BF2S Forums A less passive Europe

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

All the lights maybe? Tokyo kinda blows Vegas out of the water for that one, only other thing I can think of is the Hoover dam which supplies clean power and water to a huge area, so not really pollution. If you're talking about that coal plant they operate then that's a stone in the pacific compared to what China's power stations belch out or even what cars put out in Japanese cities. There's a reason they wear those face masks.

how many people live in Tokyo compared to Las Vegas? Then compare the power consumption per head.

I still really don't see how Las Vegas is more polluting than any other city.

You do know power consumption =pollution right?

M.O.A.B wrote:

.Sup wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I still really don't see how Las Vegas is more polluting than any other city.

You do know power consumption =pollution right?

Er, yes, but that applies to every city on the planet, not just Vegas.

True but the question is who consumes the most power per inhabitant?

.Sup wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

.Sup wrote:

You do know power consumption =pollution right?

Er, yes, but that applies to every city on the planet, not just Vegas.

True but the question is who consumes the most power per inhabitant?

Until there are a bunch of figures or a graph, no-ones gonna know. I'd also judge pollution in terms of power, by how much is produced by the station in the form of waste gases or nuclear waste. Vegas has few power sources, unlike Tokyo which consumes vast amounts of power and in the end, still uses a lot, lot more power.

You can only prove Vegas is the most polluting city of its size, if you have other cities of comparable values to stack against it.

@ the OP because I didn't read 6 pages

I believe that what you call a more active role can be traced in countries that have aggressive/ expansive agendas. And since I fundamentally oppose the latter, I cannot agree with you.

I guess the mistake here is assuming that those who intervene today, do so because they have to or because of their good heart. When one recognizes the simple fact that all these interventions happen with the sole purpose of personal gain, it is simple to see who can play the active game and why.

oug wrote:

@ the OP because I didn't read 6 pages

I believe that what you call a more active role can be traced in countries that have aggressive/ expansive agendas. And since I fundamentally oppose the latter, I cannot agree with you.

I guess the mistake here is assuming that those who intervene today, do so because they have to or because of their good heart. When one recognizes the simple fact that all these interventions happen with the sole purpose of personal gain, it is simple to see who can play the active game and why.

Ah, but Europe is Europe - a "more active role" doesn't mean military or expansionism.  Unfortunately aggressive/expansive agendas are more effective.  So there's a choice on what to emulate, although it may not be as "effective".

I have to say I disagree with the OP, my opinion would be more in line with CameronPoe's. The OP is essentially asking Europe to adopt a more American stance on global foreign policy... why on earth would we want to do that? Because the Bush era was such a resounding success?

As Cam has already pointed out, artificial democracy cannot be injected from without, it has to grow from within and quite frankly who are we to dictate what type of Government should rule in Botswana, Rwanda, Venezuela or wherever... let the people themselves decide that. Fair enough if their is oppression being used to support unpopular regimes in certain countries then a united front is useful in tackling this but the emphasis has to be placed on the indigenous people themselves... sending thousands of foreign troops in to solve a problem is not a solution that can be applied consistently.

On the nuclear issue again it is a case of gross double standards. Poe's gun powder analogy was apt, to think that one set of powers can expect to dictate what weapons other countries are allowed to have while enjoying a large stockpile of said weapons themselves is ridiculous and hypocritical.

At least usmarine is candid enough to admit that aggressive foreign policies have primarily one objective... one's own interests.

Braddock wrote:

I have to say I disagree with the OP, my opinion would be more in line with CameronPoe's. The OP is essentially asking Europe to adopt a more American stance on global foreign policy... why on earth would we want to do that? Because the Bush era was such a resounding success?

As Cam has already pointed out, artificial democracy cannot be injected from without, it has to grow from within and quite frankly who are we to dictate what type of Government should rule in Botswana, Rwanda, Venezuela or wherever... let the people themselves decide that. Fair enough if their is oppression being used to support unpopular regimes in certain countries then a united front is useful in tackling this but the emphasis has to be placed on the indigenous people themselves... sending thousands of foreign troops in to solve a problem is not a solution that can be applied consistently.

On the nuclear issue again it is a case of gross double standards. Poe's gun powder analogy was apt, to think that one set of powers can expect to dictate what weapons other countries are allowed to have while enjoying a large stockpile of said weapons themselves is ridiculous and hypocritical.

At least usmarine is candid enough to admit that aggressive foreign policies have primarily one objective... one's own interests.

The current operators of nuclear stockpiles won't use them unless for a last resort. Not everyone in the world is going to be that strict to using them. I seriously doubt you can compare everyone having gunpowder to everyone owning nukes.

Pug wrote:

Ah, but Europe is Europe - a "more active role" doesn't mean military or expansionism.  Unfortunately aggressive/expansive agendas are more effective.  So there's a choice on what to emulate, although it may not be as "effective".

So if not the way the US gets involved, then how exactly do you picture a more active role for Europe?

NgoDamWei wrote:

Are there any Europeans remaining that actually have a pair ?

Evidently not.

oi, got a pair for ya

come 'n geddit

usmarine wrote:

wow brad, you agree with your brother.  amazing.  i doubt the other one could drink a glass of water while the other one talks.

and why do people do things brad?  why do we work?  for fun?  no.  for money.  so we can buy things and survive.  thats life.  thats the world.

Well you may feel that the desire for money vindicates all actions but I do not. Yes we are human and yes we all work in order to survive but we are not animals and empathy is one of the things that separates us from the animal kingdom. If you feel it is okay to invade and topple nations in order to expand one's own wealth then don't act all shocked and annoyed when some tribe in Africa decides to wipe out entire villages in order to consolidate their own power or when a Middle Eastern nation decides to meddle in its neighbour's affairs.

I do have more respect for you than for many others in here though, you at least do not pretend that altruism is America's primary objective when it comes to foreign policy.

"our population growth rate would be hovering around the 0%..."

What's really hoving around 0% is backbone.

NgoDamWei wrote:

"our population growth rate would be hovering around the 0%..."

What's really hoving around 0% is backbone.

lol. What, pray tell, would demonstrate backbone in your machoman mind? Sending Muslims to concentration camps? We tried something similar in the 30s - it ended with the complete and utter destruction of continental Europe...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-10 12:44:46)

CameronPoe wrote:

imortal wrote:

I wonder what Europes population growth rate would be once you take Muslim families out of the equation?  I know the Muslim areas in many areas of Europe have lots and lots of kids; I was just wondering if they skewed the results.  We know they are being 'out-bred,' but how badly?

You have a rather warped view of Europe. I think you're referring to France.

Actually, to Germany in particular has a low birth-rate of nationals.  Most every developed country has seen a drastic decline in birth rates with the exception of muslim nations and the Chinese (and the Chinese are fighting to get their birth rate down).

I was not trying to state any kind of position, I was curious about how the numbers would turn out.  But yes, France is also a nation that comes to mind.