1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

as i'll probably be dead by then, i could care less department...

Discussion in 'The OT' started by jrjcd, Jul 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jul 9, 2002 #21 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Bogy, you realize, of course, that the number is meaningless in the absence of a context. Are you sure you're not just spouting
    some PPF propaganda here? Your sarcastic tone suggests so.

    There are instances in which a lifesaving surgical procedure, which can be termed an abortion, is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Unfortunately medical science has not yet advanced enough to save the life of the unborn patient, who by the way should be treated with some dignity and respect, rather than casually hacked to pieces, flushed down the toilet, and forgotten. How would family planning make these "abortions" unnecessary?

    I hope you're not implying that any unplanned pregnancy automatically makes an "abortion" (in this context, meaning the deliberate killing of an unborn human life) "necessary". Such an abortion would be medically unnecessary, unwarranted, and ill-advised; particularly when the dangerous third-world, field-clinic, and manual-vacuum-aspiration methods advocated by the UNFPA are employed.

    Now to the issue of family planning. President Bush's policy,
    as I understand it, does not attack family planning (euphemism
    for birth control) funding per se, but the funding of "elective" abortions (which are actually often forced or coerced in many countries). The smokescreen usually used lately for unborn
    child killing is "reproductive health services", because everyone
    recognizes the need for actual legitimate reproductive health services (e.g. labor, delivery, disease screening, treatment).
    So I think you've set up a straw man argument.

    Another issue involved is the need to respect the right of
    sovereign nations (often no doubt influenced by Roman
    Catholicism) to codify respect for unborn human life.
    Ireland is under pressure from the EU to drop or soften
    its pro-life laws, a violation of the EU charter. South
    America also generally respects unborn human life by law,
    as well as culturally speaking. This respect for life should
    be encouraged, and should be expanded into respect for
    all human life, especially in areas heavily corrupted by the
    drug trade, or for that matter, by a tradition of religio-political
    hatred (e.g. Protestant/Crown vs. Catholic/"free" Ireland).
     
  2. Jul 9, 2002 #22 of 104
    jrjcd

    jrjcd Arcane Movie Trivia King DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,806
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
    in kazazhstan, the bubonic plague is actually a step up...
     
  3. Jul 9, 2002 #23 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The person I was quoting was Harold Anderson, the very right wing retired publisher of the conservative Omaha World-Herald. He still writes a column in the W-H once a week.
    http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=609&u_sid=441414
    Believe me, I was surprised to see Anderson knocking Bush on ANYTHING, much less accepting the UN information on birth control.
     
  4. Jul 9, 2002 #24 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    The context, quoted from the article:

    This demonstrates that a conservative can also be gullible.

    Perhaps the larger context can be gleaned from the UN's
    full press release. Do you happen to have a link to that handy?

    It seems to me that the underlying premise remains the same.
    They appear to be saying that an unplanned pregnancy uniformly
    makes it necessary to kill the unborn child, and is likely to directly cause the death of the mother and the starvation of her children.

    I would submit that using the funds to ensure good health care, good sanitation, and emergency food rations where needed, would go a long way toward preventing these vague, scary statistics.
     
  5. Jul 9, 2002 #25 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Why, just because you don't like the figures, anyone who does has to be gullible?

    To me, it seems to be saying that people are going to have sex, even if they do not have the resources to provide for another child, and that preventing a pregnancy in the first place will make using abortion as a means of birth control unnecesary. Likewise, providing alternate and preferable means of birth control will reduce the number of women who are constantly pregnant, reducing thier health risks as well as the number of children among whom resources must be divided.

    My wife and I planned all our children. We did not have a single baby when we didn't plan to have one. That is family planning. We did not have a single abortion. Why do you assume that family planning has to mean abortion? Why must people in other nations, poor people, be restricted from doing the same?

    These things, along with effective, safe, non-lethal means of birth control, will make a big difference in peoples lives. If we don't cut off all the money to make it happen.
     
  6. Jul 9, 2002 #26 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    No; it's more like this: Because I don't so far have any reason to blindly accept those figures as an accurate measurement of anything, anyone who immediately does, without further clarification, has to be gullible. Thanks for asking.

    Sorry to have to repeat myself, but you don't seem to be listening to me. Going after an unborn child solely to kill him or her is never medically necessary, warranted, or advisable. Pregnancy and childbirth are good and healthy things for married couples who want children, even for those living in poverty. Do you think people are too stupid to find any number of ways to stop having children if they really want to? Of course not. People choose to have children in poverty, often at least in part because their children increase the family's wealth over time. The number of people is not the problem. War, persecution, corruption, famine, and spreading of disease (mainly AIDS) by promiscuity are leading causes of death, which are all preventable, if we only try.

    I do not assume that family planning means abortion. If you'd just read my post more carefully, you could deduce that. Family planning means birth control. Abortion is not birth control.

    That's great, for you. Give poor people and poor nations some credit for being intelligent enough to solve their own problems, without having your prescription shoved down their throats. At least listen to what these people (street level) are saying they need. If you want to subsidize condoms so they're readily available all over the world, go right ahead. I'm dubious whether it will make any significant positive difference, but go ahead; send in your money to the UNFPA, earmarked specifically for condoms.

    I'm kinda neutral about the birth control, as you may have guessed by now. But, I'll continue to contribute monthly to help ensure that at least one child somewhere gets a fair chance and a decent education, and that his family also benefits. You can choose to invest some of your lucre in condoms for the world, if you prefer. I hear they make pretty darn good party balloons, anyway. :blush: :lol:
     
  7. Jul 9, 2002 #27 of 104
    Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Good News!!! Jesus is coming again! :angel::angel::angel:
     
  8. Jul 9, 2002 #28 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    RJS1111111, we seem to be talking past each other here. I don't want abortions to happen, you don't want abortions to happen. I thought I made it pretty clear that I wanted to find alternatives to abortion as a means of birth control. In case you missed it, let me repeat, ABORTION SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A MEANS OF BIRTH CONTROL. I think married couples should be able to have sex without necessarily having children as a result. You seem to think the more children married couples can have the better. You seem to think that we should 'let people and nations find their own solutions, without forcing ours down their throats.' Just what do you think I am forcing down peoples throats? You mention condoms several times, so is that what you assume I mean? I really am asking, I am not sure what you mean?
     
  9. Jul 9, 2002 #29 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Bogy, I agree that we seem to be talking past each other.
    (By the way, Chris, thanks for reminding us of the good news! :angel: )

    You might have picked up on the fact that I tend to cringe whenever I hear the words "abortion" and "necessary"
    used in the same sentence. Just a quirk of mine, I guess.
    You tried to make your position clear, but kept using that
    combination of words that makes me cringe!

    I don't frown upon married couples who choose to do their
    utmost not to have children, or to limit the number of children.
    That is a valid and reasonable choice for them. My stepdaughter
    just got married. She wants to go to medical school. She does not want to have children right away. That seems sensible
    to me, and I wish them well in their effort not to have children right now.

    Yes, I do think that children are a great gift to married couples
    (and single moms and dads) who have them. I will gladly
    admit to a bias or tendancy toward "the more the better".

    I don't think that you personally are trying to force anything
    down the throats of the poor. However, I am aware that the
    UNFPA and PPF smile, wink, and nod at coercion of all kinds,
    if it furthers their overriding agenda of population control.
    As with any misguided goal, their sincere efforts often have unintended consequences.

    As for condoms, what do you mean by "birth control" and
    "family planning", if not primarily condoms? I happen to
    think they are poignantly comical and useless items.
    As far as I can tell, they prevent sexual pleasure so much
    that they practically beg to be removed. Even if used
    scrupulously for their intended purpose, they can be relied
    upon only to ultimately fail in their mission to protect against
    pregnancy and/or AIDS.

    So, that's what I mean. Now, tell me what you meant, okay?
     
  10. Jul 10, 2002 #30 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    OK, first of all, if you had read a little closer you might have noticed that I had abortion and unnecessary in the same sentence. :D

    As far as what I mean by family planning and birth control, there are a lot of options. Now if your purpose is to control disease, such as HIV/AIDS, then a condom or other barrier method is going to be necessary. All of them require some advance planning and consistent use. Not always practical. If you are dealing with a monogamous couple (my personal favorite), then there are other options. Which ones you consider appropriate is also influenced by whether you need to totally keep the sperm and egg from ever getting acquainted, or if you would be comfortable with options like the pill. In that option the level of likelihood of the woman to maintain the regimen also has to be taken into account. Implantable varieties are also available.

    Again, my personal favorite, for a monogamous couple who have as many children as they want or can have is vasectomy. I can even speak to the issue of female mortality. After our third child, our Dr. stressed the fact that my wife had medical issues which would make another child extremely risky for her. Since she had already spent the last three months of that pregnancy in bed, we took him seriously. To be honest, thats all the children we wanted anyway. We decided that my procedure would be much less expensive and had fewer risks than for her. So I made the 'sacrifice.' Our sex life has never been better.

    My point is that there are alternatives. Unfortunately, in many cases the people participating in the riskiest sexual behavior are the least likely to use any kind of protection to guard against disease. Prostitutes and women married to men who are sexually promiscuous (much more common than the reverse), with either multiple wifes and/or mistresses and/or prostitutes.

    One of the best forms of birth control is education. Well, actually its not a form, but it is a motivator. Societies in which women are valued for more than their ability to bear children, where women are allowed to receive an education, have lower birth rates. Women delay childbearing until their education is complete, even if that is just receiving an eighth grade education. At least they don't begin having children until they are 14 or 15 instead of 11 or 12. With more education, they are also more likely to understand the importance and instructions on using birth control. Raising the education level of a nations population is really a key to a lot of good things happening.
     
  11. Jul 10, 2002 #31 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    You might be surprised to know that I've also recently had a vasectomy, after we were surprised to find out that we are now expecting our fourth boy. We aren't spring chickens anymore; we'll probably retire about the time boy #4 leaves home.

    You might also be interested to find out that we know about the birth control alternatives, and have probably tried all of the least onerous ones. This makes us weak candidates for conversion to Roman Catholicism. We have not been overly impressed with any of them, and they have clearly not been all that effective for us. One thing that is just about 100% effective at preventing another pregnancy is, well, pregnancy! And nursing a baby, for a while.
     
  12. Jul 10, 2002 #32 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I'm pretty sure we aren't going to have another baby around here until the grandkids start coming. Not only have I had a vasectomy, but my wife has now had a vaginal hysterectomy. We've got enough plumbing disconnected now, that if a baby shows up I expect a star and three wise men to show up soon after. :D
     
  13. Jul 10, 2002 #33 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    What would Jesus really do? (WWJRD?)

    Will the real Jesus please stand up? (WTRJPSU?)

    What on earth is the real Jesus really doing? (WOEITRJRD?)

    Jesus really judges correctly, does-he-not? (jrjcd ?)

    ;)
     
  14. Jul 31, 2002 #34 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: UNFPA Lies in Response to Friday Fax Readers
    Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 3:06:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
    From: "Austin Ruse -- C-FAM"<c-fam@c-fam.org>
    To: user@domain
    Reply-To: austinruse@c-fam.org
    Sent from the Internet (Details)




    July 30, 2002

    Dear Colleague,

    On June 28, the Friday Fax reported that, in an effort to bolster its own
    reputation, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and its US political allies had
    highlighted its association with the Roman Catholic Church in Kenya.
    Friday Fax readers of all faiths took action in response to this news,
    sending e-mails of protest directly to UNFPA.

    UNFPA appears to have been inundated with e-mails. In the face of this
    substantial criticism, UNFPA Chief of Media Services Alexander Marshall
    sent out a detailed response. The letter is permeated with half-truths and
    mistruths.

    The UNFPA letter states that: "A question was raised about our programme
    in China. It has been answered, not once but three times: by a commission
    appointed by UNFPA; by a group of British Members of Parliament
    representing all points of view, and now by a commission appointed by the
    White House itself." The implication of this statement is that the three
    investigations found no coercion within UNFPA-funded counties. This is not
    true.

    · The UNFPA team claimed that it saw no evidence of coercion. However, the
    team was accompanied by Chinese government officials at all times. The
    UNFPA team did not speak to a single Chinese woman outside of the presence
    of Chinese officials. Therefore, the UNFPA findings cannot be considered
    authoritative.

    · The British team did find evidence of coercion within the UNFPA-funded
    counties, specifically noting that large fines are placed upon Chinese
    women who break family planning laws: "…citizens still have to pay a
    'social compensation' payment if they have more than one or two
    children…Chinese officials confirmed that the compensation payment is set
    at a level which most families would find extremely difficult to pay. It
    therefore acts as a pretty powerful incentive to conform. This is a form
    of coercion."

    · The US team also noted the continued existence of social compensation
    fees, often as high as three years worth of family income. According to
    Secretary of State Colin Powell, such "crushing fines" constitute a
    "program of coercive abortion" since they "have the purpose or effect of
    forcing mothers to have abortions." Most importantly, Powell concludes
    that UNFPA aids in this program of forced abortions: "UNFPA is helping
    improve the administration of the local family planning offices that are
    administering the very social compensation fee and other penalties that
    are effectively coercing women to have abortions." Powell goes on to say
    that UNFPA provides equipment to coercive family planning offices, and
    that "In the context of the PRC [People's Republic of China], supplying
    equipment to the very agencies that employ coercive practices amounts to
    support or participation in the management of the program." Thus, it is
    the official position of the US government that UNFPA supports forced
    abortion in China.

    The UNFPA letter states that: "All our programmes are consistent with
    national sovereignty and international human rights standards." This is
    also untrue.

    · UNFPA has been involved in the Chinese "One-Child Policy" since its
    inception in the 1970s, a policy which has resulted in over 100 million
    forced abortions and sterilizations. UNFPA has provided over $170 million
    to the Chinese for the "One-Child Policy" and, for over a decade,
    routinely praised China's policy and denied the existence of coercion in
    the Western media.

    · During the 1990s, then-President Alberto Fujimori established a crash
    sterilization drive, resulting in the sterilization of over 200,000
    Peruvian women. According to a recent Peruvian government report, 90 per
    cent of women were pressured or tricked into having this operation. The
    report also makes it clear that UNFPA provided millions of dollars of
    funding and essential technical expertise for this program: "the United
    Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), known for its support of population
    control in developing countries, took charge. For that end, the United
    Nations Population Fund act[ed] as Technical Secretary."

    The UNFPA letter asserts that: "To be quite clear: we do not support or
    promote abortion, in any country."

    · UNFPA's promotion of abortion is not limited to China. UNFPA has
    distributed early abortion devices, called manual vacuum aspirators, in
    many refugee and crisis situations. While these devices have some
    legitimate medical uses, UNFPA's nongovernmental partners, like
    International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and the International Women's
    Health Coalition (IWHC), promote the use of manual vacuum aspirators for
    early abortions, especially where abortion is against the law.

    · UNFPA also widely distributes intrauterine devices (IUDs) and what it
    calls emergency contraceptives (or morning after pills). UNFPA claims that
    these are contraceptives, even though both destroy already-conceived human
    embryos, and are thus abortifacient in nature.

    The UNFPA letter asserts that: "We do not espouse 'population control', or
    in fact any ideology about population."

    · However, the report of the Peruvian government claims that UNFPA
    "brought not only special financing but also demographic goals, for the
    focalized reduction of the Peruvian population…"

    · UNFPA was founded in 1969 to coordinate United Nations population
    control programs. It often measures the success of its country programs by
    the decline in women's fertility rates.

    This is only a partial account of the activities of UNFPA that have
    promoted abortion and constituted violations of international human rights
    guidelines. Many other examples can be found in the Friday Fax archives on
    the C-FAM website, c-fam.org. This should be enough, however, to establish
    the complicity of UNFPA in some of the world's worst population control
    programs.

    Yours sincerely,

    Austin Ruse
    President
    Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
    (C-FAM)


    ---
    You are currently subscribed to fridayfax as: user@domain
    To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:leave-fridayfax-5324583V@lists.c-fam.org
     
  15. Jul 31, 2002 #35 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Now that W has acted to make his socially Conservative base happy, we can see the number of abortions rise, as women in coercive countries have no other choice. Good work George.
     
  16. Jul 31, 2002 #36 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Haven't you heard? The EU plans to make up the shortfall in UNFPA funding. So coercive programs will be able to continue without a hitch. The choice for women (and men) in coercive countries in any case amounts to either doing whatever you're told to do, or suffering the consequences. Can't you understand that these people want children so much that they are willing to take the risk, but if they get caught pregnant with an "illegal" child, they are forced by their government (with UNFPA encouragement) to allow that child to be killed? That is a monstrous policy that no one should ever have to live under. Cutting off UNFPA funding (if it hadn't been offset by the EU) would have at least provided some kind of deterrent to that kind of policy. The decision was one of the few Pres. Bush has made lately that I commend and respect him for.
     
  17. Aug 3, 2002 #37 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: [infonet-list] China's Population Control Program Not Needed
    Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 3:41:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
    From: Steven Ertelt <ertelt@prolifeinfo.org>
    To: Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Sent from the Internet (Details)
    --------------------
    From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Subject: China's Population Control Program Not Needed
    Source: National Post; July 31, 2002

    China's Population Control Program Not Needed

    [Pro-Life Infonet Note: The following is an editorial column published in
    the National Post, a prominent Canadian newspaper.]

    Officials in the Chinese province of Guangdong have just increased fines
    for couples daring to violate Beijing's "one-child" policy to a sum eight
    times their annual income. Since the 1970s, when laws restricting
    childbirth were introduced, the Communist authorities have striven to
    restrict China's population to 1.6 billion by 2050. In the last two decades
    alone, say Chinese officials, some 330 million births have been
    "prevented." In many cases, this has been achieved by dint of forced
    abortion and involuntary sterilization. Indeed, after receiving reports
    that the UN Fund for Population Activities was helping to coerce women into
    aborting fetuses in Guangdong, U.S. President George W. Bush recently
    withdrew funding for the agency. Outrage from predictable quarters in the
    West was summed up in a headline that read, "Bush Denies Women Health Care,
    Human Rights." But no democracy that cares about human rights should be
    contributing to a population program that includes the sort of barbarities
    endorsed by Beijing.

    Advocates of population control skirt around the human cost of China's
    one-child policy by arguing that without such measures the Earth's
    population would become a Malthusian dystopia. As the world's most populous
    nation, with just 7% of the world's arable land, proponents of this view
    argue, China is obliged to take serious steps to limit expansion. But this
    dreadful scenario is wholly at odds with reality. Ever since Paul Ehrlich
    published his bestselling book, The Population Bomb, in 1968 -- or, going
    back still further, the theories of Thomas Malthus -- doomsday population
    theorists have been consistently wrong.

    According to 1998 UN figures, in no fewer than 61 countries (comprising 44%
    of the world's population) the total fertility rate -- i.e., the average
    number of children women bear during their lifetime -- is below the level
    needed for population replacement. In another 34, the rates are barely
    above that minimum, and are rapidly declining. Indeed, the UN believes the
    world's population will probably rise to between 7.3 billion and 8.9
    billion before levelling off.

    In their determination to defuse a non-existent population bomb,
    controllers have consistently ignored the immense impact of new technology
    on agricultural yields (a revolution that will continue with the
    introduction of genetically modified crops), the human ability to
    anticipate the future and alter current behaviour accordingly, the amazing
    decline in child mortality, the equally amazing increase in average
    longevity, rising standards of living, and the pervasive influence of
    Western notions of child-rearing and women's roles.

    China's one-child policy, in other words, is a product of discredited 1970s
    ideology and should be junked. Already, the policy has caused immense
    damage to China's future population growth and economic prospects by
    producing a surplus of 120 million boys. Fully 97% of all abortions --
    ordered by Orwellian "Birth Control Committees" -- are of girls.

    It is telling that Western liberals protest more about Mr. Bush's decision
    to cut off funding than they do about China's population-control policies.
    If "the right to choose" is to mean anything, it must encompass the right
    to have a baby, not just to have an abortion.

    --
    When using items from the Pro-Life Infonet in your newsletter, please
    include our web site (www.prolifeinfo.org) or email address
    (infonet@prolifeinfo.org). Thanks!
     
  18. Aug 3, 2002 #38 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Can't you understand that people want to have sex so much that they are willing to take the risk? What they need is birth control, other than abortion. And don't forget that what they want is not so much A child, but a male child. Certainly you didn't miss the fact that most of the abortions would have been girls?
     
  19. Aug 3, 2002 #39 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    This is a very shortsighted, rose-colored view of the future. For the past few years earth's population has used more of the earth's resources than the earth is able to renew. The trend to lower population growth, and possible future decline in population is a good sign, but its a little early to declare victory. What it means is that efforts to reduce population figures need to continue for some years to come. Now I would certainly hope that abortion would not be the means to accomplish the goal. Education is a much better tool. In countries where the education level rises, especially the education level of women, birth rates go down. But we must continue to lower birth rates or develop feasible space flight to send the excess somewhere else.

    I somehow think it is more productive to protest the actions of our own leaders, rather than the leaders of other nations. I would rather continue to be an influence in nations like China, rather than to take a policy in which we only establish a presence when they live up to our expectations. Thank God Jesus didn't take that attitude.
     
  20. Aug 4, 2002 #40 of 104
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    This harks backs to the core problem facing the Earth, overpopulation and the apparent apathy with which we approach it. Regardless of how draconian, China has at least recognized the problem and taken steps to address it. It is for this reason that India, influenced by the likes of Mother Teresa, will soon surpass China for the dubious title of most-populous country, if it hasn't already. Human population is facing a brick wall bottleneck in this century. How many of us or our decendents(if any) will make it through is debatable. The most optimistic estimates are that by no later then 2070, the demand for food, energy and other resources will outstrip our ability to find and rip them from the Earth any longer. The scenarios of Mad Max, Terminator and even Soylent Green will cease to be science fiction as the frenzied scramble for survival grips the planet.

    Unfortunately, big business and big religion are not anxious to deal with the prospect of smaller markets. So the US and western powers are positioning themselves to be the ones in control of the mostest for the longest. No second or third world country is capable of resisting. Any resisting too vehemently will find themselves with a quick regime change more amenable to Exxon, Anaconda Copper and Archer Daniels Midland. At best, if their resources are minimally valuable, they can expect to be economically isolated.

    So the west, especially the US, will continue hell bent for leather to acquire and burn up as much resources as is humanly possible(humanly used advisedly). Despite what Dubbya would have us believe, freedom and democracy don't necessarily include cheap fuel for SUVs, junk food and destabilization of countries who hesitate to provide the necessary resources. The answer to terrorism is NOT increased consumption, that is simply the answer to Junior's re-election. Americans and Europeans are not the only people on the globe and despite our reluctance to acknowledge it, there is a simmering resentment and growing hatred of our cavalier attitudes amongst the "others". Perhaps we need better PR?:rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page