Subject:
|
Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Feb 2003 00:13:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
327 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
>
> "Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message
> news:H9LEJC.7q@lugnet.com...
> <snip> Middle East oil goes to Europe, where they drive their 5 liter V12
> engines
> > at 300kph, burning gas as fast as they can. ;-) I'm not a fan of the
> > current fascination America has for the dangerous and inefficient SUV, but • I
> > think this is going to be resolved by rising gas prices.</snip>
> No, the point is we don't have 5 liter V12 engines. Normal family cars have
> 1.4 or 1.8 liter engines. The bigger executive cars have 2.5 or even 3
> liter, but you're talking the top-class Beamers, Mercs and Jags. There are a
> few nutters with 5 liter engines around, but they're nowhere near as common
> as they are in America. There are two places in Europe where you can do
> 300kph: German motorways and race tracks. Anywhere else you'll find speed
> limits of 100/120/130 km/h.
Ummmmm, do you understand the significance of the smiley face I put behind
the statement? What I said was accurate, but I knew it not to be the norm,
and thus the smiley face so you'd know not to take it too seriously. But I
will stress that my comments are accurate and yours do *not* contradict mine.
> As far as I know the US use more oil per capita than anywhere else in the
> world. Look here for example:
> http://powerlab.fsb.hr/OsnoveEnergetike/1999/bpstat/pages/oilcon4.htm.
>
> <snip> The guilty need to be punished, but if Canadians had bombed
> Americans, it
> > would have been the exact same scenario - it is up to the various allies • to
> > police themselves. Do you feel that nothing has been done, or is this a
> > case of you feeling the Netherlands has been slighted? The story you spin
> > seems a bit, well, paranoid?</snip>
> Paranoid eh? Read this: http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_ASPA_archive.html
> In short the article says:
> "On Wednesday, the Senate continued a U.S. multi-pronged attack on the ICC
> by passing the anti-ICC American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA). "
> (ICC = International Crime Court)
> "The bill includes provisions that:
>
> *Prohibit U.S. cooperation with the ICC,
> *Restrict U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping,
> *Prohibit sharing U.S. intelligence with the ICC,
> *Prohibit military assistance to most countries that ratify the ICC Statute,
> and authorizes the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to
> free from captivity any U.S. or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the
> ICC. "
>
> "Many of America's allies have objected to the American Servicemembers'
> Protection Act especially because of the latter provision. The bill is known
> in Europe and around the world as "The Hague Invasion Act," as it gives the
> President expansive authority to use force against the Netherlands, future
> home of the ICC."
If it is not even a remotely likely scenario, it would seem a paranoid
fantasy or pique at the Netherlands being slighted. Mind you, if Bush was
against it, I'm probably for it.
>
> > > <snip> I think some support of Israel is worthwhile to the extent that it
> > > would prevent nuclear war (because I have no doubt that if Israel feels
> > > truly threatened that it will launch). I don't think they need as much
> > > support as we are giving. I also don't think this is necessarily an
> > > obligation, just a cost benefit issue.</snip>
> > > Israel feeling truly threatened by a nation they've almost completely
> > > destroyed? A nation that has nothing left but suicide attacks to defend
> > > itself against one of the better equipped armies in the world? Give me a
> > > break. Support the palestinians. Make sure no ammo of any form goes into
> > > Israel, bomb Sharons village, his office, and a few random other towns in
> > > Israel, just to get the situation levelled again.
> >
> > I'm sorry to say that I don't have much respect for the opinions you voice
> > above - would you have the Netherlands engage in the activities you
> advocate?
> </snip>
> Not the bombing in Israel bit, no. That was the 'slightly over the top to
> make a point' bit. There are however political parties and other influential
> people who openly support the Palestines and disagree with Israel handling
> of the problems.
I openly disagree with Israel's handling of the problems and think the
bombing over the top, so we seem to be in agreement.
>
> <snip> I would like to see some sort of final settlement made that had real
> teeth
> > against any further disrupting party and Israel would have to give up • major
> > tracks of land, but let's be honest: the best way to diffuse the situation
> > is for the various countries of Europe that persecuted the jews so that • they
> > were inspired to migrate, pay to take them back and re-establish them in
> > Europe. Not gonna happen? So, as usual, the US is stuck with a mess
> > created by Europe. Not that I care for what we have done with it, mind
> you.
> </snip>
> How is the US stuck with it?
Europe creating a migratory mess? Not taking responsiblity for it?
It's the Palestinians that are stuck at the
> moment, because Ariel Sharon is getting away with murder (literally) using
> the policical backing of the US in the name of George's war against
> terrorism, while the Israeli's are the bigger terrorists. If George was
> serious about doing something about terrorism anywhere in the world he would
> do something to stop Israel. The main point I'm trying to make is that the
> US are very selective in where they do and do not intervene.
"Not that I care for what we have done with it, mind you," to repeat myself.
>
> <snip> The business is left unfinished with Bin Laden still at large, but
> the
> > unrestricted sanctuary for Al Qaeda is gone. It was not a complete • success
> > by any means, but it was hardly a failure. The real failure is Bush • running
> > off to a new conflict when he has yet to wrap this one up. I see no
> > compelling evidence linking Al Qaeda and Iraq.
> </snip>
> Phew. At least we agree on something.
"Something" as in just this one last point? I think you missed a number.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
