02-25-2003, 09:00 PM
Hello Pete,
Despite the risk to be clueless again, I will reply to some points here.
My problem was that you insulted those who protested against this war, by calling Most (are) too stupid or ignorant to think. Are you saying you didn't? Anyway, I still don't see why those against this war have to present explanations that can withstand any form of debate or judgment. If they could do so, we wouldn't have this war, or would we?
So, you are afraid that Hussein will develop methods to blackmail the world. Ofcourse. In a few years time, he will threaten to drop an 'dirty' bomb on New York, and because the USA will be unable to stop him, you will have to pay a billion dollar ransom. After that, he will threaten to attack Europe with biological weapons, and I will have no other choice then to pay. Or worse, he could blackmail the West into lifting the 'Free Market' limitations, so that all countries in the world would have equal chances at prosperity. Or is he just evil, skipping the blackmail, and simply trying to destroy us all?
I agree that the world would be a far better place without Hussein, and without many other people, for that matter. However, removing them all would be a long and truly costly process, and it could eventually arrive at our own door. If this was a reason to go to war, we would never again know peace. Luckily for us, most politicians realize this.
No, instead of making Hussein the target, many politicians claim to rescue his subjects. By bringing war to their country. Without being certain it will make a difference. But being very certain it will be good for the economy, so why look for other options. Yes, I'd rather glorify the peace protesters with "they cared about the wellfare of other humans". You remember it was actually a good thing, to care about others, years ago? Or was it crap, also?
As for alternative energy sources, there are plenty of those. The only problem is that they are currently not cheap enough to compete with other sources, which makes large scale use of them harmful to economic growth. Another 'problem' is that those methods would be durable. You can't make much money with a product that could be nearly costless and available in unlimited quantity, so how can you expect people to invest money in the exploitation of it? Regarding the people in the developing countries, who will increase the need of energy because they want the same gadgets as we have, how about meeting them halfway? Or is that too much cutting down? I don't think it is fair to blame those people for our current shortages, wouldn't you agree?
Despite the risk to be clueless again, I will reply to some points here.
My problem was that you insulted those who protested against this war, by calling Most (are) too stupid or ignorant to think. Are you saying you didn't? Anyway, I still don't see why those against this war have to present explanations that can withstand any form of debate or judgment. If they could do so, we wouldn't have this war, or would we?
So, you are afraid that Hussein will develop methods to blackmail the world. Ofcourse. In a few years time, he will threaten to drop an 'dirty' bomb on New York, and because the USA will be unable to stop him, you will have to pay a billion dollar ransom. After that, he will threaten to attack Europe with biological weapons, and I will have no other choice then to pay. Or worse, he could blackmail the West into lifting the 'Free Market' limitations, so that all countries in the world would have equal chances at prosperity. Or is he just evil, skipping the blackmail, and simply trying to destroy us all?
I agree that the world would be a far better place without Hussein, and without many other people, for that matter. However, removing them all would be a long and truly costly process, and it could eventually arrive at our own door. If this was a reason to go to war, we would never again know peace. Luckily for us, most politicians realize this.
No, instead of making Hussein the target, many politicians claim to rescue his subjects. By bringing war to their country. Without being certain it will make a difference. But being very certain it will be good for the economy, so why look for other options. Yes, I'd rather glorify the peace protesters with "they cared about the wellfare of other humans". You remember it was actually a good thing, to care about others, years ago? Or was it crap, also?
As for alternative energy sources, there are plenty of those. The only problem is that they are currently not cheap enough to compete with other sources, which makes large scale use of them harmful to economic growth. Another 'problem' is that those methods would be durable. You can't make much money with a product that could be nearly costless and available in unlimited quantity, so how can you expect people to invest money in the exploitation of it? Regarding the people in the developing countries, who will increase the need of energy because they want the same gadgets as we have, how about meeting them halfway? Or is that too much cutting down? I don't think it is fair to blame those people for our current shortages, wouldn't you agree?