Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

"The very idea that just because you don't like something you can just ignore it.
The rest of the world don't have that freedom We are forced to interact with our neighbors, USA just steamrolls them."

The Kyoto treaty isn't interaction. It's simply an unfair treaty. If the goal is to control carbo dioxide emissions, then -everyone- who signs the treaty should have to limit them. That isn't how the treaty was.

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can anyone support production of a device that kills 50,000 civilians every year (and maims many more) in the United States alone?

Or is it only bad if it's a weapon that maims people, while objects that you might find useful are okay, even if people die or are maimed by them?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which only gives a more trauma-inducing bloody shirt for people to wave so people will blindly flock to their cause. Me? I find crying out to blunt our swords in the name of humanity to be foolish at best.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

I don't know whether to laugh or weep.

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm, yes I see. The atombomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn't kill people, it was the one dropping the bomb who killed people.

(In US many says " it's not guns whoo kill people, people kill people", yeah, five year olds who find's their dad's gun!)

You US people never stop to amuse me.
Don't get me wrong, I really like you. Close by you are really nice people, I lived 5 weeks in a tent in florida a couple of years ago, real fun.
But alot of the US citizens are really naive, and I should now what I'm talking about as I'm quite naive myself, for a swede atleast.

(Not strange I guess, there are quite alot of US citizens to choose from).

[ February 13, 2003, 16:51: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your metaphor is inadequate, because a landmine is not a like sword in any way. A sword kills the person you point it at. A landmine kills anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, sometimes years and years after the conflict is over. Most countries manage to defend themselves perfectly well without them, so I don't think there's any sensible argument for their continued production.

I don't think any government would be wise to throw away every weapon it has and dismantle its armies, but I do think certain weapons should not be produced, owned or used anywhere by anyone, ever. Landmines are one. Nukes are another.

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I see bush as one of those leaders... wasn't he himself in oil? Who made it possible to finance his election? etc..etc..
And all his actions seems that i am right, like:
Drilling in Alaska, War in middle east, Kyoto etc..
I don't see the difference honest... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

And about Kyoto, yep America had to do the most against the CO2, BECAUSE they made the most pollution... about one third of the entire world!!! Come on! The reason the US is so rich is because of it...

And to go back to the initial post?. I think Belgium is brave to deny US help... and doesn't scare away (like my country)... and be afraid to loose deals.

R.

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Someone was very drunk or naive when writing this.

R.

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And some1 was very flippant or cryptic when writing this. Why? Please explain your viewpoint.

[ February 13, 2003, 17:12: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

all weapons kill and mame people. some of them do it indescriminantly. when creating a weapon, the thing to consider is if it will do its job effectively. Anti-personnel mines DO. when selling a weapon, the thing to consider is if the political/strategic benefit of putting it in the hands of the buyer, combined with the cold hard cash, outweigh the long term dangers of putting it in the hands of the buyer.

how those questions are evaluated seems to be a point of some contention, but the problem is not that they kill children. the people making those mines and selling those mines dont care about that, because any child who has occasion to walk through a minefield is not contributing to the global economy, and thus dont count very much in the grand scheme of profiteering. if the kid worked in a nike factory, he would probalby have a plowed road to get to his place of employment, that could be reasonably be kept clear of mines. so odds are, hes just a farmer. and if the forigners are growing their own food, it means they are not buying ours.

so, from the viewpoint of our capitalist military industrial complex, AP mines do no harm at all. crying about injustice in the world isnt going to get anyone anywhere.

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

Damn Puke. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I guess that's one way to look at things. A little cold though.

Re: [OT] Cr*ppy Belgium
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You do realize that that almost never happens, right? Maybe just a few times a year in the world, which is not enough to cry about. I wouldn't doubt it if there are more deaths from lighting strikes killed than there are accidental deaths by five year olds (and other young ages) with gun access.