I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Environment against Navy …
-
@Guerrilla:
@F_alk:
I mean, for a prime example, greenpeace people protest oil drilling, by going out to oil rigs in diesel-powered boats……
Hello?You accept the same logic when it comes to wars though. Fighting a small war to prevent a big one. Having a few violations of human rights to prevent the large ones… why don’t you accept this (doing a little pollution to prevent the big one) for others?
Yeah, But it seems to me not to be based on a arguement worth being encroached on for… personally I can see why not to cut down the Amazon forest, because it supplies the midwest farms that supply our food with a majority of the rain they get… that would put our nation into a state of serious down heaval… but oil drilling???
oh yeah I forgot to say that the Amazon produces rain by itself……
-
the difference, falk, is im not against war. im pro-war. in most circumstances. thats why i support a small war to prevent a big war, since i support the small war to begin with. the eco-nazis are against pollution, period (at least the ones im talking about), and they pollute while protesting it. its this hypocrisy that makes me not respect them. i lack this hypocrisy.
-
Ok, you made the restriction of being pro-war in most circumstances. But still, if you are in a situation were you find a war is justified, then why would you want it to be small? Or would you call yourself pro-small-wars?
…
Environmentalists usually are against pollution, but you can be sure they are not against each and every pollution, they sure don’t mind to use energu. They mind to waste energy though, and SUVs (for example) are wasting.
Often enough (and from my point of view understandable) they exaggerate to make their point… Just like GWB “exaggerates”.
(The difference though is that environmentalists have a point that affects all people of all countries, while GWB exaggerates things that affect some people and more uses it to blur the real motivations)So, i don’t see that they are hypocritic and you are not.
-
@F_alk:
Environmentalists usually are against pollution, but you can be sure they are not against each and every pollution, they sure don’t mind to use energu. They mind to waste energy though, and SUVs (for example) are wasting.
The first sentence of this, I could agree with. However, how is it not wasting energy if they use diesel speedboats to protest offshore oil drilling, and the drilling continues? If they pollute in order to do something that has no effect, I see no reason for them to do it in the first place.
-
@Grigoriy:
@F_alk:
Environmentalists usually are against pollution, but you can be sure they are not against each and every pollution, they sure don’t mind to use energu. They mind to waste energy though, and SUVs (for example) are wasting.
The first sentence of this, I could agree with. However, how is it not wasting energy if they use diesel speedboats to protest offshore oil drilling, and the drilling continues? If they pollute in order to do something that has no effect, I see no reason for them to do it in the first place.
this is one of those small things with a hoped for long-term benefit. True environmentalists are doing nearly nothing in terms of ceasing oil-drilling ops, and they might even be painting themselves as nuisences by the “normals”. Still It is hoped that at the very least this raises the collective consciousness of humans for environmental concerns.
It’s funny. I look at the accumulated national debt of Canada with anger by the people who imposed this on us. Stupid Brian Mulrooney and his $30 billion + deficits. Nice - a group of politicians about to retire leave a legacy of nation-crippling debt that today’s politicians have to dig us out of. This involves crippling taxes causing many of our best and brightest to flee to the states. It also involves the killing of programs that could greatly benefit our country.
I think the environmentalists see the environment as I see Canada. Something amazing and beautiful, but something that a bunch of old greedy white men don’t have a problem treading over in order to further their own legacy/portfolios. Of course the environmental problems are not theirs as they will long be dead after the results of their hubris are realized. My children, however, will not be so fortunate. -
So, i don’t see that they are hypocritic and you are not.
- Im not GWB. the majority of your post was comparing enviromentalists to him, not me.
2)Pro-war in most circumstances is not hypocritical. It means Im usually pro-war, unless the war is say, over a piece of litter X country put in Y country, and they decided to fight over it, that would be ridiculously stupid.
3)I almost always find war justified, and why would you think i want it to be small falk? to save lives. use your brain. smaller war= fewer soldiers involved= less lives with a potential to be lost = less lives lost.
Now explain to me how i am hypocritical, as i fail to see your logic.
- Im not GWB. the majority of your post was comparing enviromentalists to him, not me.
-
F_alk’s wrong as usual. Let’s just let it go. :lol:
-
ill go for that D:S :wink:
-
- Im not GWB. the majority of your post was comparing enviromentalists to him, not me.
One half line of comparing with GWB is hardly the majority.
3)I almost always find war justified, and why would you think i want it to be small falk? to save lives. use your brain. smaller war= fewer soldiers involved= less lives with a potential to be lost = less lives lost.
So, you are pro-war but against-losing-lives. Did it come to mind that no-war always has the risk of losing-no-lives-at-all?
Fighting a war leads inevitably to losing lives. Not fighting a war has the chance of not losing lives. Are you an USie who does not want to take chances?
-
Did it come to mind that no-war always has the risk of losing-no-lives-at-all?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??
Not fighting World War 2? You’re right, no lives lost……except for those of the Jews.
-
@cystic:
this is one of those small things with a hoped for long-term benefit. True environmentalists are doing nearly nothing in terms of ceasing oil-drilling ops, and they might even be painting themselves as nuisences by the “normals”. Still It is hoped that at the very least this raises the collective consciousness of humans for environmental concerns.
How do you define “true environmentalists”?
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Did it come to mind that no-war always has the risk of losing-no-lives-at-all?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??
Not fighting World War 2? You’re right, no lives lost……except for those of the Jews.
wow
way to counter an intelligent point with one example of America’s greatest shame of the 20th century.
Ironically enough, if the US entered the war earlier, then there may have been more deaths prevented. This, WW I, and possibly Korea are the only exceptions of this century to the suggestion that F_alk pointed out. -
way to counter an intelligent point with one example of America’s greatest shame of the 20th century.
America’s greatest shame? Please explain (also, keep in mind the explict language of American Consitution with matters of “going to war”)
-
@TG:
way to counter an intelligent point with one example of America’s greatest shame of the 20th century.
America’s greatest shame? Please explain (also, keep in mind the explict language of American Consitution with matters of “going to war”)
waiting until 3 years into a very bloody war being fought alone by the UK, Canada, Aus, and various resistance groups in Europe (and eventually Russia) for a declaration of war by Hitler before formally entering the war. Why not wait until America had actually been invaded? The US had been kept out of the war by America-Firsters and German sympathizers including the illustrious Kennedy Clan. This while Germany was actively occupying most of europe. Certainly sweden, Switzerland and Portugal remained neutral as well but none of these have been nearly so demonstratively war-hungry as America has been this century.
As far as the America Constitution - guilty of not knowing much about it with regards to going to war. At the same time, a constitution that allows for the invasion of Iraq (with very dubious reasons, no active aggression, and a very active propaganda machine drummed up to support going to war) but did not allow for coming to the rescue of Poland, France, Holland, etc. is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO. -
@Deviant:Scripter:
Did it come to mind that no-war always has the risk of losing-no-lives-at-all?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??
Well, from how i understood it, Janus meant “own lives”, not lives at all…
Why should you be concerned about some foreigners lives more than about other foreigners lives?
-
is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO
Well, to each his own. But I think the facts speak for themselves. :roll:
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO
Well, to each his own. But I think the facts speak for themselves. :roll:
which facts?
the facts that the US delayed going to war in WW II until they had war declared on her?
or that the US war machine has changed its reasons for attacking Iraq subsequent to actually attacking Iraq? -
One half line of comparing with GWB is hardly the majority.
Fine, delete that part then.
So, you are pro-war but against-losing-lives. Did it come to mind that no-war always has the risk of losing-no-lives-at-all?
Fighting a war leads inevitably to losing lives. Not fighting a war has the chance of not losing lives. Are you an USie who does not want to take chances?
Are you an idiot who cannot understand simple logic? Being pro-war does not mean i want to see lives lost. OBVIOUSLY war means lives will be lost Falk. However simply agreeing with going to war, or having objection to it does not mean i am some bloodthirsty, meat-grinder style Grant commander who does not mind wasting lives to win. I object to unneccessary loss of life.
No-war does not guarantee no lives lost (the wording sounds wrong to me, but i think you get the point). Lives are lost by other countries, or other peoples, we may lose lives by attacks on us without being at war (Sep. 11th as an example).Ironically enough, if the US entered the war earlier, then there may have been more deaths prevented.
I do not remotely disagree with you. however, you need to understand of course, that this is the problem with the democratic system. when the people dont want to go to war, its hard to get a vote through. and that is the problem with america in particular. the people in this country generally only care when something affects them directly.
and at any rate, US involvement eventually won the war.is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO.
I agree with you on this, for different reasons. a constitution that guarantees freedom of petition and the press, and freedom from unlawful searches and seizures, among other things, is, imo, not worth the paper its printed on.
waiting until 3 years
Perhaps im mixing up facts, but i thought the invasion of poland (in 1939) started the war, and the US entered in 1941.
(and eventually Russia)
speaking of double standards. Russia was in fact “allied” with Germany until Hitler invaded them, at which point they “joined” the allies. unless my history escapes me entirely. i fail to see how this is any different, or even the same, as the US
-
or that the US war machine has changed its reasons for attacking Iraq subsequent to actually attacking Iraq?
Hate to compare it to WWII, but i must. (Not saying it would escalate to the same scale necessarily) the reasons provided for the war in Iraq (for instance, WMDs) which are now being called lies may or may not have been true (different debate) but, in a very Machiavellian manner, the End justifies the means. especially when the “means” was simply a lie. again, different debate, but imo, the war in iraq was justified, no matter what the official reason.
Well, from how i understood it, Janus meant “own lives”, not lives at all…
Why should you be concerned about some foreigners lives more than about other foreigners lives?
then you understand it incorrectly
-
waiting until 3 years into a very bloody war being fought alone by the UK, Canada, Aus, and various resistance groups in Europe (and eventually Russia) for a declaration of war by Hitler before formally entering the war. Why not wait until America had actually been invaded? The US had been kept out of the war by America-Firsters and German sympathizers including the illustrious Kennedy Clan.
Going to war is a process - one governed by laws and unless Germany posed a imminant threat (which would be possible in the fall of 1941) or having attacked the United States in any way, this wouldn’t be possible. As for the Americans, you seem to forget the wartime disillusionment many Americans had of WWI and of the fact that America was in the midst of a Depression.
Also, the war between Iraq and Germany are two totally different matters at hand. The big difference of war not formally being declared by the senate, and the limitation of powers by the president under the War Powers Act.
Suggested Topics
