So no matter what happens in Massachusetts tomorrow..

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

NO. The move into Iraq was all about the future, as we will see in coming years.

It's hard to help societies to become stable in unstable regions. The big problem wasn't little backward Afghanistan, it was Saddams Iraq.

No the move into Iraq was about corporate profits and has nothing to do with the party based belief that progress is a threat to them.
The right wing extreme would have us in the 19th century in perpetuity.

[piece-itpete]

It's part of the natural progression to the NWO. 1st we straightened out western Europe, then SA Asia, keep an eye on South and Central America, took care of the mighty USSR and so Eastern Europe, jackasses in the ME let us be attacked repeatedly, they couldn't keep their own house in order so there we are.

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It's part of the natural progression to the NWO. 1st we straightened out western Europe, then SA Asia, keep an eye on South and Central America, took care of the mighty USSR and so Eastern Europe, jackasses in the ME let us be attacked repeatedly, they couldn't keep their own house in order so there we are.

Pete

Good Lord, someone get me a shovel, come on Pete you really don't believe that bullshit any more than I do.

Straightened out Western Europe? So the British, Canadian Polish, and Free French had nowt to do with the outcome of WW II? Feh.

In SE Asia we got our arse kicked.

Oh yeah we preserved south and central America for the United Fruit Company.

Gorbachev did as much or more changing the mighty USSR.

Yeah so we attack the right country in the ME, screw that up then hit one that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Ay Dios mio.

[piece-itpete]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Rob

Although I do want to say I don't want to underrate the allies contributions to ww2 and the NWO (which I don't like btw).

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Rob

Although I do want to say I don't want to underrate the allies contributions to ww2 and the NWO (which I don't like btw).

Pete

Pete, forgive me for being slow today, but I thought I read you supporting the invasion of Iraq as continuing development of a NWO, and then you just said that you don't like the NWO. The question is not whether I am missing something, but how much am I missing here in trying to understand this.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

The NWO is a myth.

[piece-itpete]

I use it as shorthand for the nwo (small letters), you could almost say it's the G8 (or G9 or whatever it is now).

The upper class throughout the developed world is very close now.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Whoops sorry D.

I'm conflicted. One of the things I've seen throughout history is that, consolidating power eventually leads to improved living for regular folks.

I've also seen that once consolidated it often ends up in the wrong hands that hurts regular folks (but almost always leads upward over time).

I also believe that the serpent is being brought to a head.

Pete

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Not sure what you mean. Bering environmentally friendly has no down side under any circumstance that I can think of.

I guess it depends on how you define "environmentally friendly".

On the Lumber and construction material side of the coin, LEEDS and FSC is a bit of a joke when you really break it down. Once again, a good idea that has expanded into a lot about nothing but costing people thousands in additional home construction costs for no other reason than to support a created industry.

We can tilt at windmills all we like but maybe littering the countryside with them is not where we should be focusing our efforts ($'s) to solve our energy needs. Green yes, but not practical overall. If huge amounts of taxpayer dollars were not available in the form of subsidies and carbon credits, the focus would be in another direction IMO. The other direction may or may not be any more productive but if there if the financial gains in a different area, they would be all about that I believe.

If something can't stand on it's own merit, I tend to question it's validity in real application. Ethanol comes to mind. I'm not at all implying you are saying it, but to say "Well, it may not be effective overall and a huge financial suckhole but at least we are trying. I feel better just knowing we are trying" just doesn't cut it for me.

To summarize: Green is good as long as it's not built on a house of cards. And very costly cards at that.

RC

[d-ray657]

With respect to the value of environmentally friendly technology. Quite a bit of useful technology or other products came out of the space program - Tang and velcro among the more visible. Similarly, there have been viable products arise from technology developed for the military - GPS for example. The space program was in large part, one of the fronts sin the Cold War. The point - the subsidies paid in the form of a defense budget resulted in commercially viable products There is no telling whether these products would have been developed and made commercially viable without the huge amounts spent on the military.

If the scientists are right that environmental issues significantly threaten our way of life, would not the development of technology and products that reduce the degradation of the environment carry the moral equivalent of war? Invest in the technology and commit sufficient resources to R&D that commercially viable/ environmentally safe products are a regular part of the market.

How many holes does this bucket have in it?

Regards,

D-Ray