|
21-01-2006, 02:51 | #81 | ||
iMod
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Normandie
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,839
|
Quote:
Arabs have played a major role in world history and most of the time they were on the conquering side, they were victims only in a very limited number of occasions. No, i regret the creation of Israel simply because it created an unnecessary and unsolvable conflict which has been threatening world security for half a century now. Maybe the people who decided the creation of Israel thought that it would work, that somehow things would settle down after some time, i don't know… Whatever they thought, the reality of today is that it's not working, the conflict is ongoing and i don't see any solution being ever achieved. If Israel had not been created, if Arab lands had been left to Arabs, there would obviously be no conflict, sometimes conflicts are unavoidable, but this one was easily avoidable and that's why i regret it. Quote:
But anyway, my point was precisely that you can't go back, conquest and colonization is part of world history, even Europe was conquered and colonized at some point. Only Basque people are pure descendants of the original indigenous Europeans, the rest of Europe and its indigenous population (the so-called Megalithic people who raised dolmens and menhirs) was entirely conquered and colonized by Indo-European tribes from Western Asia. We can't expel Indo-Europeans from Europe and India to give it back to natives, we can't expel Arabs from North Africa to give it back to natives, we can't expel Turks from Anatolia to give it back to natives, we can't expel Europeans and Africans from America to give it back to natives, and in the same logic, we shouldn't have expelled Arabs to give Palestine back to natives (the Jews) who lived there 2000 years ago. Of course, people may argue that the Jews are simply conquering and colonizing Arab lands just like Arabs conquered and colonized many territories, which is actually a valid argument and a more correct assessment of what is really happening over there. But where i think that people are pushing it too far is when they make it sound like Arabs should be happy about it, abandon their lands with a smile and go away without a fight. Yes, conquest is a common process in human history and maybe Israelis can't be blamed for colonizing Arab lands, but resisting to conquest is just as common, and therefore Arabs can't be blamed for it either. |
||
~~~~~~~~~~~
Patrick | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ shortdickman@free.fr ] |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-01-2006, 08:00 | #82 | ||||
The Dream is Over, :~(
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Age: 41
Posts: 682
|
Quote:
I still know you guys still hate hearing it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You'll see my response in the Racial Tension thread, I think we're dangerously veering off-topic here. You can argue whether Jews are a race there. Warning however, it is one long-ass post. |
||||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 01:22 | #83 |
Ice_Cream
|
Well, it looks like North Korea is next. Can't say I really blame them, I would say they are possibly doing this as they feel under constant threat from the likes of Bush & co.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tatutaty: "Horny Rachel is her name. Masturbating is her game. Fucking, sucking, licking too. Wouldn't you like some Rachel screw? *batteries not included*" PuddleQueen | Rachel | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ rm6405@hotmail.com ] My music playlist on Last.fm |
|
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 01:53 | #84 |
Sad Little Monkey
|
They're shit-stirrers of global politics and are doing their job marvelously. That whole regime is based on oppression and isolation combined with producing quasi enemies to their soverignty. That's the only way their "bellowed leader" could stay in power. The "US hostility" is just a convenient excuse. Though I doubt they'd ever want to attack anyone, as they know damn well this would be the end of the country. They just want to hold on to that little piece of tyranic paradise they have. I'm just sad to hear about all the horrid things the people of North Korea have to withstand. There's nothing to eat. There's basically a full-censorship on ALL news coming in and leaving out of the country. You can get killed in the middle of the street by goverments agents for no apparent reason. For the sake of these people I hope the regime falls soon. Doesn't look like it though.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
freddie | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ multyman@hotmail.com ] Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. |
|
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 02:11 | #85 |
Ice_Cream
|
Any nuclear power especially the US has no right to object to others having such weapons unless they themselves give up theirs.
The worst offenders of all - the 8 "nuclear states" say they need the "nuclear deterrent". Why should North Korea not have the nuclear deterrent also? North Korea has been threatened for years by the US which has thousands of nuclear weapons and is planning a new generation of them. North Korea has asked for dialogue with the US - the US refuses to talk with them. Why? Nuclear disarmament is the only way to go for the hypocritical West. I do not agree that any country should have nuclear weapons, and think that further testing is unnecessary but I do think that a country does have a right to test them when other countries have already done so, and that the US has no right whatsoever for criticising countries who choose to test them as they are the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons. |
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tatutaty: "Horny Rachel is her name. Masturbating is her game. Fucking, sucking, licking too. Wouldn't you like some Rachel screw? *batteries not included*" PuddleQueen | Rachel | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ rm6405@hotmail.com ] My music playlist on Last.fm |
|
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 02:18 | #86 |
Green Eyed Demon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Socialist hell: Norway
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
|
I don't think anyone should create nuclear bombs (or store any, for that matter), but why is it that some countries can easily have several thousand Nuclear Warheads, while others will be whipped if they even talk about creating some? Well, okay, North Korea is talking about testing them - which I dislike alot - but why can't they do when western countries have been doing so before? I really dislike people for making nuclear weapons, but on the other hand; how can countries that are filled to the brink with nuclear weapons tell others they can't have any? I just find it all very annoying and morally outragous. Noone should have any Nuclear Weapons at all! I think we've seen what such forces does, and are still doing! It's not good for anything.
As a huge defender of nuclear power, I think every country should be allowed to build as many nuclear plants as they wish, but international observers should still be allowed to see that everything is done properly. Not only to see that it's not being used for creating warheads, but especially that it's by the international safety regulations. It's a pity Iran haven't been very positive to the idea of letting the international community see what they're doing. That way they would examplify that they could be trusted (at least a little more than what they're being now )... |
~~~~~~~~~~~
What I Think Tank I have started a blog that aims to concentrate its content on politics, economics and history, with a keen interest in American politics and the American tradition of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. |
|
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 02:44 | #87 | ||
Sad Little Monkey
|
Quote:
Offtop: Quote:
I think it's highly efficient but just too dangerous. There are other alternatives. |
||
~~~~~~~~~~~
freddie | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ multyman@hotmail.com ] Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 02:54 | #88 | ||
Ice_Cream
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not to mention what will we do with all the waste? Offtop: Sorry if I'm not making much sense tonight, I'm feeling *really* ill right now |
||
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tatutaty: "Horny Rachel is her name. Masturbating is her game. Fucking, sucking, licking too. Wouldn't you like some Rachel screw? *batteries not included*" PuddleQueen | Rachel | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ rm6405@hotmail.com ] My music playlist on Last.fm |
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 03:37 | #89 | |
iMod
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Normandie
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,839
|
Quote:
Nothing that can produce the terawatts needed by nearly 10 billion people. |
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
Patrick | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ shortdickman@free.fr ] |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 11:39 | #90 | |
Ice_Cream
|
Quote:
We don't know that, not enough money is being put into research for alternatives. Most governments seem so stuck on the idea of nuclear they won't even consider anything else. |
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tatutaty: "Horny Rachel is her name. Masturbating is her game. Fucking, sucking, licking too. Wouldn't you like some Rachel screw? *batteries not included*" PuddleQueen | Rachel | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ rm6405@hotmail.com ] My music playlist on Last.fm |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 16:25 | #91 | |
Green Eyed Demon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Socialist hell: Norway
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
What I Think Tank I have started a blog that aims to concentrate its content on politics, economics and history, with a keen interest in American politics and the American tradition of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 16:35 | #92 |
Ice_Cream
|
They are ideal terrorist targets. I have the Sizewell nuclear power plants 20 miles from me and it's not a great thought that if a terrorist targeted them millions of people in England would probably be dead. I don't think it's a risk we should be taking when there are other alternatives.
Radioactive waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years, and it's bound to get into the food chain. We NEED to find an alternative. |
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tatutaty: "Horny Rachel is her name. Masturbating is her game. Fucking, sucking, licking too. Wouldn't you like some Rachel screw? *batteries not included*" PuddleQueen | Rachel | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ rm6405@hotmail.com ] My music playlist on Last.fm |
|
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 16:38 | #93 | |
Green Eyed Demon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Socialist hell: Norway
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
Power from ocean waves are actually quite efficient (nothing to compare to nuclear power tho), but the costs for upkeep on "wave plants" are just too big. So you have to go with dams and power plants in rivers ... cheap but not very efficient - and you destroy alot of nice rivers for fish. Wind is the same, cheap but inefficient. You need houndreds and thousands of windmills which destroy the whole landscape. Power from gass is actually quite efficient (yet, nowhere near nuclear power) and the upkeep isn't that bad, but there you have pollution. There are actually filter systems that give you 0% pollution, but they cost alot. It's a good alternative tho, and something we're building here in Norway today. This way we can make use of the huge amounts of gass that come from the oil rigs in the North Sea. Also, you have sun energy. Sun panels aren't very dependable and can easily be damaged... What are you left with that produce superb amounts of energy compared to price and upkeep? Nuclear power. The difference are actually huuuge. We could produce more than enough electricity in norway with only a couple of nuclear power plants, but today we have tens - if not over a houndred power plants from water - and still we don't have enough when the summer is dry (like it have been the last 2-3 years). So what is the only thing that aren't depending on nature's good will? Yet again the choice is nuclear power - with the only accaptable alternative being gass. Coal and oil is out of the question either way! |
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
What I Think Tank I have started a blog that aims to concentrate its content on politics, economics and history, with a keen interest in American politics and the American tradition of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 17:02 | #94 | ||||||
Ice_Cream
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tatutaty: "Horny Rachel is her name. Masturbating is her game. Fucking, sucking, licking too. Wouldn't you like some Rachel screw? *batteries not included*" PuddleQueen | Rachel | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ rm6405@hotmail.com ] My music playlist on Last.fm |
|||||||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 17:16 | #95 | ||
Sad Little Monkey
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not saying nuclear physics should be abandoned completely though. If anything has the potential to bring us to the stars it's cold fusion. |
||
~~~~~~~~~~~
freddie | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ multyman@hotmail.com ] Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 17:23 | #96 | |||||
Green Eyed Demon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Socialist hell: Norway
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
And hey; nuclear power plants are much more expensive to both build and maintain than any other alternative - it's just that they produce such huuuge amounts of electricity that it's much more worth it. Also; if you build a nuclear power plant after the international safety regulations (which are really stright) there are no danger regarding the nuclear waste - and we have more than enough space to store it ... yes, we do! There's no need of saying anything else. And the safety regulations also demand tight upkeep ... also, new nuclear power plants are built so that it won't all go up in a boom if there is an error. Also, the water that is used to cool down the reactor has no danger of getting radioactive. It's a hell more safe than you'd think. We're not living in the cold war anymore when the russians fed the world with time bombs - which are still counting down. New nuclear plants aren't dangerous at all. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
~~~~~~~~~~~
What I Think Tank I have started a blog that aims to concentrate its content on politics, economics and history, with a keen interest in American politics and the American tradition of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. |
||||||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 18:26 | #97 |
iMod
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Normandie
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,839
|
Personally i've never had any problem with nuclear energy, and i agree with dradeel that nuclear power plants are less damaging to the environment in the long run than other energies. One nuclear power plant replaces several gas/petrol power plants (and those are no good since gas and petrol will run out in a few decades and they contribute to the global warming) so it has a minimal impact on a landscape, and nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases so they don't affect the climate.
Here in Normandy we have 3 nuclear power plants producing 10 gigawatts combined (soon to be expanded to 12 gigawatts) and there is no realistic way of replacing such power by any other type of energy production. I don't support windmill farms as i think they destroy landscapes, we would need tens of thousands of them to produce 10 gigawatts and the whole region would be covered with them, so no. And tidal power plants don't produce enough energy to be useable. I do support solar energy (but solar energy is technically nuclear since the Sun is a fusion reactor) but it's only realistic for small needs, for example here the emergency phones along motorways each have a solar panel and future public lampposts will be equiped similarly, but it's not possible to provide for the general massive energy needs with solar panels. And nuclear wastes are not such a big deal in my opinion, first of all, once they've been stored in appropriate containers, they are perfectly safe and clean, and second, they are tiny in volume and take very little space to store. An average family actually produces more garbage every year than an entire nuclear power plant, and i'm much more worried by all the crap people throw away everywhere in nature and contaminates soil and water than by the small nuclear wastes which are stored safely and cleanly. And nuclear energy will continue to progress, current fission reactors will be replaced by fusion reactors in a few decades, and fusion reactors will be 10 to 100 times more powerful than fission reactors and wasteless, for a similar cost of construction and maintenance, so i definitely think it's the right direction to go. |
~~~~~~~~~~~
Patrick | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ shortdickman@free.fr ] |
|
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 19:03 | #98 | |
Sad Little Monkey
|
Quote:
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
freddie | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ multyman@hotmail.com ] Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 19:37 | #99 | |
Ice_Cream
|
Quote:
For once I totally disagree with you! |
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tatutaty: "Horny Rachel is her name. Masturbating is her game. Fucking, sucking, licking too. Wouldn't you like some Rachel screw? *batteries not included*" PuddleQueen | Rachel | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ rm6405@hotmail.com ] My music playlist on Last.fm |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-10-2006, 21:25 | #100 | |||
Green Eyed Demon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Socialist hell: Norway
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
We're talking the difference between a hand grenade that won't hurt you at all if handed nicely by professionals, compared to a bottle of highly unstabile nitroglycerin handed by people who are careless and don't know how to deal with it at all! The difference is that the nuclear plant (as I mentioned) isn't a weapon like the hand grenade, but still, the comparison wasn't that bad imo. Sure, you could say that all weapons are bad because you don't like them - that's what I say -, but can you reason your sceptisism to nuclear power with the same? "Nuclear power is bad, because I don't like it" - Imo that doesn't sound very good So - if I can drag my comparison even longer down the alley of absurdness - I'm saying that we shouldn't arm military personell with bottles of unstabile nitroglycerin, but with hand grenades that won't blow up in their faces. Like we would have safe, super-modern and extremely well maintained nuclear power plants compared to the time bombs that haven't been looked after in decades. Quote:
... As haku said; nuclear waste from one power plant during a year is less than what one average family would produce of normal garbage. If the crap of the whole globe can be put into an acceptable area for a thousand years, we could easily store the nuke waste for .. say ... 500 years? until we find a solution to the "problem". We actually have no problems with this. The whole "we're running out of space"-issue is actually one of the biggest myths in today's society. We have huge amounts of space. That's not the problem. The problem is maintainance to keep oneself well inside the safety regulations - which "the west" is actually doing. Russia lack the money to do this, that's why I think they shouldn't have nuclear power plants at all. Quote:
|
|||
~~~~~~~~~~~
What I Think Tank I have started a blog that aims to concentrate its content on politics, economics and history, with a keen interest in American politics and the American tradition of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. |
||||
Reply With Quote |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USA - General discussion (Part 1) | Kate | Politics and Science | 1013 | 26-01-2007 14:01 |
Catastrophy in Asia | QueenBee | Politics and Science | 39 | 26-01-2005 01:26 |