Obama shows sense of realism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Just roll over? No, first you should ask yourself if it's all worth it and what's in there for you. What is there really for the US in the Middle East and the Muslim world that makes all this worthwhile?

---

As much of a distaste as it is for many, what makes it all worthwhile is oil. If the US pulls out of the region, an all too likely scenario would be that either widespread regional conflicts would erupt and/or fundamentalists would gain control of more countries. They would then be in a position to dictate oil prices to the world. And like it or not, that would send all of our economies into a tailspin that would make last year's financial crisis look tame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Where's the line between what you define as paranoia, and due dilligence?

---

The Patriot Act is born of paranoia; the mass panic that set in during that Air Force One photoshoot was born of paranoia; measures such as not allowing people to take their own bags on to US military bases hosting open days are born of paranoia; attempts in the UK to extend the period for which terrorist suspects can be detained are born of paranoia; many of the measures aimed at improving airport security are born both of paranoia and an unwillingness to invest in sufficient infrastructure; the shooting dead of an innocent Brazilian electrician was born of paranoia; and so on, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

As much of a distaste as it is for many, what makes it all worthwhile is oil. If the US pulls out of the region, an all too likely scenario would be that either widespread regional conflicts would erupt and/or fundamentalists would gain control of more countries. They would then be in a position to dictate oil prices to the world. And like it or not, that would send all of our economies into a tailspin that would make last year's financial crisis look tame.

---

Another reason to develop more green technologies and cut our dependance from oil. Far better that more wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

As much of a distaste as it is for many, what makes it all worthwhile is oil. If the US pulls out of the region, an all too likely scenario would be that either widespread regional conflicts would erupt and/or fundamentalists would gain control of more countries. They would then be in a position to dictate oil prices to the world. And like it or not, that would send all of our economies into a tailspin that would make last year's financial crisis look tame.

---

More likely they'd be willing to sell their oil for the market price, especially if there's enough competition. BTW, the war in Afghanistan has mainly lowered the price of opium and heroin, since the Taliban is not burning down the poppy fields anymore as much as they used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1boat

Another reason to develop more green technologies and cut our dependance from oil. Far better that more wars.

---

Sure I'm all for green tech. Unfortunately, none show much promise economically. If they did they would have taken off by now. If you can develop something that will generate as much, if not more, power than oil/coal, and do it just as reliably then you will be a very rich man. But nothing currently can do that other than nuke power, and that has a stigma placed on it that has so tainted it that I doubt we will ever fully expoit it's potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

More likely they'd be willing to sell their oil for the market price, especially if there's enough competition. BTW, the war in Afghanistan has mainly lowered the price of opium and heroin, since the Taliban is not burning down the poppy fields anymore as much as they used to be.

---

That's just it, they will pretty much control the market, and as such will be able to dictate prices.

Your heroin example is perfect. There is more supply of poppy now because no one is really controling it effectively. Therefore the laws of supply and demand work. But if fundamentalists control the oil fields, they will constrict supply, and drive up the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Sure I'm all for green tech. Unfortunately, none show much promise economically. If they did they would have taken off by now. If you can develop something that will generate as much, if not more, power than oil/coal, and do it just as reliably then you will be a very rich man. But nothing currently can do that other than nuke power, and that has a stigma placed on it that has so tainted it that I doubt we will ever fully expoit it's potential.

---

New technology cannot gather critical mass as long as old technology is much cheaper. But if it gets the critical mass, it'll get much cheaper and economically viable. Just look at how expensive digital electronics was 20 or 30 years ago and how cheap it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

New technology cannot gather critical mass as long as old technology is much cheaper. But if it gets the critical mass, it'll get much cheaper and economically viable. Just look at how expensive digital electronics was 20 or 30 years ago and how cheap it is now.

---

Ok, but how long have we been working on green tech now? At least since the gas embargos back in the 70's on one level or another.

Like I said, I'm all for new green tech. It's just that it has yet to demonstrate the reliability or economic bennifit. The day I see something that looks promising is the day I jump on board with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But nothing currently can do that other than nuke power, and that has a stigma placed on it that has so tainted it that I doubt we will ever fully expoit it's potential.

---

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

As for Dex's feeling you understand the Russians better than those of us in the US and Canada, maybe on some level you do. The point is, from a far, the Russians had about a 10 year window where they took on true democratic ideals and tried them on for size. Then Putin came along...and people who question him end up dead. People who assumed the mantle of a free and open press. Any time you show me a leader who will manipulate and oppress free speech, I show you a tyrant in the making, and those people, I would be REAL careful about trusting...

---

I think you understand this issue far better than most Finns. Or let's say better than our 200 members of parlament :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

---

100% agree on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.F.F.

I think you understand this issue far better than most Finns. Or let's say better than our 200 members of parlament :up:

---

You'd be the first Finn on this forum to agree with me. Eki seems to think the Russians are benign...but then again I have yet him to really get serious about condemning anyone but the US and George W Bush for anything...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

---

VERY true...I can agree with this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You'd be the first Finn on this forum to agree with me. Eki seems to think the Russians are benign...but then again I have yet him to really get serious about condemning anyone but the US and George W Bush for anything...

---

But A.F.F. is an old fascist who still dreams about the Great Finland ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

But A.F.F. is an old fascist who still dreams about the Great Finland ;)

---

AFF has been in the Sauna too long

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

But A.F.F. is an old fascist who still dreams about the Great Finland ;)

---

A country which has drivers like Hakkinen and Raikkonen is great in my opinion :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1boat

A country which has drivers like Hakkinen and Raikkonen is great in my opinion :-)

---

Yes, but I was talking about size, not quality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Finland

Quote:

---

Greater Finland (Finnish: Suur-Suomi) was an idea which was born in some irredentist movements emphasizing pan-Finnicism and expressed a Finnish version of pre-World War II European nationalism. It was imagined to include Finland as well as territories inhabited by ethnically-related Finnic peoples: Finns, Karelians, Estonians, Ingrians, and Kvens. The Greater Finland idea gained dramatically in popularity and influence in 1917, and lost its ground and support after World War II and the Continuation War.
The most coined version of "Greater Finland" was thought to be limited by so-called natural borders encompassing the territories inhabited by Finns and Karelians, ranging from the White Sea to Lake Onega and along River Svir and River Neva – or, more modestly, River Sestra – to the Gulf of Finland. Some proponents also included Ingria, Estonia, northern Finnmark, and the Torne Valley.
In some utopian or humorous mind-sets the most extended Greater Finland included the entire area from the Gulf of Bothnia to the Ural Mountains and even beyond to the areas of western Siberia, where some Uralic speakers live also today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

---

That has been the story with many technologies down the years, initial problems leading to a complete abandonment when the principles are completely sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

But A.F.F. is an old fascist who still dreams about the Great Finland ;)

---

Very true. Finland to the Finns. I'd lock the borders. You may visit here but pretty please, and sugar on the top, don't stay too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

That has been the story with many technologies down the years, initial problems leading to a complete abandonment when the principles are completely sound.

---

That was why people forgot about electric cars. Gasoline cars were much faster and more efficient, but the technology of electric cars was sound in that it was still worth more research than the auto industry gave it. That said, they gained a lot more with gas and diesel.....so I cant fault them really entirely...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.F.F.

Very true. Finland to the Finns. I'd lock the borders. You may visit here but pretty please, and sugar on the top, don't stay too long.

---

so spoketh Another Freekin Fousto :laugh: :laugh: :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The UN resolutions should have been enforced by the embargo if there was proof it was working and Iraq was getting out of the WMD business, but it was clear he wanted everyone to think he was up so something; but with Bush looking for possibilities with regimes with WMD's and sympathy for Al Quaida, playing poker with nothing in your hand was a bad strategy.

---

You know very well that there was a UN security council meeting to decide on further action on Iraq and its WMDs, the meeting that Colin Powell gave a speech at. An agreement then to go to war would have given the invasion legitimacy via the UN that you claim they had.

They didn't give the go ahead did they, remember?

The interpretation that actually, that resolution to go to war wasn't necessary was made retrospectively by Bush/Blair once the US and Britain failed to pass the resolution.

Rewriting history and then condescending those who remember the real version doesn't work very well Mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

---

Agreed, and thats part of the problem facing the UK at the moment, loads of nuclear and coal power stations are coming to the end of their lives and need to be replaced. Blair and Brown wanted to use more green sources until they realised the cost and reliability issues, stalled on nuclear till its too late so that any new ones can't be commissioned before the old ones go out of use. They can't use more coal for fear of being seen to perform a U-turn and gas isn't good because the Russians like to turn the tap off every once in a while. At least Brown has finally had the balls to give the green light to all those reactors last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

so spoketh Another Freekin Fousto :laugh: :laugh: :up:

---

Great minds think alike ;)

What a fitting thread title, it seems to fit some of the sentiments Obama made clear to the U.N.

UNITED NATIONS — President Barack Obama bluntly prodded world leaders Wednesday to join the U.S. in solving pressing global problems, challenging them to move beyond "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism which, too often, has served as an excuse for collective inaction."

...and....

"Make no mistake: This cannot be solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone."


I can only assume the sense of realism that many others here saw will now be dismissed quickly. :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

"Make no mistake: This cannot be solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone."

---

I have no problem with working together WITH America, as long as it doesn't mean working FOR America where America makes all the decisions and others do as America tells them to do. That was the attitude of the Bush administration and Bush put into nutshell in his brain fart "You're either with us or against us".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

I have no problem with working together WITH America, as long as it doesn't mean working FOR America where America makes all the decisions and others do as America tells them to do. That was the attitude of the Bush administration and Bush put into nutshell in his brain fart "You're either with us or against us".

---

Absolutely right. The 'with us or against us' statement remains one of the most outrageous things said by the leader of a Western democracy in recent times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

I have no problem with working together WITH America, as long as it doesn't mean working FOR America where America makes all the decisions and others do as America tells them to do. That was the attitude of the Bush administration and Bush put into nutshell in his brain fart "You're either with us or against us".

---

Your definitions of the words "with" and "for" seem to be quite fluid depending upon who the other party is. Soviets or Americans appear to have different motives in your eyes somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Your definitions of the words "with" and "for" seem to be quite fluid depending upon who the other party is. Soviets or Americans appear to have different motives in your eyes somehow.

---

Not at all. I'm also willing to work with the Russians (or the Soviets in the past) but not work for them. I expect mutual benefits in any cooperation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Not at all. I'm also willing to work with the Russians (or the Soviets in the past) but not work for them. I expect mutual benefits in any cooperation.

---

See that's just it Eki. Some would say that the Russians (or Soviets) were dictating to Finland. Yet you seem to think you were working for them. It's the oposite with the US. For someone that is always talking about "seeing both sides" you sure don't seem to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

See that's just it Eki. Some would say that the Russians (or Soviets) were dictating to Finland.

---

Which one went bankrupt in 1991 and which one was one of the wealthiest countries in the world? Which one owed billions of dollars to the other one, so that Russia only few years ago managed to pay off the debt? I think it's safe to say that after WW2 Finland benefited more from the Soviet Union than the other way around.

Some might even say that the US was dictating Finland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIR_(submersible)

Quote:

---

Production of the two MIR units was a prime example of Finnish-Soviet economic and technical co-operation during the Cold War. Bids from Canada, France and Sweden to construct the submarines had been retracted most likely due to political pressure. In a later interview with STT the then Rauma-Repola department head Peter Laxell said he believed that "Finland got the permit to deliver the crafts to the Soviets on the basis that the CoCom officials in the USA believed the project would be a failure . . . Once it became clear to them we actually had accomplished the engineering feat there was a huge uproar about how such technology could be sold to the Soviets, enough for many visits to the Pentagon.". [3]
Because of the CoCom restrictions, most of the technology used had to be developed in Finland. The electronics was developed by Hollming. The syntactic foam was produced in Finland by Exel Oyj, as 3M, the leading producer, refused to supply their product.[1]
The level of technology flowing into the Soviet Union raised concern in the USA and Rauma-Repola was privately threatened with economic sanctions. For example, one concern of the Pentagon was the possibility that the Soviet Union would manufacture a pioneer submarine fleet that could clear the ocean floor of U.S. deep sea listening equipment[1]. With the possibility of losing its lucrative offshore oil platforms market Rauma-Repola yielded, and submarine development ceased in Finland. One project that was abandoned was the development of a fuel cell based air-independent propulsion system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Which one went bankrupt in 1991 and which one was one of the wealthiest countries in the world? Which one owed billions of dollars to the other one, so that Russia only few years ago managed to pay off the debt? I think it's safe to say that after WW2 Finland benefited more from the Soviet Union than the other way around.

Some might even say that the US was dictating Finland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIR_(submersible)

---

Don't kid yourself (although I'm sure you will), there were strong arm tactics going both was Soviet-Finland and US-Finland. For a multitude of reasons Finland decided to "cave" to the Soviet demands. And yes Finland did benift from their arrangements. Do you think they wouldn't have benifited from an arangement with the US? Of course you won't ever be able to see that through your biased glasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

For a multitude of reasons Finland decided to "cave" to the Soviet demands.

---

Finland also decided to "cave" to the US demands, as you can see from the example I gave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Finland also decided to "cave" to the US demands, as you can see from the example I gave.

---

Of course. Do you have a point? Other than your usual "the US is bad"?

Actually the "with us or against us" statement I believe was directed at the axis of evil, which proves to be a pretty correct statement. I think we have usually been will to work with the EU on a bilateral basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Of course. Do you have a point? Other than your usual "the US is bad"?

---

Actually, it's "the US isn't as good as it pretends to be".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

Actually the "with us or against us" statement I believe was directed at the axis of evil, which proves to be a pretty correct statement. I think we have usually been will to work with the EU on a bilateral basis.

---

I believe it was directed at everyone. Cheney personally threatened Hans Blix trying to push him to find something incriminating on Iraq, and the Bush administration threatened their allies to join the coalition:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032201020.html

Quote:

---

U.S. Pushed Allies on Iraq, Diplomat Writes
Chilean Envoy to U.N. Recounts Threats of Retaliation in Run-Up to Invasion

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 23, 2008

UNITED NATIONS -- In the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pressed for the recall of U.N. envoys that resisted U.S. pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.

The rough-and-tumble diplomatic strategy has generated lasting "bitterness" and "deep mistrust" in Washington's relations with allies in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, Heraldo Mu¿oz, Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, writes in his book "A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons," set for publication next month.

---

Well based on those statements there is no reason to try and move forward. So bring home the troops - close the bases - cut all foreign aid - seal the borders and print more money!! Expel the UN from NY - close all embassies -


But better yet just look at our embarrassing president. Standing up in front of the world advocating a ban and disarmerment of all Nukes. When he knows full well that there is not way in hell you could ever police this. He should keep his mouth shut until he can provide the details of the solution. I will be surprised if this president makes it through his first term without getting thrown out. But I can tell you one thing. The elections in 2010 will get the white house back to the repubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

What a fitting thread title, it seems to fit some of the sentiments Obama made clear to the U.N.

UNITED NATIONS — President Barack Obama bluntly prodded world leaders Wednesday to join the U.S. in solving pressing global problems, challenging them to move beyond "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism which, too often, has served as an excuse for collective inaction."

...and....

"Make no mistake: This cannot be solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone."


I can only assume the sense of realism that many others here saw will now be dismissed quickly. :laugh:

---

America has never solved any of the worlds problems, so he needs to retract that statement..Mind you no country has ever solved any world problem, they seem to make it worse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

But I can tell you one thing. The elections in 2010 will get the white house back to the repubs.

---

Yes will be good to have a right wing, bible thumping loony back in again :rolleyes: