Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
In this Catholic area, 2-3-4 kids seems to be typical, but 6 or more isn't unheard of. I would have a difficult time labeling any of those women anything less then empowered. Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA inc. Zeke Yewdall wrote: On 8/16/07, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the evidence shows that as people's economic situation improves, as soon as they're not too poverty-stricken to feed their children, their breeding rate slows right down. The surefire way to do that is to empower the women, and especially to educate the women. Statistically, this probably is true. But in my experience, portions of the US are not doing very well at this. The Mormon church in Utah (about 60 of my relatives) still seems to be averaging 4 or more children per family, even in good economic situations. True, this is way less than alot of the developing world, but still way higher than most of the developed world. I'm not as familiar with the evangelical movement in the US, but I get them impression that empowering women is not a high priority of theirs either. Z ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
It now becomes clear, Bush was right on the money. There are weapons of mass destruction and they are still being developed and deployed. The developing countries are following the path of the developed world and mass producing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants with technology we all know we should no longer be using. As their ability to afford more and consume increases, their medical systems improve their population will boom, compounding the effect. Have we as a species, reached or exceeded the sustainable population for our planet? We see the depletion of natural resources, in our lifetime, like no other. We see politicians promoting profit by population growth like there are no limits. We are biological, living on this space bound bubble, limited in resources, limits disregarded by financial models, by which politicians and corporations live. Time to get your heads out of the sand. Decisions made now, in our lifetime will determine the future for our children (and perhaps ourselves if change is rapid). Commerce is just as finite as our natural resources. We should be looking at a sustainable market, we should make long life products, durable, repairable and upgradeable/ extensible. We consumers should expect and demand these criteria, too much is disposable in just a few years. We do not want to follow the example of bacteria/moulds/yeasts/ rodents, boom and bust. The devastation of millions of dead/dying people fighting each other for the few remaining resources. Lee ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
Hello Lee It now becomes clear, Bush was right on the money. There are weapons of mass destruction and they are still being developed and deployed. US nuclear weapons being the main example, and I guess the 190,000 guns the US lost in Iraq would also qualify, in sheer number if not in scale, especially when it emerges that the holy US military shoots 250,000 bullets for every alleged insurgent they kill. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2146645,00.html Oh well. At least losing all those AK-47s builds a market Saturday August 11, 2007 The Guardian http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - Independent Online Edition Americas 26 July 2007 But I get your meaning. It's just that if you're looking for WMDs and people who're ready to use them it's long been the case that Washington's the first place to look. In fact that applies to your meaning for the term here too, the world capital of dangerous and rash behaviour is Washington. The developing countries are following the path of the developed world I don't think so. Some of them are, but even then it's only in part. India is an industrialised nation but it's also an agrarian society, and a traditional one, with its own values that don't necessarily just collapse into those of California wannabes as soon as they see some Golden Arches and a bottle of Coke. Just as often there's active resistance. To say that their most powerful members, India, China, Brazil and South Africa, are following the path of the developed world would be a gross simplification. And developed is a very questionable definition, almost Orwellian. Blind addiction to self-destructive and generally destructive behaviour is not exactly developed. Better to call them the industrialised nations. Anyway the world isn't really made up of nations, that's just a state of mind, a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism. Useful for rulers. and mass producing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants with technology we all know we should no longer be using. As their ability to afford more and consume increases, their medical systems improve their population will boom, compounding the effect. On the contrary, the evidence shows that as people's economic situation improves, as soon as they're not too poverty-stricken to feed their children, their breeding rate slows right down. The surefire way to do that is to empower the women, and especially to educate the women. But the usual wealth creation method of improving people's economic situation generally just extracts wealth, removes it and concentrates it in the hands of the few, leaving more poverty in its wake. There are better ways. Have we as a species, reached or exceeded the sustainable population for our planet? It depends how big your feet are. I said this here the other day: ... There is NO shortage of food, and there is NO shortage of money, in fact there's more of both, PER CAPITA, than there's ever been before. Nor is the human eco-footprint outsized, except for some of it, which - surprise! - you'll find in exactly the same places where you'll find all the money, all the food, and all the silly ideas too that we're a cancer on the face of the planet and a few billion of us are just going to have to die, pity, but at least it's not us because we're not poor and starving. I lifted that from here: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg57949.html Re: [Biofuel] Overpopulation Off Limits? Overpopulation is a myth, quite an obnoxious one actually. We see the depletion of natural resources, in our lifetime, like no other. Is that because of human overpopulation, or because some nations are addicted to over-consumption and waste, extracting, consuming and wasting a vastly disproportionate and inequitable share of the world's resources? With 5% of the population consuming 25% of the world's energy supply and emitting a third of the greenhouse gases, the US is way out in front when it comes to over-consumption and waste, especially of other people's resources. But all the industrialised nations are included in that, and you also have to include the elites in the other countries, even when that country's overall footprint is small - and you have to exclude the very large and rapidly growing number of poor people in the US, for instance. So it emerges that the depletion of natural resources and the various other impending disasters which are obviously unsustainable are due to a particular sector of the human community, which is not even close to a majority. How can over-population be the problem then? When you examine this culprit sector more closely, what you find isn't a human community, it's mainly the corporate sector, with its dependent political and government sectors, armed with a
Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
I'm surprised and disappointed at this. It's totally false and misleading. The US has NEVER lost AK-47's in Iraq. We lose much better weapons. AK-47's are junk compared to the hardware WE'VE lost track off. If you're going to just fling around anti-Americanism, PLEASE get the facts straight. Jeez, -'Merika Keith Addison wrote: Hello Lee It now becomes clear, Bush was right on the money. There are weapons of mass destruction and they are still being developed and deployed. US nuclear weapons being the main example, and I guess the 190,000 guns the US lost in Iraq would also qualify, in sheer number if not in scale, especially when it emerges that the holy US military shoots 250,000 bullets for every alleged insurgent they kill. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2146645,00.html Oh well. At least losing all those AK-47s builds a market Saturday August 11, 2007 The Guardian http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - Independent Online Edition Americas 26 July 2007 But I get your meaning. It's just that if you're looking for WMDs and people who're ready to use them it's long been the case that Washington's the first place to look. In fact that applies to your meaning for the term here too, the world capital of dangerous and rash behaviour is Washington. The developing countries are following the path of the developed world I don't think so. Some of them are, but even then it's only in part. India is an industrialised nation but it's also an agrarian society, and a traditional one, with its own values that don't necessarily just collapse into those of California wannabes as soon as they see some Golden Arches and a bottle of Coke. Just as often there's active resistance. To say that their most powerful members, India, China, Brazil and South Africa, are following the path of the developed world would be a gross simplification. And developed is a very questionable definition, almost Orwellian. Blind addiction to self-destructive and generally destructive behaviour is not exactly developed. Better to call them the industrialised nations. Anyway the world isn't really made up of nations, that's just a state of mind, a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism. Useful for rulers. and mass producing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants with technology we all know we should no longer be using. As their ability to afford more and consume increases, their medical systems improve their population will boom, compounding the effect. On the contrary, the evidence shows that as people's economic situation improves, as soon as they're not too poverty-stricken to feed their children, their breeding rate slows right down. The surefire way to do that is to empower the women, and especially to educate the women. But the usual wealth creation method of improving people's economic situation generally just extracts wealth, removes it and concentrates it in the hands of the few, leaving more poverty in its wake. There are better ways. Have we as a species, reached or exceeded the sustainable population for our planet? It depends how big your feet are. I said this here the other day: ... There is NO shortage of food, and there is NO shortage of money, in fact there's more of both, PER CAPITA, than there's ever been before. Nor is the human eco-footprint outsized, except for some of it, which - surprise! - you'll find in exactly the same places where you'll find all the money, all the food, and all the silly ideas too that we're a cancer on the face of the planet and a few billion of us are just going to have to die, pity, but at least it's not us because we're not poor and starving. I lifted that from here: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg57949.html Re: [Biofuel] Overpopulation Off Limits? Overpopulation is a myth, quite an obnoxious one actually. We see the depletion of natural resources, in our lifetime, like no other. Is that because of human overpopulation, or because some nations are addicted to over-consumption and waste, extracting, consuming and wasting a vastly disproportionate and inequitable share of the world's resources? With 5% of the population consuming 25% of the world's energy supply and emitting a third of the greenhouse gases, the US is way out in front when it comes to over-consumption and waste, especially of other people's resources. But all the industrialised nations are included in that, and you also have to include the elites in the other countries, even when that country's overall footprint is small - and you have to exclude the very large and rapidly growing number of poor people in the US, for instance. So it emerges that the depletion of natural resources and the various other
Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
On 8/16/07, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the evidence shows that as people's economic situation improves, as soon as they're not too poverty-stricken to feed their children, their breeding rate slows right down. The surefire way to do that is to empower the women, and especially to educate the women. Statistically, this probably is true. But in my experience, portions of the US are not doing very well at this. The Mormon church in Utah (about 60 of my relatives) still seems to be averaging 4 or more children per family, even in good economic situations. True, this is way less than alot of the developing world, but still way higher than most of the developed world. I'm not as familiar with the evangelical movement in the US, but I get them impression that empowering women is not a high priority of theirs either. Z ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
I am a bit lost, I thought that AK-47 was the most popular Russian, high quality, reliable weapon. How come that the American lost them. According to the law of business, they should have been destroyed and replaced by an American weapons, which would make the enemy less dangerous. 250,000 bullets/soldier only prove the support of the American industry, I doubt that they have been fired. This means that the average American soldier spent around 23 hours only firing his weapon, sound very high, but the US soldiers are a trigger happy bunch and it is very dangerous to be close to them. The casualties in friendly fire are understandable, but amazing, considering that it is a non drafted and professional army. LOL You should also consider that in every war, it is many soldiers that never fire his gun in a real situation. The safety zone around an American soldier must be around 1,000 m, no wonder that they have difficulties getting terrorists and kill so much innocent civilians, who does not know better. Hakan At 16:57 15/08/2007, you wrote: I'm surprised and disappointed at this. It's totally false and misleading. The US has NEVER lost AK-47's in Iraq. We lose much better weapons. AK-47's are junk compared to the hardware WE'VE lost track off. If you're going to just fling around anti-Americanism, PLEASE get the facts straight. Jeez, -'Merika Keith Addison wrote: Hello Lee It now becomes clear, Bush was right on the money. There are weapons of mass destruction and they are still being developed and deployed. US nuclear weapons being the main example, and I guess the 190,000 guns the US lost in Iraq would also qualify, in sheer number if not in scale, especially when it emerges that the holy US military shoots 250,000 bullets for every alleged insurgent they kill. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2146645,00.html Oh well. At least losing all those AK-47s builds a market Saturday August 11, 2007 The Guardian http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - Independent Online Edition Americas 26 July 2007 But I get your meaning. It's just that if you're looking for WMDs and people who're ready to use them it's long been the case that Washington's the first place to look. In fact that applies to your meaning for the term here too, the world capital of dangerous and rash behaviour is Washington. The developing countries are following the path of the developed world I don't think so. Some of them are, but even then it's only in part. India is an industrialised nation but it's also an agrarian society, and a traditional one, with its own values that don't necessarily just collapse into those of California wannabes as soon as they see some Golden Arches and a bottle of Coke. Just as often there's active resistance. To say that their most powerful members, India, China, Brazil and South Africa, are following the path of the developed world would be a gross simplification. And developed is a very questionable definition, almost Orwellian. Blind addiction to self-destructive and generally destructive behaviour is not exactly developed. Better to call them the industrialised nations. Anyway the world isn't really made up of nations, that's just a state of mind, a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism. Useful for rulers. and mass producing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants with technology we all know we should no longer be using. As their ability to afford more and consume increases, their medical systems improve their population will boom, compounding the effect. On the contrary, the evidence shows that as people's economic situation improves, as soon as they're not too poverty-stricken to feed their children, their breeding rate slows right down. The surefire way to do that is to empower the women, and especially to educate the women. But the usual wealth creation method of improving people's economic situation generally just extracts wealth, removes it and concentrates it in the hands of the few, leaving more poverty in its wake. There are better ways. Have we as a species, reached or exceeded the sustainable population for our planet? It depends how big your feet are. I said this here the other day: ... There is NO shortage of food, and there is NO shortage of money, in fact there's more of both, PER CAPITA, than there's ever been before. Nor is the human eco-footprint outsized, except for some of it, which - surprise! - you'll find in exactly the same places where you'll find all the money, all the food, and all the silly ideas too that we're a cancer on the face of the planet and a few billion of us are just going to have to die, pity, but at least it's not us because we're not poor and starving.
Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
A lot of guys like the AK as it is more reliable than the mouse gun. Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a bit lost, I thought that AK-47 was the most popular Russian, high quality, reliable weapon. How come that the American lost them. According to the law of business, they should have been destroyed and replaced by an American weapons, which would make the enemy less dangerous. 250,000 bullets/soldier only prove the support of the American industry, I doubt that they have been fired. This means that the average American soldier spent around 23 hours only firing his weapon, sound very high, but the US soldiers are a trigger happy bunch and it is very dangerous to be close to them. The casualties in friendly fire are understandable, but amazing, considering that it is a non drafted and professional army. LOL You should also consider that in every war, it is many soldiers that never fire his gun in a real situation. The safety zone around an American soldier must be around 1,000 m, no wonder that they have difficulties getting terrorists and kill so much innocent civilians, who does not know better. Hakan At 16:57 15/08/2007, you wrote: I'm surprised and disappointed at this. It's totally false and misleading. The US has NEVER lost AK-47's in Iraq. We lose much better weapons. AK-47's are junk compared to the hardware WE'VE lost track off. If you're going to just fling around anti-Americanism, PLEASE get the facts straight. Jeez, -'Merika Keith Addison wrote: Hello Lee It now becomes clear, Bush was right on the money. There are weapons of mass destruction and they are still being developed and deployed. US nuclear weapons being the main example, and I guess the 190,000 guns the US lost in Iraq would also qualify, in sheer number if not in scale, especially when it emerges that the holy US military shoots 250,000 bullets for every alleged insurgent they kill. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2146645,00.html Oh well. At least losing all those AK-47s builds a market Saturday August 11, 2007 The Guardian http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - Independent Online Edition Americas 26 July 2007 But I get your meaning. It's just that if you're looking for WMDs and people who're ready to use them it's long been the case that Washington's the first place to look. In fact that applies to your meaning for the term here too, the world capital of dangerous and rash behaviour is Washington. The developing countries are following the path of the developed world I don't think so. Some of them are, but even then it's only in part. India is an industrialised nation but it's also an agrarian society, and a traditional one, with its own values that don't necessarily just collapse into those of California wannabes as soon as they see some Golden Arches and a bottle of Coke. Just as often there's active resistance. To say that their most powerful members, India, China, Brazil and South Africa, are following the path of the developed world would be a gross simplification. And developed is a very questionable definition, almost Orwellian. Blind addiction to self-destructive and generally destructive behaviour is not exactly developed. Better to call them the industrialised nations. Anyway the world isn't really made up of nations, that's just a state of mind, a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism. Useful for rulers. and mass producing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants with technology we all know we should no longer be using. As their ability to afford more and consume increases, their medical systems improve their population will boom, compounding the effect. On the contrary, the evidence shows that as people's economic situation improves, as soon as they're not too poverty-stricken to feed their children, their breeding rate slows right down. The surefire way to do that is to empower the women, and especially to educate the women. But the usual wealth creation method of improving people's economic situation generally just extracts wealth, removes it and concentrates it in the hands of the few, leaving more poverty in its wake. There are better ways. Have we as a species, reached or exceeded the sustainable population for our planet? It depends how big your feet are. I said this here the other day: ... There is NO shortage of food, and there is NO shortage of money, in fact there's more of both, PER CAPITA, than there's ever been before. Nor is the human eco-footprint outsized, except for some of it, which - surprise! - you'll find in exactly the same places where you'll find all the money, all the food, and all the silly ideas too that we're a cancer on the face of the planet and a few billion of us are
Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
A lot of guys like the AK as it is more reliable than the mouse gun. Bit more detail here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2143071,00.html The US arsenal lost in Iraq Tuesday August 7, 2007 The Guardian Not clear if the US actually bought the AK-47s or they came from Iraqi military arsenals or what, but the place seems to be awash with them. The US soldiers do seem to find uses for them: >Unable to find their target, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it look like he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony. -- Marine says beatings urged in Iraq - Los Angeles Times, July 15, 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-marines15jul15,0,7740534.story?coll=la-home-center >Several interviewees said that, on occasion, these killings were justified by framing innocents as terrorists, typically following incidents when American troops fired on crowds of unarmed Iraqis. The troops would detain those who survived, accusing them of being insurgents, and plant AK-47s next to the bodies of those they had killed to make it seem as if the civilian dead were combatants. It would always be an AK because they have so many of these weapons lying around, said Specialist Aoun. -- The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness 11/12/07 The Nation http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18007.htm Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am a bit lost, I thought that AK-47 was the most popular Russian, high quality, reliable weapon. How come that the American lost them. According to the law of business, they should have been destroyed and replaced by an American weapons, which would make the enemy less dangerous. 250,000 bullets/soldier Not per soldier, per killed rebel, or insurgent or innocent corpse with a planted AK-47 or whatever. only prove the support of the American industry, I doubt that they have been fired. It seems they were, they ran out of bullets, the ordnance factories in the US couldn't keep up with the demand and they had to ask Israel for bullets. This means that the average American soldier spent around 23 hours only firing his weapon, Not sure how you figured that out Hakan. It seems the US soldiers killed 24,000 alleged insurgents between 2002 and 2005, and used a total of six billion bullets to do it. I think that averages out at each US soldier shooting less than 100 bullets per day. But even that's a lot of bullets to shoot in a day isn't it? sound very high, but the US soldiers are a trigger happy bunch and it is very dangerous to be close to them. There are a number of reports of nervous US soldiers taking fright at little or nothing and shooting in all directions. The casualties in friendly fire are understandable, but amazing, considering that it is a non drafted and professional army. LOL You should also consider that in every war, it is many soldiers that never fire his gun in a real situation. Most don't, or didn't. IIRC those were WW2 and I think Vietnam War studies that found that. It caused a lot of angst in places like the Pentagon, and led to a lot of research to find out just how to get soldiers to pull the trigger, to what avail I don't know. Seems they're not exactly reluctant to pull the trigger in Iraq. Maybe now they'll teach them how to aim. Then maybe what to aim at. Sorry, I don't have any sympathy to spare for an illegal occupying army, all my sympathies are with the Iraqis. Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq 1,007,411 http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zpkotdcab.0.tcyvldcab.iqnuv6bab.14688ts=S0276p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justforeignpolicy.org%2Firaq%2Firaqdeaths.html>http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html Let alone before... >Long before Shock and Awe, Clinton was destroying and killing in Iraq. Under the lawless pretence of a no-fly zone, he oversaw the longest allied aerial bombardment since the Second World War. This was hardly reported. At the same time, he imposed and tightened a Washington-led economic siege estimated to have killed a million civilians. We think the price is worth it, said his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, in an exquisite moment of honesty. -- Good Ol' Bill, The Liberal Hero By John Pilger 08/09/07 ICH http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18150.htm LESLEY STAHL, 60 MINUTES: We have heard that a half million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima and you know, is the price worth it? MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price we think the price is worth it. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm Published in the September 2001 issue of The Progressive The Secret Behind the Sanctions How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply And so on. :-( Best Keith The safety zone around an American soldier must be around 1,000 m, no
Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
the RUSSIAN AK47 is the better weapon, but most of the AKs around today are (get this) a cheap Chinese knockoff. Russian designers did a very good job with their firearms, but they never released any specs and all the knockoffs could do was take measurements, and junk metal was cheaper than the good quality materials that Russia used. From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:16:15 +0200 I am a bit lost, I thought that AK-47 was the most popular Russian, high quality, reliable weapon. How come that the American lost them. According to the law of business, they should have been destroyed and replaced by an American weapons, which would make the enemy less dangerous. 250,000 bullets/soldier only prove the support of the American industry, I doubt that they have been fired. This means that the average American soldier spent around 23 hours only firing his weapon, sound very high, but the US soldiers are a trigger happy bunch and it is very dangerous to be close to them. The casualties in friendly fire are understandable, but amazing, considering that it is a non drafted and professional army. LOL You should also consider that in every war, it is many soldiers that never fire his gun in a real situation. The safety zone around an American soldier must be around 1,000 m, no wonder that they have difficulties getting terrorists and kill so much innocent civilians, who does not know better. Hakan At 16:57 15/08/2007, you wrote: I'm surprised and disappointed at this. It's totally false and misleading. The US has NEVER lost AK-47's in Iraq. We lose much better weapons. AK-47's are junk compared to the hardware WE'VE lost track off. If you're going to just fling around anti-Americanism, PLEASE get the facts straight. Jeez, -'Merika Keith Addison wrote: Hello Lee It now becomes clear, Bush was right on the money. There are weapons of mass destruction and they are still being developed and deployed. US nuclear weapons being the main example, and I guess the 190,000 guns the US lost in Iraq would also qualify, in sheer number if not in scale, especially when it emerges that the holy US military shoots 250,000 bullets for every alleged insurgent they kill. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2146645,00.html Oh well. At least losing all those AK-47s builds a market Saturday August 11, 2007 The Guardian http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - Independent Online Edition Americas 26 July 2007 But I get your meaning. It's just that if you're looking for WMDs and people who're ready to use them it's long been the case that Washington's the first place to look. In fact that applies to your meaning for the term here too, the world capital of dangerous and rash behaviour is Washington. The developing countries are following the path of the developed world I don't think so. Some of them are, but even then it's only in part. India is an industrialised nation but it's also an agrarian society, and a traditional one, with its own values that don't necessarily just collapse into those of California wannabes as soon as they see some Golden Arches and a bottle of Coke. Just as often there's active resistance. To say that their most powerful members, India, China, Brazil and South Africa, are following the path of the developed world would be a gross simplification. And developed is a very questionable definition, almost Orwellian. Blind addiction to self-destructive and generally destructive behaviour is not exactly developed. Better to call them the industrialised nations. Anyway the world isn't really made up of nations, that's just a state of mind, a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism. Useful for rulers. and mass producing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants with technology we all know we should no longer be using. As their ability to afford more and consume increases, their medical systems improve their population will boom, compounding the effect. On the contrary, the evidence shows that as people's economic situation improves, as soon as they're not too poverty-stricken to feed their children, their breeding rate slows right down. The surefire way to do that is to empower the women, and especially to educate the women. But the usual wealth creation method of improving people's economic situation generally just extracts wealth, removes it and concentrates it in the hands of the few, leaving more poverty in its wake. There are better ways. Have we as a species, reached or exceeded
Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found
Huh. My AK47 is piece of junk - always jamming at the wrong time. Jason Mier wrote: the RUSSIAN AK47 is the better weapon, but most of the AKs around today are (get this) a cheap Chinese knockoff. Russian designers did a very good job with their firearms, but they never released any specs and all the knockoffs could do was take measurements, and junk metal was cheaper than the good quality materials that Russia used. From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Weapons of mass destruction finally found Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:16:15 +0200 I am a bit lost, I thought that AK-47 was the most popular Russian, high quality, reliable weapon. How come that the American lost them. According to the law of business, they should have been destroyed and replaced by an American weapons, which would make the enemy less dangerous. 250,000 bullets/soldier only prove the support of the American industry, I doubt that they have been fired. This means that the average American soldier spent around 23 hours only firing his weapon, sound very high, but the US soldiers are a trigger happy bunch and it is very dangerous to be close to them. The casualties in friendly fire are understandable, but amazing, considering that it is a non drafted and professional army. LOL You should also consider that in every war, it is many soldiers that never fire his gun in a real situation. The safety zone around an American soldier must be around 1,000 m, no wonder that they have difficulties getting terrorists and kill so much innocent civilians, who does not know better. Hakan At 16:57 15/08/2007, you wrote: I'm surprised and disappointed at this. It's totally false and misleading. The US has NEVER lost AK-47's in Iraq. We lose much better weapons. AK-47's are junk compared to the hardware WE'VE lost track off. If you're going to just fling around anti-Americanism, PLEASE get the facts straight. Jeez, -'Merika Keith Addison wrote: Hello Lee It now becomes clear, Bush was right on the money. There are weapons of mass destruction and they are still being developed and deployed. US nuclear weapons being the main example, and I guess the 190,000 guns the US lost in Iraq would also qualify, in sheer number if not in scale, especially when it emerges that the holy US military shoots 250,000 bullets for every alleged insurgent they kill. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2146645,00.html Oh well. At least losing all those AK-47s builds a market Saturday August 11, 2007 The Guardian http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed - Independent Online Edition Americas 26 July 2007 But I get your meaning. It's just that if you're looking for WMDs and people who're ready to use them it's long been the case that Washington's the first place to look. In fact that applies to your meaning for the term here too, the world capital of dangerous and rash behaviour is Washington. The developing countries are following the path of the developed world I don't think so. Some of them are, but even then it's only in part. India is an industrialised nation but it's also an agrarian society, and a traditional one, with its own values that don't necessarily just collapse into those of California wannabes as soon as they see some Golden Arches and a bottle of Coke. Just as often there's active resistance. To say that their most powerful members, India, China, Brazil and South Africa, are following the path of the developed world would be a gross simplification. And developed is a very questionable definition, almost Orwellian. Blind addiction to self-destructive and generally destructive behaviour is not exactly developed. Better to call them the industrialised nations. Anyway the world isn't really made up of nations, that's just a state of mind, a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism. Useful for rulers. and mass producing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants with technology we all know we should no longer be using. As their ability to afford more and consume increases, their medical systems improve their population will boom, compounding the effect. On the contrary, the evidence shows that as people's economic situation improves, as soon as they're not too poverty-stricken to feed their children, their breeding rate slows right down. The surefire way to do that is to empower the women, and especially to educate the women. But the usual wealth creation method of improving people's economic situation generally just extracts wealth, removes it and concentrates it in the hands of the few, leaving more poverty in its wake. There are better ways. Have we as a species, reached
