Aileron

How the heck is it racist? Those are United States companies! The only difference is the location and the laws. Yes, the employees are Mexican, but it is owned and managed by US citizens, who have the sole power to make decisions. Unless a US citizen in Mexico is of a different race than a US citizen in the US, that view cannot be racist. My point was this: The US doesn't have to sign on to Kyoto for economic reasons The US is not legally obligated to sign on to Kyoto The US is not in a position that one can threaten them to sign on to Kyoto Thus, the rest of the world has to PERSUADE the US to sign on to Kyoto. Since Kyoto is cleary not in our best interest standing alone, you are also going to have to add something else to make it worthwhile. Gripeing about how whe SHOULD sign on or how the world will be better off if we sign on isn't going to help. If the world's pollution were worse, maybe. More likely, however, we would make our own policy and clean things up when we feel like it. Don't like it? Too bad. You not likeing it isn't going to help. I see no reason why we should really give a rats @$$ right now. If the rest of the world doesn't get their heads out of their own rear ends and try to compromise, it is never going to get done. I realise you guys don't have the same bargaining chips as we do, but life never was fair, was it? Oh, and don't try to label this post as another example of "American arrogance". We are talking the policy of a sovereign country here. The US has a right to run their own country, just like every other country in the world. YOU are trying to dictate a policy on US.

*takes out galaxy pocketknife* *cuts galaxy l!@#$%^&*o with galaxy pocketknife* *chases after Mr. Ious* *runs out of breath* *stands still weezing for a short time* *stumbles acrossed a rocket car* *gets in rocket car* *chases after Mr. Ious in rocket car* *flies by Mr Ious because rocket car has no breaks* *crashes into pillow factory* *emerges from rocket car unharmed* *pillow factory is on fire from the rocket car crashing into it* *runs out of burning pillow factory* *mysteriously conjures a vile full of acid* *splashes acid into Mr. Ious' eyes* *drops a flashbang, and mysteriously dissappears ninja style*

I didn't say "back to trees". What I said was that what they are asking would put factories out of business. Yes, asking that a factory install a multi-billion dollor filtration system isn't the same as calling for the factory to be shut down from a political standpoint, but in terms of economics, it is. However, that is an irrelevant technicality. The point is that there is no desire to compromise with industry in the environmentalist camps. You are mostly right about Kyoto. However, you shouldn't blame Bush for that. It is, after all, one of his jobs to look after the US economy. Maybe if the environmental need were more dire, or the rest of the world willing to offer some kind of compensation, would it be a good idea for the US to support Kyoto. Until then, I really don't see why we would want to sign on. As for that report, I usually don't like those type of reports, because they might leave out certain facts that change the overall picture. Is the pollution per capita, per area, or per production? Also, did the report say that Texas PRODUCED the most pollution or that it HAD the most pollution? The later could have been caused by maquilladoras, which places the problem on Mexico. (Maquilladoras are American factories located just south of the US-Mexico border so as to get looser labor and pollution laws.) Overall, I am reluctant to make judgement over that kind of report because I don't know what is being edited out.

Yep. The funny part is, as I said earlier, that Blair was close to being great. If he managed enough political force towards his real policy, he could have really helped the world and gotten his country close behind him. Blair's plan was to exchange British support in Iraq for US support in Kyoto. If he had only expanded on that by convincing France and Germany to do the same thing and offer support in a few other similar conflicts, Bush would have no other political choice but to sign on to Kyoto. It would have been a very balanced agreement, and Blair's public opinion would have skyrocketed for it. Unfortunately, Blair didn't apply enough political force to pull it off, and that is the difference between greatness and pathetic.

The thing we need to ask is, !@#$%^&*uming it is caused by pollution and industry, what can be done about it? What needs to happen is that environmental groups and industry should come to a compromise. Both, particularly the environmentalists, are far to extreme and have their heads shoved too far up their own posteriors to make a reasonable deal with each other. Thus, environmentalists call for virtually shutting down every factory on the planet, while industry for the most part barely moves.

*wonders if he is going to have to fight somebody seven yrs in the future* *gets confused by all this stupid time travel stuff* *goes to FFC topic* *grabs old doomsday device* *shakes of the dust* *sets doomsday device on "correct temperal distortions"* *Mr. Ious is warped back in time, although 7 yrs older* *kicks Mr. Ious in the face* *runs away and hides in the shadows*

*jumps out of vehicle the moment before it explodes* *grabs hand mirror* *sneaks up behind Mr. Ious and puts hand mirror in his hand* *grabs Mr. Ious's arm so that the mirror is poited towards Paine's face* *mirror breaks* HAHAHA! You borke a mirror, 7 yrs bad luck 4 u! *runs away* *suddenly, a barrel of bricks comes hurtling out of nowhere and smacks Mr. Ious in the back*

Well, it would have been a good move both ways if Blair got Bush to sign on for Kyoto. I don't know if Bush commited political suicide in Iraq. Hussein was such a weak political target in the first place that Bush could justify the war on utilitarian grounds.

*Sneaks into evil wizards laboratory* *steals magic book* *Grabs GhettoSmurf* *turns GhettoSmurf into gold* *goes to auction* *sells Gold smurf statue for lotsa $$$$ *buys a tank* *gets in tank* *runs over Paine*

rule 6: No bathroom humor plz. *dodges empty cup* ?????? *laughs at Paine, who urinated ON the cup rather than IN it* *Drops down and hits Pain seven times with Ugly Stick* *looks at Paine* ahhhhh! *runs in terror*

*grabs ugly stick* *climbs on top of door, ready to pounce upon the next person who posts*

I'm sensing that what you guys REALLY want is a less serious topic. Rules: 1) You get as many super powers as you want. 2) Don't attack anyone who isn't posting 3) Don't attack "everyone", use specific names. example: *drops nuke on everyone* 4) Don't quit if you die; feel free to ressurect yourself. 5) Have fun (Note to Manus: I don't know if you would approve of this topic. I'm just posting it. If you don't approve, simply delete the thread, and I will have no hard feelings.)

Nobody really does care, including politicians, who are trying to get out of political dodge and being reluctant to make a stand. (Example- Bush, because while he made a stand, he only did so after a few months of hesitation. [and those of you who hate Bush should know that he never hesitates.]) I don't really care either.

Putin is doing what is good for Russia; Chirac for France. All three of them do not do what is good for the world, rather what is good for their own countries, which is what leaders of countries are supposed to do. Its complicated. I support Bush's opinions, but have come to the realization that if I were from another country I would be supporting someone else. I am judging the leaders by what they are doing for their countries. If you are confused now, take this statement...I think Blair would be close to being the best, but actually is one of the worst. That is because Blair's policy is smart, very smart. His problem is that he doesn't apply enough political force to the critical points. Example: The reason Blair supported Bush in Iraq was to get the US to sign on to Kyoto. The strategy was very balanced and a very good politival decision. The problem is that Blair didn't see that the second part of that point got done. Realpolitik was created before Germany existed. Technically, it was the Holy Roman Empire. I did phrase my statement wrong, it would have been better to say France was the first country to truly impliment it, for their action in the Thirty Years War. The only relevency in that point is to say that Europe is more interested in politics than any moral agenda. Actually, realpolitik is necessary for the overall balance of the universe. When countries start acting truly charitable, the balance is upset and bad things happen. If a large country swopes in and saves a thrid world country from cultural and political extiction, they create a country that is unable to stand by itself politcally, culturally, and economically. Yes, we live on on big marble. However, that marble is placed in the mortal universe. It is in the nature of all things in this universe that things will be created, grow, recede, then be destroyed. When a third world country stands on the abyss of cultural and economic destruction, the best thing a first world country can do is to push the dying nation into it. When a country dies, it creates room for a new nation to grow, the development of which will be better for the population in the end. Don't expect the UK to agree with the EU. The UK and Russia are political outsiders of Europe. They are most likely going to position themselves in the middle ground between the US and EU. Dav, economic power generates political power, so the EU cannot help but go for both.

A meant American civilian casualties. I've met some people (okay, a single liberal beyond liberals who probably never had a job in his life.) who think America should just forgive terrorist actions, which would be in my opinion a fundimental breach of the social contract. No country should forgive any act of terrorism that exceeds double digit casualties, although retaliation should not always be applied in such cases. Back to the more important point, I will agree that you can't just bomb terrorism into oblivian. That is because the causes of terrorism are based in deeper more cultural beliefs. What we need to do is change part of the Middle Eastern cultural beliefs. That can be done by bombing them into oblivian.

Great! We have more birthdays to celbrate! Happy birthday Ricebowl! Happy birthday Floweret!

No, Europe has always been balance of power. Balance of Power is what caused WWI - all the countries of Europe allied themselves in such a way that they were in two equal factions. The problem with this system is that it can lead to large scale conflict if somebody does something stupid. The benefits of this system is that it prevents one faction from dominating the other. The EU is almost purely motivated by this. Since the collaspe of the USSR, the US has been the undesputed dominant power and could not help but dominate other countries merely by existing. Europe, motivated by balance of power, is consolidating to balance out the US. France invented the term "real politik" - where a countries actions should be guided by what's best for a country and not by ideals. Thus, it is wise to assume that Western Europe is where this policy is done the most. Guess what - this isn't wrong. If a leader of a country wants to do what he feels is right, he shouldn't us his people's power to do it. Ideally, countries should NOT be moral agents, and should probably do acts of evil just as often as acts of kindness. If you want an organization that constantly pursues acts of kindness, that is the role of organized religion. That is why I support Bush and the Iraq war. There is some good - the Iraqi people being rid of a tyrant, and some evil, the US gets a new base of political support in the Middle East. Iraq benefits, the US benifits. It seems that you feel that Bush is pursueing a sort of moral or personal agenda that runs contrary to US interests. I cannot disprove of you opinion, because God only knows Bush's true motives. However, I can see the benefit to the US if Al Jazera (spelling?) is now sending a pro-US message instead of an anti-US one. Thus, US is not wrong in going into Iraq. However, neither is Europe for forming the EU. Both cases are of countries doing what is right for their people. In my opinion, the three best world leaders at this time are Vladymir Putin of Russia, George Bush of the United States, and Joc Chiroc of France. (Pardon my spelling if its wrong) All three are doing exactly what they should with their power.

yeah Falcon is taken by the US Air Force. Panther really shouldn't be applied to a spaceship. The animal must either fly or swim. All the current ones do. (BTW, Terriers DO fly, they just require a little thrust from my boot.)

It seems to be a collection of funny logs...except they aren't funny.

Since when specifically? I've been in so many zones I can't remember which one you remember me from. Btw, the reason I am supporting Ricebowl - more mods = more hosting (theorhetically) ...and yes, in my free time I wrote a How-to guide to getting yourself fired from a mod position by abusing powers. Yes, I had a lot of time at the moment, but this was b4 I discovered forums. Example, modified for 17th: 1) Set yourself in a Terrier or Shark 2) Tick your own name 3) Type /*warpto 1000 1000 4) Stand still and lay as many mines as you can 5) Move to the side 6) Tick ntfx's name 7) Type /*warpto 1000 1000 Kiss your mod position goodbye

he's back.... ...dammit!

Well, it is reflective however on the situation. The War on Terror is not a choice, there is really no option the US can take but to end terrorism. Note that I don't mean all terrorism. The minimum the US can do is end anti-US terrorism. However, most likely we will need to end all anti-western or anti-first-world terrorism. Also, its not some quickie conflict. This war will probably take decades and span over several countries. The only other choice the US has is to accept civilian causualties, as some foreigners suggest. The problem with this is first off that it is the primary responsability of governments to protect their populations, and this responsablity should under no cir-*BAD WORD*-stances be cast aside. Secondly, if the US loses 2000 people every time a McDonalds moves into a third world neighborhood, we will run our of people very quickly. Thus, I can't argue against a draft if it happens. We have no choice.

Still, there is no sufficient reason for the US government to get up and rearrange the US economy because Europe is asking them to, and not even politely asking. If Europe doesn't offer the US any carrot, it shouldn't blame the US for not tagging along.

There is one thing you two don't understand. Bush is taking actions that are good for the US. I can see how the populations of France and Germany don't like his policy. The benefactor of his policy is the US; France and Germany become worse off due to balance of power. However, Bush isn't elected by world opinion, he is elected by US opinion, and since he is catering to the US over everyone else, he is looking real good right now.

Seriously, Rice would make a good mod - and believe me, In my travels throughout Subspace I can tell the difference between a good mod and a bad mod. Rice is the type of person who would use his mod powers so infrequently that he would forget how to use them. He would host events fairly often, but in an almost passive manner, forgiving players for lag & lame actions, unless they threaten gameplay. Basically, he would use his powers to make events more fun rather than more fair. This is ideal for daily events, where players need to most of all have fun. In public, he wouldn't use his powers at all and would rather not ban anybody. If somebody was cheating, he would ask other staff to do the action. If he was the only one there, he would wait for somebody else if practical, and would use the /*kill command rather than BanG if he absolutely had to get rid of the cheater. All these things are, ofcourse, relative. If somebdy comes into the arena firing 50-L3 bombs out of a weasel, Rice will ban him. I can tell this by his manners, what he says, how he plays, his tactics, and a long list of similar personality traits I can see, which I can compare to a bunch of other moderators I have known in the past. I wrote the book on abusive mods - ask Lyta. Long story short, vote for Rice!