/semitics were building pyramids and discovering hieroglyphics, the europeans were building scrapheaps" forget who though.

    You are a typical extreme euro centrist. You only look at a specific time period. It is accepted by many scholars Africa was the birth of civilization and of human intelligence(Blosomb caves in cape town). Yet we don't learn about this as history is written by Euro-centrists. Only evolution has changed our phenotypes.
    Blacks now suffer amnesia, we've been in europe so long we only see ourselves as slaves of lighter races. This is not true. History goes back further than the last 500 years. Ancient Nubia recognised as a melting pot of black and semitics along with Egypt in sudan, pre dates any european. This is why many believe Africa was the birth of Human Sapiens Sapiens.

    Man will always segregate itself in order to feel unique , but remember man cannot change the facts only mask them, it is up to us to find them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SJ No.18)
    It has been suggested the Americans got rid of Aristeed as he was trying to spread the wealth to the poor by taking from the rich and giving to poor, which is against America's intrest. I'll read more about the Haiti situation.
    Rarely the arguments of the anti-US lobby amaze me, however this has succeeded in doing so. Mr Aristide ultimately caused his own downfall, at the end he allowed (some argued spured on) his chimeres to run a campaign of terror against opposition activists (many members of the opposition were killed in the capital). Opposition media also came in for attacks. More importantly the rebels were massing around the capital, the Americans told Aristide they would not intervene to protect him (as they did in the past) all they did was told the rebels to hold fire and not enter the capital (which they did) to allow Aristide to flee and avoid further bloodshed. Effectively they allowed the coup to go ahead, rather than actively ousted him.

    As regards to the assertion that Aristide took from the rich to gave to the poor, a platform that he was elected on, critics should examine the facts before making such assumptions. Aristide had lost the plot by the time he was ousted and did little for this shockingly poor nation. For instance when the rebels entered his house they found $350,000 in rotting $100 bills in a chamber under his house, I think such facts speak for themselves. Unfortunatly it seems that power corrupted him and his governing party. The suspension of international financial aid (much of it from the US) as a result of Aristides failure to fully respect the democratic norms of his country as well deal with the corruption rampant in his party, paradoxically made matters worse in the short term, since the party became more dependent on the dealers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As I said that is not my opinion just of someone I heard who is very Anti-US. Their was opposition from his own people no doubt, but the say the CIA funded the opposition, like they did with Cuba and Greece and mordern day Venezuela allegedly, Haiti is not fact. I have to read up on it to form my own opinion.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    I'll be honest in that I find the phrase, 'this isn't a muslim V Christian thing (well it is to a point) but an arab vs black thing', suggestive that you believed wrongly that the inhabitants of Darfur are Christians. I'm sure you'll agree if you read it back to yourself that you haven't made it clear (since you have now added another qualifying statement to it), I thought (wrongly as it now seems) that you thought the inhabitants of Darfur were mostly Christians but that the conflict was more about the 'race' not the religion. I'm also sure that you will accept my apology for this incorrect assertion.
    See now I feel bad for being so short...
    Soz
    J
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    Questionable. Whilst the USA undoubtedly played a strong role in the UN resolution on Darfur, and in putting diplomatic pressure on the country, other countries have been just as important.
    which countries applied the same amount of pressure to get the UN resolution through?
    which countries have provided the same amount of spending in the Sudan?
    which countries have provided the same level of diplomatic presence in Sudan? in any case, this contradictory to the suggestion that the US was 'dragging its heels'.

    The African Union (I know its not a country before you say so), has condemned the actions of Khartoum in Darfur, and Nigeria has even sent 150 troops there as observers of the crisis and is planning to send 1500 more, the USA has so far sent 0 troops.
    Nigeria is the largest nation and strongest military power in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which provides manpower for peacekeeping missions throughout the continent. Incidentally the US funds ECOWAS and helps to 'train and equip' Nigerian troops. 150 men is pitifully small, suggesting merely a security operation around diplomats and high profile figures. Europe believes that it should be Africans doing the peace-keeping, but when you consider the logistical support provided by the US in comparison its rather one-sided.

    The US spends less on foreign aid as a percentage of its GDP on Africa than European nations do, it only spends more than each country because it is bigger population wise and has a higher GDP per head.
    The majority of European aid is related to famine and hunger. The US policy is that the African nations need to stop relying on charity when sensible economic policy could avert such catastrophe. In terms of financial support of governments and security issues, the US outspends the EU.


    One need look no further than the UK's policy on Zimbabwe, - where the UK has been one of the most vocal critics of Mugabe, whilst the US has given him strong criticism the issue has not been seen as highly
    The US has been no less critical than the British. Neither have taken active steps in Zimbabwa which was the context mentioned here.

    - & Rwanda and Uganda - where UK aid to fund those countries AIDS programmes as well as using aid constructively to ensure better government. Thus there are some nations in Africa (albeit not that many) where the UK is more pro-active.
    Im sure of that.

    I think the question why comes to mind? We all have to make sacrifices for environmental protection, there is little reason why American states cannot introduce more fuel duty and thus encourage the proliferation of smaller greener cars as in Europe,
    Firstly, there is a reason why US cars are bigger. There is no way you can reliably travel in the US with a Smart car or Renault 5. Secondly, a hike in gas tax would not change the consumer attitudes of the American public. T

    not doing so is frankly selfish.
    The defence of Europe? The same argument is often made of Canada, and so the same reply is necessary, since 1989 who is going to invade Europe?
    hehe, a typically naive European answer. bearing in mind the current climate of terrorism, rogue states, WMDs and nuclear weapons, the threat of global warfare is on a high. The only thing stopping Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria, India, Japan, Israel or any other nation willing to spend the cash, from threatening Europe is the US. It is also an extremely grave political error to justify no defence spending based on a static belief of 'no one wants to invade us at the moment'. It is common knowledge that you increase defence when there is no apparent enemy. In terms of peace, defence spending should rise.

    Another poster has dealt with the flaws in American AIDS aid so I won't bother to repeat.
    flaws based on a subjective European viewpoint.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=vienna95]
    Nigeria is the largest nation and strongest military power in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which provides manpower for peacekeeping missions throughout the continent. Incidentally the US funds ECOWAS and helps to 'train and equip' Nigerian troops. 150 men is pitifully small, suggesting merely a security operation around diplomats and high profile figures. Europe believes that it should be Africans doing the peace-keeping, but when you consider the logistical support provided by the US in comparison its rather one-sided. [QUOTE=vienna95]

    Nigeria may be one of the richest african countries but it does not show it. The armies machinery is so outdated its ridiculous, these are machinery used to fight wars from over a decade ago. They can and should do more but no one should compare them to America. Nigeria is the most corrupt country in Africa the army don't see the bulk of the money. This is a country where you find dead bodies in the motorway, vigilantes and religious conflict. A country still feeling the effects from "divide and rule".

    Yes they can do more but not much more, their incompetent army will not allow them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)


    Firstly, there is a reason why US cars are bigger. There is no way you can reliably travel in the US with a Smart car or Renault 5. Secondly, a hike in gas tax would not change the consumer attitudes of the American public. T

    .
    i agree with the enviromental issue. I found the following from wikipedia

    "Americans have the highest per-capita consumption of resources and energy in the world, and the fact that the US government does not take decisive action to curb this use creates hostility. For instance, statistics show that the 4% of the world's population that live within the United States creates 25% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Critics point out that the United States uses significant more resources per capita than even other industrialized countries who nonetheless maintain a high standard of living."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SJ No.18)
    i agree with the enviromental issue. I found the following from wikipedia

    "Americans have the highest per-capita consumption of resources and energy in the world, and the fact that the US government does not take decisive action to curb this use creates hostility.
    why should they curb it? Americans work their ass off to be able to consume as they wish. Americans are willing to pay for what they want and someone earns a living getting it to them.

    For instance, statistics show that the 4% of the world's population that live within the United States creates 25% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions.
    this is related specifically to one area. an area that due to the land mass and geographical nature of the US, as well as the fact it is a highly developed, industrialised country, is remarkably unsurprising.

    Critics point out that the United States uses significant more resources per capita than even other industrialized countries who nonetheless maintain a high standard of living."
    again, this comparison is minus any kind of context and really doesnt tell us anything of use.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    which countries applied the same amount of pressure to get the UN resolution through?
    which countries have provided the same amount of spending in the Sudan?
    which countries have provided the same level of diplomatic presence in Sudan? in any case, this contradictory to the suggestion that the US was 'dragging its heels'.
    I agree, American pressure has certainly been anything but dragging its heels, I was simply making the point that pressure on Khartoum has been far from solely American. Arguably the answer to the first question is the UK, as regards to the second and third question no country.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    Nigeria is the largest nation and strongest military power in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which provides manpower for peacekeeping missions throughout the continent. Incidentally the US funds ECOWAS and helps to 'train and equip' Nigerian troops. 150 men is pitifully small, suggesting merely a security operation around diplomats and high profile figures. Europe believes that it should be Africans doing the peace-keeping, but when you consider the logistical support provided by the US in comparison its rather one-sided.
    True, I was simply using the Nigerian example to illustrate that other nations have been applying pressure to, nothing you have written here contradicts that assertion.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    The majority of European aid is related to famine and hunger. The US policy is that the African nations need to stop relying on charity when sensible economic policy could avert such catastrophe. In terms of financial support of governments and security issues, the US outspends the EU.
    True, however I was simply pointing out that your previous post which suggested the USA contributed vastly more was innaccurate.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    Im sure of that.
    At least we agree somewhere.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    Firstly, there is a reason why US cars are bigger. There is no way you can reliably travel in the US with a Smart car or Renault 5. Secondly, a hike in gas tax would not change the consumer attitudes of the American public. T
    I am not arguing that Americans all drive Smart cars, merely that they make similar moves to Europeans, such as the introduction of fuel tax which has driven the development of more efficient cars and encouraged more users to driver smaller cars. Many Europeans have to drive right across the EU, whilst not comparable in distance to right across the states, this illustrates that a policy aimed at leading to more efficient and smaller motor cars does not prevent people from making neccessary long journeys - it simply makes it more expensive and thus more important that the car doesn't guzzle fuel.

    The same argument about consumer attitudes was used in the UK and sometimes still is. Why then since the introduction of fuel tax and its gradual increase has the average car purchased become more efficient? Americans are not that different to Europeans, if driving fuel guzzling cars became to expensive some would move towards more efficient ones. You can't fault the logic of that.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    hehe, a typically naive European answer. bearing in mind the current climate of terrorism, rogue states, WMDs and nuclear weapons, the threat of global warfare is on a high. The only thing stopping Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria, India, Japan, Israel or any other nation willing to spend the cash, from threatening Europe is the US. It is also an extremely grave political error to justify no defence spending based on a static belief of 'no one wants to invade us at the moment'. It is common knowledge that you increase defence when there is no apparent enemy. In terms of peace, defence spending should rise.
    So i'm naive in my belief that Europe will not be invaded, leds address your examples. Although perhaps first I should make it clear that although I do not believe European nations will be invaded, I do not question that threats remain to our security. First terrorism - although terrorists have managed to blow up buildings, kill thousands of people in world news events, forced the withdrawal of some countries from particular territories, they have never invaded anyone. Whilst a significant threat to European security and one that not enough Europeans take seriously we do not need the US to stop them invading us. Second rogue states, whilst a significant threat to both European and American security alike, again a threat that Europeans do not take seriously enough, rogue states such as Iran, North Korea, Syria etc hardly have the armed forces to actually invade Europe, instead the worst damage they do is to damage European interests abroad and threaten stability of global markets as well as threaten the security of their neighbours, serious and worthy of addressing but hardly tantamount to an invasion threat. Moreover, we often wrongly lump these nations together when in fact they are a highly disparate group, for this reason they could hardly act as a coherent group to seriously threaten European security. Third WMD's and nuclear weapons, if you hadn't noticed the UK and France are nuclear powers (although I'd accept the UK has in the past bought off the shelf US ones to save money because were cheap skates), and thus whilst their spread is a serious and worrying issue Europe has the tools to at least attempt to deter rogue states from using such weapons against them. Before you argue what happens if terrorists get some and use them on Europe? Well were screwed, but I fail to see how the US does any more than Europe does to prevent this threat - both Europe and the US attacked Al-Qaeda and both have large intelligence communities which attempt to protect us from these threats. I do though agree that its a mistake to have let European defence spending slip, since Europe has become less and less able to live up to its global responsibilities (hence the small European presence in Afghanistan to name but one example) and as result has left the US to fill the void and often it has failed to do so (in fact the US probably does not have enough troops to do so). That said I again fail to see how this means that Europe is dependent on the US to avoid invasion.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    flaws based on a subjective European viewpoint.
    All viewpoints are at least partially subjective.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    I agree, American pressure has certainly been anything but dragging its heels, I was simply making the point that pressure on Khartoum has been far from solely American. Arguably the answer to the first question is the UK, as regards to the second and third question no country.
    my answers were asserting my initial response to the initial comments, so they may appear to not directly contradict yours.

    True, I was simply using the Nigerian example to illustrate that other nations have been applying pressure to, nothing you have written here contradicts that assertion.
    see above.

    True, however I was simply pointing out that your previous post which suggested the USA contributed vastly more was innaccurate.
    not inaccurate. just comparably meaningless.

    I am not arguing that Americans all drive Smart cars, merely that they make similar moves to Europeans, such as the introduction of fuel tax which has driven the development of more efficient cars and encouraged more users to driver smaller cars.
    since when? European cars have been getting bigger year on year, in line with the demand for American models and American standards.

    Many Europeans have to drive right across the EU,
    hehe, come on! how many Europeans drive across the EU day in day out? not even one in 1000!

    whilst not comparable in distance to right across the states, this illustrates that a policy aimed at leading to more efficient and smaller motor cars does not prevent people from making neccessary long journeys - it simply makes it more expensive and thus more important that the car doesn't guzzle fuel.
    sitting in a dangerous tin can for 3-5 hrs each day does not appeal to the average American, i dont blame them.

    The same argument about consumer attitudes was used in the UK and sometimes still is. Why then since the introduction of fuel tax and its gradual increase has the average car purchased become more efficient? Americans are not that different to Europeans, if driving fuel guzzling cars became to expensive some would move towards more efficient ones. You can't fault the logic of that.
    you seem to suggest that US cars are not seeking to be more efficient. Tax prices wont go up because Americans would simply not travel, business would suffer and the economy would falter. American cars can be made more efficient, and they are, but they are still American cars and will still be larger and more suited for the respective differences in distance and journey.

    Youre point is that there should be an effort to find more efficient use of fuel. I would agree. To suggest Americans are selfish because of the choice of car they drive is wrong.

    All viewpoints are at least partially subjective.
    when one viewpoint is asserted as being more acceptable than the other, then it becomes necessary to readdress that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiLiberal)
    Spoken like a true liberal coward.
    The only coward here is you. Really, what is so particularely brave about blaiming all the problems of teh world on a small religious minority. Neo nazis like yourself are chronically doing your best to atack small ethnic groups in a desperate atempt to gain some sort of feeling of power. You try to find soft targets that woant retaliate because you know you have no chance against those who do not feel like they have nothing to be proud off. You are truly the greatest coward on these pages. At least the liberals dare to stand up and argue their case in a proffesional and civilized manner, which is much more than one can say about the discriminative nonsense you throw around at these pages.(If you do nto beleive me to be justified in calling AntiLiberal a Neo-nazi, and his posts for nonsense, I sugest you read his postings in the thread "zionism")
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    which countries applied the same amount of pressure to get the UN resolution through?
    which countries have provided the same amount of spending in the Sudan?
    which countries have provided the same level of diplomatic presence in Sudan? in any case, this contradictory to the suggestion that the US was 'dragging its heels'.


    Nigeria is the largest nation and strongest military power in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which provides manpower for peacekeeping missions throughout the continent. Incidentally the US funds ECOWAS and helps to 'train and equip' Nigerian troops. 150 men is pitifully small, suggesting merely a security operation around diplomats and high profile figures. Europe believes that it should be Africans doing the peace-keeping, but when you consider the logistical support provided by the US in comparison its rather one-sided.


    The majority of European aid is related to famine and hunger. The US policy is that the African nations need to stop relying on charity when sensible economic policy could avert such catastrophe. In terms of financial support of governments and security issues, the US outspends the EU.



    The US has been no less critical than the British. Neither have taken active steps in Zimbabwa which was the context mentioned here.


    Im sure of that.


    Firstly, there is a reason why US cars are bigger. There is no way you can reliably travel in the US with a Smart car or Renault 5. Secondly, a hike in gas tax would not change the consumer attitudes of the American public. T


    hehe, a typically naive European answer. bearing in mind the current climate of terrorism, rogue states, WMDs and nuclear weapons, the threat of global warfare is on a high. The only thing stopping Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria, India, Japan, Israel or any other nation willing to spend the cash, from threatening Europe is the US. It is also an extremely grave political error to justify no defence spending based on a static belief of 'no one wants to invade us at the moment'. It is common knowledge that you increase defence when there is no apparent enemy. In terms of peace, defence spending should rise.


    flaws based on a subjective European viewpoint.
    In what way can any of those countries threaten Europe? Europe is not as weak as you would have us believe, and Those countries are pitiful in comparison. Enough European countries have nuclear deterents that pakistan would never think of nuclear attack. (or any other country for that matter) Retaliation at the very least would knock out industrial centres.
    Your choice of countries is interesting. Japan, India. I mean wtf!?! Japans armed forces are tiny these days. I should think the Swedish navy alone could take them on.
    Defense spending should fall by far, many systems and tactics are outdated. Tanks for example. Its so fricking easy for one man with an RPG to take out a tank. A large armed force is becoming less necessary, we need more elite units, and less grunts (who would be best suited for peace keeping missions.)

    And your views on America and the environment are deplorable. I'm sure your kids and their kids will think very differently. Americans work their arses off. HA. You only say that because you're from the continent and everyone knows how f*ck off lazy people are there.
    The basic working week in america is 40 hours. 40! After that they have the divine right to time and a half pay for overtime. I'm sure if people here had that on offfer they would work a bit extra time too!
    But it still makes no excuse whatsoever for the wasting of fuel. The American environment is typically no more harsh than any where else, so the idea they 'need' those monstrous machines is just daft. It doesn't take a monster sized SUV to take a couple from NY to the hamptons

    "this is related specifically to one area. an area that due to the land mass and geographical nature of the US, as well as the fact it is a highly developed, industrialised country, is remarkably unsurprising." highly unsurprising for you, but a great deal of the worlds 6 billion population tend to feel this is a tad bit wrong.

    THe american philosphy is simple. Make money today so they'll be in the best position to combat the problems in the years to come. But as the dust bowl shows, their envirnmental planning is far from perfect
    J
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    I should think the Swedish navy alone could take them on.
    Your point was good, but wrong country chosen as an example. If you would have said Finland it would have been true. Sweden is as demiliterised as Japan. Still I agree it is rather daft to beleive that Japan would try to mess with NATO...
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 24, 2004
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.