jean chretien:

Originally posted by ZERO:
But there's no such thing as a happy-medium. It's on extreme or the other. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

your little sarcastic comment about MY views fits so perfectly with like every netphorian here. don't start on me. this is exactly why i'm criticizing you people.

Originally posted by Samsa:
but i don't think the debt issue is so black and white. i'm not an economist but i have heard people say that you know, on one hand you have a country that is in so in debt it can never pay it back, and on the other hand if you nullify the debt the country..it's sort of like individuals and credit cards. they lose 'credit rating' or something which basically means no one will ever want to lend them money again. so i don't think you can decisively say third-world debt should or shouldn't be nullified. it's an important thing to think about but i am assuming no one here is like an expert economist or anything.

yeah, nothing to do with any form of politics, especially foreign policy, is ever black and white. i dont know too much about all these issues with poverty and what not, but i just read recently some of the things canada was doing to help 3rd world nations. im trying to illustrate steps that should be taken, because regardless of what form they edn up being, help is needed and things cant be sustained the way they are now. there is so much unspeakable, horrendous stuff gojng on in places like africa and, god, east timor, that every wealthy country (US or otherwise) should be obligated to help in any way possible. it doesnt always have to be represented in the form of financial donations. this selfish everyman-for-himself attitude is going to be the end of us all. the US is the richest country in the world and they arent doing nearly enough. they use promises of peacekeeping missions and aid funds as almost blackmail in the UN, its disgusting.


[This message has been edited by sleeper (edited 09-13-2002).]

holy mother of fuck, did anyone hear the recent comments by steven harper? he comes on US tv and said all this ridiculously stupid shit as if he was speaking for all canadians. the anchor (foxnews) was like "whats up with canadians thinking we're responsible for this?". also, the UN is on its way to intantly approving the US's plans for war with iraq. has the whole world gone insane? i feel like forming a idiot free colony on some remote island

Originally posted by Samsa:
it was a pretty disrespectful thing to say on the anniversary of 9/11

oh. and just so i can get this straight: you people agree that the western nations are too rich in comparison to the rest of the world, yet you also think the us should mind its own business? i'll go somewhere else and think that over.

He spoke the truth, and it wasn't disrespectful, it was a fact. and...
Opressing a religon and hogging the world resources are 2 different things.

Originally posted by Orchestra:
He spoke the truth, and it wasn't disrespectful, it was a fact. and...
Opressing a religon and hogging the world resources are 2 different things.

you can say something that's true and still be disrespectful because of the context it's said in. but now that i know he said it earlier and it for some reason was aired on 9/11 i don't fucking know what to think anymore. and kindly stop using that thumbs down.

Originally posted by Orchestra:
He spoke the truth, and it wasn't disrespectful, it was a fact. and...
Opressing a religon and hogging the world resources are 2 different things.

oh and exactly how are the western nations hogging the world resources?

Originally posted by Samsa:
oh and exactly how are the western nations hogging the world resources?

Name the (by a large margin) #1 consumer of the world's petroleum, please.

Originally posted by Crippler:
Name the (by a large margin) #1 consumer of the world's petroleum, please.

but is that hogging or simply unnecessary consumption and polution? are we stopping anyone else from buying it? to my knowledge, no we aren't. we may not any one else to want it because then maybe prices would rise but i'm not even sure about plus...whatever.

Originally posted by Samsa:
your little sarcastic comment about MY views fits so perfectly with like every netphorian here. don't start on me. this is exactly why i'm criticizing you people.

who are you?

Originally posted by Samsa:


but is that hogging or simply unnecessary consumption and polution? are we stopping anyone else from buying it? to my knowledge, no we aren't. we may not any one else to want it because then maybe prices would rise but i'm not even sure about plus...whatever.

It's both. We unnecessarily hog it, and hopefully the west will have found other means of providing cheap energy when the world's petrolium runs out (which will happen a lot sooner than people seem to realize).

Originally posted by Crippler:
It's both. We unnecessarily hog it, and hopefully the west will have found other means of providing cheap energy when the world's petrolium runs out (which will happen a lot sooner than people seem to realize).

but how does our 'hogging' it make other countries poorer? and i don't know if i'd even say we hog it. just because we consume more..i am not sure it means that other people can't buy as much as they want.

Originally posted by Samsa:


but is that hogging or simply unnecessary consumption and polution? are we stopping anyone else from buying it? to my knowledge, no we aren't. we may not any one else to want it because then maybe prices would rise but i'm not even sure about plus...whatever.

Look what happened when Iran tried to nationalize their oil supply

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Look what happened when Iran tried to nationalize their oil supply

what happened???

By the late 1940s, Iran had become a major supplier of oil, responsible for almost one tenth of the world's total production. At that time, the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company controlled the production and sale of Iranian oil, and the oilfield revenues reaped by the British far exceeded those of Iran. This virtual colonial system led to the election of Mohammad Mossadegh as Prime Minister in 1951, with the promise of nationalizing Iranian oil and eliminating British involvement in Iranian affairs. The election would also run counter to the United States' economic and political desires. If Mossadegh's nationalization proved successful, it would provide a model for other third world countries to throw out Western business interests. The United States also was aiming to expand their control over the world's oil reserves, and an economically independent nation within the region would disrupt this goal. By 1953, it was determined that Mossadegh was too dangerous to remain in power. The CIA sent Kermit Roosevelt and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (the father of Stormin' Norman) to Tehran with an unlimited budget for the task of arresting Mossadegh and returning the Shah Reza Pahlavi to power. This mission was accomplished, and Iran's oil was redistributed so that the Americans and the British each received forty percent of the revenues.

Yep, and that military coup deposed the first socialist and democratically-elected leader of the country in a long time. No wonder there's so much anti-US sentiment there http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif

well i don't know any sane person who doesn't hate oil. the world is going to be dead in 50 years because of it. ugh. i don't know which is worse. drilling in alaska or being involved with those evil oil-exporting countries.