rec.autos.simulators

by **Uncle Feste** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:16:26

> Regardless of political views in this thread, the topic really seems to be
> about the right of the US, with the UN, to force Iraq to stop making weapons
> of mass destruction. Does Iraq have the right to become an atomic power?
> So, it goes something like this. Iraq wants more oil so they invade Kuwait.
> The UN comes in and stops them. In Iraq's surrender, they agree to weapons
> inspections (as opposed to a bunch of other alternatives which would have
> been far worse). Later, they force UN inspectors to leave, violating the
> terms of their surrender. Now, after WWII, the Japanese had to agree to only
> keep a small military (Germany, too, I think, but I'm not sure). If Japan
> can honor their agreement to this day, why shouldn't Iraq? Of course, being
> the "mean spirited" people we are, we spent billions to help rebuild Japan
> and turn it into a leading economic power.
> We know that Iraq has used chemical weapons on it's own people, civilians,
> and are not opposed to mass ***. You have to ask yourself what could
> happen if Iraq has atomic bombs. It would certainly make the UN think twice
> about defending anyone else that Iraq decides to invade. They could pretty
> much waive the bombs around and say if you try to stop us you'd better be
> prepared for a world wide nuclear war. What about the other countries that
> have atomic weapons? What is there to stop them from doing the same thing?
> Well, nothing, but Iraq is the bully that steals your milk money. The other
> countries are not. So, even if Iraq didn't launch the bomb at the US (and he
> might), it's a formidable tool.
> Saddam Hussein has the power to prevent a war. All he has to do is honor his
> surrender agreement. It really is that simple.

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Actually the whole http://www.racesimcentral.net/ site is good.

--

Fester

There is a better way, for the enlightened.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Dave Boyl** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:23:29

> > Assuming they can find someone to sell them the technology to build
> > ICBM's. =) Certainly, he'd threaten the use of tactical nukes, but as
> > recently as 10 years ago he couldn't even accurately fire a missile at
> > Israel. Unless he's been smuggling rather large rockets into the
> > country, his best missile is still the "aim it in the general
> > direction of your target and hope it hits something" Scud.

> I suppose there's an argument to be made for the fact that if you manage
> to equip said SCUD missile with a substantial warhead of either a
> nuclear, chemical or biological type, it really doesn't matter too much
> if it misses the target by a mile or two....:-(

> I do feel however that you make some excellent points, in Afghanistan
> there was an opposition ready to replace the Taliban regime, they were
> even willing to do the grunt work as long as they got a little help,
> can't see the same thing happening in Iraq, would probably be the start
> of a very ***y civil war if we take out Saddam

> And then we can start talking about the Oil, Iraq is believed to have
> the second largest source of oil, beaten only by Saudi Arabia, who gets
> the oil ?

> Iraq owes Russia for instance about 12 billion dollars, one of the
> reasons Russia didn't vote for the resolution right at once is because
> they can't afford to lose that kind of money and wanted some assurances
> that their economic interests in Iraq would be protected (for want of a
> better word), naa, I'm being cynical here .....

> I find it somewhat strange that another "rogue" nation, North Korea, can
> develop weapons of mass destruction and nobody really seems to care all
> that much, yes I know some people (Bush) has said something but I
> haven't heard any news about a UN resolution being prepared, but
> Iraq.....couldn't be because Iraq has OIL and North Korea has nothing
> anyone would be interested in unless you need to grow large amounts of
> Rice, naa, I'm being cynical here ....

Hey Goy ;P

One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil like
it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over.
Right now, oil is the life*** of the world economy. If it were suddenly
cut off, the industrialized world would be devastated. I don't even want to
think about what would happen in the non industrialized countries (the folks
at the bottom will *always* suffer the most). Because of oil, people like us
have the privilege of sitting all nice and comfy in front of our monitors
and***and moan to everyone in the world about all our insignificant
peeves.

Nothing personal Goy, but it seems like people make light of the importance
of energy all too often.

db

by **Dave Boyl** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:31:52

Interesting position you have on the issue there. I'm just curious, but how
have you come to the conclusion that the current conditions are a "***en
pathetic mess"? I'm just wondering because I haven't read any factual
reports that would make me draw the same conclusion.

db

by **Dave Boyl** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:33:30

Really? ...and here I thought you were actually from Norway. Sweeden maybe?
;p

I don't think that anyone has the right to take over their oil fields
either. But then going to war doesn't necessarily mean taking them over
either (in a permanent way). I can live without my car as well (It still has
less than 10k mi on it. Not bad for a '98 eh? Heheh.) But energy is more
than just cars or a high standard of living. It is truly about sustaining
life itself. The link that iksteh posted (somewhere else in this thread)
begins to explain the energy relationships that make most of the food
produced in the world possible. If it were just our standard of living, it
wouldn't be worthwhile. But it is much, much more than that. Lowering our
standard of living pushes everyone else down the food chain. What happens to
all those unfortunates on the edge already? So, in the current world
economy, I feel that the disruption (or even destabilization) of the flow of
oil is an aggressive act of war upon the world and needs to be dealt with
swiftly.

I fully agree with you here Goy. Although my agenda wouldn be hidden, lol.
But I truly think that the biggest reason behind the current push is because
of Saddam's recent willingness to deal with extremists/terrorists where he
shunned them in the past. Maybe Saddam couldn't threaten The West with a
Nuclear bomb, but terrorists that he could give one to are another story. I
don't think they have done all their homework on Iraq yet, but I think it is
being pushed anyways because of the support the President currently has by
the very fickle US population. I guess we'll have to see how the inspections
go...

Geez, I really hope my psychiatrist rid me of those *** sleep-posting
episodes
;D

db

by **Jason Moy** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:10:30

>One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil like
>it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over.

So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human
life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a
war for oil.

Jason

by **Nick** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:09:02

> <big snip>
> > Nobody I know gave up their cars because of the prohibitive expense of
fuel,
> > simply because there is no alternative. We *need* cars where I live, and
we
> > *need* fuel, so we have to buy it whatever the price. That idea may work
in

> Have people lived in your area for more than ~100 years? If so, they must
> have managed without cars and fuel (well, maybe some whale oil for oil
> lamps...) Of course they lived in different ways, and maybe the future
will
> require some long term changes. If you don't evolve, you die (evolution!)

> I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was
> invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few
> miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather).

I used to commute daily to a town 25 miles from the village in which I live.
A little too far to jog or cycle, and there were no direct bus / train
routes either. So I *needed* my car. Had I been around 100 years ago, I
wouldn't have needed the car to go to work on the local farm down the road,
but the development of the automobile has also allowed people to expand
their social and working circles. In a way, the development of the
automobile developed the need for the automobile.

So there is a good reason why I am entirely dependent on my car despite the
fact that it is, as you say, quite a new thing. But then, in terms of the
age of the universe, Earth is quite a new thing, but we kinda need that,
too...

by **Jason Moy** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:14:52

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:16:26 -0500, Uncle Fester

>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>Actually the whole http://www.racesimcentral.net/ site is good.

That's actually the first website I usually read when I wake up in the
morning. 1. The editorial type pieces and commentary are seriously
funny. There could be an article about a naturalized American Jew
being promoted to senior bank teller at a small town bank and he's
write 5 pages on how it's proof of a Jewish banking ***. 2.
That said, the links to articles are awesome, which is primarily why I
go there. Some interesting news that doesn't make the headlines.

Jason

by **Dave Boyl** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:26:05

> >One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil
like
> >it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over.

> So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human
> life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a
> war for oil.

The way the economy works now, energy *is* life to a very large number of
people on this earth.

db

by **Uncle Feste** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:42:07

>>>One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil

> like

>>>it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over.

>>So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human
>>life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a
>>war for oil.

> The way the economy works now, energy *is* life to a very large number of
> people on this earth.

If so, then might the economic system itself be *wrong*?

--

Fester

There is a better way, for the enlightened.
http://www.racun.tk/

by **Uncle Feste** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:43:45

> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:16:26 -0500, Uncle Fester

>>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>>Actually the whole http://www.racesimcentral.net/ site is good.

> That's actually the first website I usually read when I wake up in the
> morning. 1. The editorial type pieces and commentary are seriously
> funny. There could be an article about a naturalized American Jew
> being promoted to senior bank teller at a small town bank and he's
> write 5 pages on how it's proof of a Jewish banking ***. 2.
> That said, the links to articles are awesome, which is primarily why I
> go there. Some interesting news that doesn't make the headlines.

> Jason

He doesn't really have a slant either. His links cover the Right, Left
& Center. Great alternative news reading.

--

Fester

There is a better way, for the enlightened.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Dave Boyl** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:00:04

> >>>One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil

> > like

> >>>it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war
over.

> >>So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human
> >>life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a
> >>war for oil.

> > The way the economy works now, energy *is* life to a very large number
of
> > people on this earth.

> If so, then might the economic system itself be *wrong*?

Maybe so. But any economic system that doesn't inject supplemental energy to
the natural sunlight/photosynthesis energy system of the earth will simply
not sustain as may people as are on the planet right now. It would also mean
an agrarian economy where 75-85% of the population works growing food. I
guess everyone will have to form their own "moral" opinion on that solution,
but I feel that the utilization of extra energy has been worth the drawbacks
so far.

db

by **GTX_SlotCa** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:24:34

A nice bit of research for us, Goy. Thanks. Where did you find it?
I found the FAIR website. It seems they are to liberals what Rush is to some
conservatives.
I wish the "Reality" parts of your quotes had estimates from the 17th or
18th centuries.
The book I read may not have included Hawaii or Alaska in it's estimates
from the1600's because of the lack of data and these other quotes do. That
would account for something and they are, after all, only estimates. I'm
sure that 2 people doing the estimates could easily use different guidelines
and be a few billion acres apart. I could try to find the book again (I'm
sure he still has it somewhere), but that wouldn't be for another week or
so and then I'd feel obligated to post the results here. I certainly don't
want to perpetuate this thread that long.
I didn't think my statement was that important, and I guess it wouldn't have
been if Rush hadn't said the same thing. I only wanted to point out that our
forests weren't being devastated according to what I read in a US Forestry
Service book. I'll stick by that, at least, and if the Forestry Service used
the wrong guidelines for the estimate, I'm fairly confident that we still
have about the same number of trees we had before.
This much I do know:
1. I live in a 2 story chalet on a dead end street in the country in Maine.
My house is 275 feet from the road and I have a 2 acre wooded lot. I'm happy
with the amount of trees I have around me.
2. The US has more trees than Iraq (this thread was about Iraq, right?).
3. Most of the tracks in GPL have just the right amount of trees ;-)

--
Slot

Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com

> > Goy, I don't know. I have no idea what Rush's schedule is like. Maybe he
did
> > have a comeback statement but his bashers just don't mention it. I
listened
> > to his show a couple times and he was bashing the NE Patriots, so he's
not
> > exactly on my Christmas Card list.

> Fair enough :-), but he did actually respond.....

> ---
> > LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United

States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written?"
of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million acres today."
country, without being replanted. Today, reforestation is a critical
component of the U.S. lumber industry. Furthermore, with increasingly
sophisticated measuring methods, the more sure we are about the rapidly
increasing rate of forest growth in the continental United States. These are
the current facts: In 1952, the U.S. had 664 million acres of forest land.
In 1987 the number had climbed to 731 million acres, according to the most
recent numbers available in the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1993-1994
edition.
growth in the U.S. now exceeds harvest by 37 percent. Annual growth has
exceeded harvest every year since 1952. In 1992, just 384,000 acres --
six-tenths of 1 percent of the National Forest land open to harvesting --
were actually harvested. As a result of growth steadily exceeding harvests,
the number of wooded acres in the U.S. has grown 20 percent in the past
twenty years. The average annual wooded growth in the U.S. today is an
amazing three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area
covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to
about 76 percent today." -- Joseph Bast, Peter Hill and Richard Rue, Eco-
Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Madison Books: 1994), p.
23.

- Show quoted text -

by **GTX_SlotCa** » Sun, 24 Nov 2002 17:05:45

"David G Fisher" wrote >

Well, David, that may be true, but during the campaign both Bush and***
said they'd do something about Iraq and the audience applauded. They both
agreed something had to be done and finally something is. Better now than
never. If***was doing it, you'd be applauding him.

Huh? We saw they were losing and we did help out. Before we sent troops, we
sent arms, ammunition, tanks and ships. You seem to think that we went to
war with Germany because of Japan's attack on us. That's not true.
Japan attacked the US because, of all things, we shut off their oil supply
(along with all other trade). Japan declared war on the US and Britain on
Dec. 7, 1941. FDR knew that most of the people in the US didn't want to
fight a war with Germany (who had done nothing to us) at the same time we
were fighting a war Japan, who attacked us on our own soil. Hitler and
Mussolini (Italy) declared war on the US on Dec 11. Then in 1942 the US
declared war on Thailand. In late 1942 the US entered the war (with Britain)
in North Africa. That is, I think, our first troop involvement with our
European allies.
I'm sure that if my memory of this chronology isn't perfect (I am getting
old, you know), someone will correct me. Anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to
look up somewhere.

And now let's all read Roots. Look, I love my European "cousins". There are
a few who seem to get off on putting down the US whenever they can. Instead
of bashing, they might try helping.

--
Slot

Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com

rec.autos.simulators

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)