Waiting4oblivion Parliament, lets try again, shall we? Options

[Burnt Sierra]

Right, a few rules before we start this time. No flaming. No intolerance of anybody else's viewpoint. No deciding you don't like the topic, and trying to tell people what they can discuss. This goes for everybody from now on.

Right, now we got the unpleasant bit out of the way, lets begin anew shall we?

p.s. yes Channler, those were the original rules, but seeing as how everyone seemed to forget them last time, I thought I'd make a little pointed reminder.

[Channler]

Welcome to the Waiting4Oblivion Parliament!

---

Rules

1. Very simple, follow all W4O rules and orders, respect the moderators and administraitors, respect the members of W4O, and respect yourself.

2. Absolutely No Flaming One for Their Beliefs. Just because you do not concur with them doesn't require you to be disrespectful.

3. To keep this as neat and orderly as possible, please quote the statement you are arguing against or for. Please do not let quotes pyramid.

4. Please make posts relevent to the present topic. You can take breaks at the coffee shop across the street to ramble on.

5. For the sake of keeping this thread alive, PLEASE NO DISCUSSION OF RELIGION AT THE MOMENT. At least not until we can get the go ahead from the Adms. and Mods.

Lets make this as enjoyable and civil as possible, thanks.

Those were the original rules... but anything the mods and adms say is God compared to my words.

-=-=-=-

So what were we talking about?

[gamer10]

What are your views on the US-India nuclear "agreement".

[Channler]

We have a US-India nuclear "agreement"? I didn't know that...

I'll check on that tonight

Anyways, what are your veiws on it?

[gamer10]

The Indian Prime Minister visited earlier this month, and spoke with President Bush.

Anyhow, I don't mind it because India has agreed to have it's civillian nuclear facilities under UN inspection.

As well as it helps bring energy supply to a rather large nation. Perhaps nuclear energy may help replace oil for many appliances. That could help relieve the strain on the price of oil here in the US.

Seeing as how India's car industry just grew 17% the last year.

This post has been edited by gamer10: Jul 27 2005, 08:41 PM

[Fade2gray]

To be honest I don't know much about the US-India nuclear agreement. Perhaps someone could give a rundown of what it is.

As far as UN inspection goes. I don't have a lot of faith in UN inspectors, or the UN for that matter (but I supose thats an issue better left for latter), but some inspection is probably better than none. Personally, I don't have too many fears of India trying to exploite nuclear power for nefarious perposes, but I could always be wrong about that.

This post has been edited by Fade2gray: Jul 27 2005, 10:56 PM

[Kiln]

"Perhaps nuclear energy may help replace oil for many appliances."

Oh I see, nuclear energy, not weapons, I wasn't sure what you meant. I'll have to check up on this as well because I'm confused.

[Burnt Sierra]

http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=6708


for anyone who hasnt been following the news

[DoomedOne]

It reminds me of a episode of the Daily Show

Bush: We can't sit down and let this happen anymore. There is an energy crisis... coming up. We can't rely on oil anymore okay? We can't... we have to look at alternative fuels.

Stewert (commentary to this clip): Yes exactly, I agree. A fine point, continue.

Bush: We have many men looking into coal production...

Stewert: ...

Bush: Are you aware we have not had a nuclear power plant erected in this country since the 80s?

Stewert: I wonder why...

They say something like if every American household had 1 solar panel on their roof we would have enough energy for five nuclear power-plants or something. I think Bush is afraid to talk any sort of alternative fuels that the liberals favor, like the ones that work.

[Dantrag]

They say something like if every American household had 1 solar panel on their roof we would have enough energy for five nuclear power-plants or something.  I think Bush is afraid to talk any sort of alternative fuels that the liberals favor, like the ones that work.

What kinds of fuels besides solar energy do liberals favor?

I'm all for the hydrogen cells, if it can ever be made to work properly.

[Fade2gray]

Hmm, I'm not sure I like India having nuclear weapons. It may be this is the only way to keep India from getting out hand, so to say, with the weapons though. They already have shown they have, the tech. so the cats out of the bag if you will. Perhaps this is a way of holding india's hand to keep their nuclear power in check rather than not officially recognizing their nuclear power and essentaily turn a blind eye while they run free.
There could also be a middle eastern side to this. India and Pakistan have a lot off bad blood, and alowing India to offically develop nuclear wepons could be a way of trying to keep Pakistan from doing anything dangerous. Ofcourse, it's hard to predict in the middle east, this could just be the provocation Pakistan was waiting for. Who knows...

This post has been edited by Fade2gray: Jul 27 2005, 11:18 PM

[Channler]

Tis true...

Oh yea Doomed, guess what =), my family just bought an SUV =P (remeber that old discussion?)

As for energy, I could care less, as long as it works and doesnt kill the world in 80 years.. that last part was a joke..

But I do agree with you doomed that Bush is to wrapped up in his own interests that he doesn't want to see these alternate fuel things pop up. Same with all these big oil company's

But I still don't think both sides are doing there best on the issue.. I'm sure if there was a poll going around about, Would you mind a nuclear power plant in your city?.. Many people would say, "as long as its cheap"

[DoomedOne]

I think we ought to work with the hydrogen cell and research better methods of obtaining energy than ones that could... you know, destroy a whole city and spread cancer for generations as well as making that area uninhabitable for at least 50 years.

PS Channler, with consideration taken of you and the utmost respect, I hope you choke on your SUV. I recommend you watch that show called 30s days y the way, you'd like it, too bad the first season is over but they'll replay it.

This post has been edited by DoomedOne: Jul 28 2005, 11:22 AM

[DoomedOne]

So I've been inspired by Channler to switch the debate to a new topic: The UN.

We can start by answering questions like these:

What purpose do you think thr UN serves these days?

What changes do you think should be made to the UN?

What are the pros and cons to the UN of today, and to the UN of your imagination?

[gamer10]

What purpose do you think thr UN serves these days?

A: Hmm . . that's a hard one . . .give me a few centuries to think about it.

What changes do you think should be made to the UN?

A: Destroy it and replace it with a council of chipmunks . . oh wait, too late.

What are the pros and cons to the UN of today, and to the UN of your imagination?

Pros: We are ruled by a group of Chipmunks.

Cons: Chipmunks are dumb.

Uh, yeah that's about all of my opinion.

Darn those chipmunks. . .

This post has been edited by gamer10: Jul 28 2005, 09:23 PM

[jonajosa]

So Gamer knows the tuth about the UN also.

Purpose? They serve a few. Dop they do a good job at those few? Not really.

What changes? Agree with Gamer. They should be disbanded.

Pros? They help atlittle bit at keeping peace in some places.
Cons? Mostly they don't make any diffrence in the places they go.

This post has been edited by jonajosa: Jul 28 2005, 09:25 PM

[Kiln]

Thats not true in the least, the UN troops draw plenty of fire away from Americans.
Just kidding but seriously they aren't equipped to be in a firefight, they are equipped for peace keeping duties but at times the two are one in the same. They aren't given enough ammo and they aren't ordered to fire until it's way too late in most cases. There aren't enough of them in Iraq to make much of a difference anyways and thats where I stand on the matter.

[DoomedOne]

Time to drop some knowledge.

On matters of War and Peace, it's the Security Council branch of the UN making decisions. They consist of 5 permanent members and 10 non permanent members that rotate in. The p5 get a veto vote, that means whenever they're trying to agree on a resolution (like they have been for the last few years in Israel) if one of the p5 members votes against the resolution, it fails. The veto power was originally pushed by Stalin when the Security council was created. None of the other p5 countries (France, UK, China and the US) were in favor of one, but they got one anyway.

During the Cold War, the USSR and the US were basically vetoing each other's resolutions so nothing could pass.

The same is happening in the conflict in Israel

When the UN does pass a resolution, it's mostly the US troops that enforce this resolution.

Aside from the Security Council, the UN is actually a very productive institution. They have spread funds all throughout the world and have used their money much more productively than most other Relief Organizations. It was through their council that many countries have found peaceful resolutions to large problems.

The UN is not useless, want to know why they're chipmunks though? because the veto. Obviously nothing can be done as long as the veto remains. France voted against any resolution that favored Israel too much, for example. The US vetoed anything that did not favor Israel too much. Here's the best part, whenever a resolution comes up to destroy the veto, it's the US and China going against it. Here we have the entire UN being held by a tyrannical pillar, and the US and China can't even think democratically enough to realize it.

I find the UN to be an absolutely necessary instituion in this world. You guys only hear the bad though, like how the Security Council vetoes all of the US' decisions in matters of war.

My idea of a UN, though, would include every single country on the planet. From there they would all have to agree on a UN constitution, It would help Unite the world if we were all under the same basic constitution. Everything illegal would be agreed as illegal by every nation. There would be Universal standards. This way, once one country gets out of line, every single other country is against them.

[Channler]

To bad for all this to happen we'd have to stop killing each other for at least 24 hours...

No joke, but I agree, the Veto kills the purpose of the UN..

[gamer10]

To bad for all this to happen we'd have to stop killing each other for at least 24 hours...

No joke, but I agree, the Veto kills the purpose of the UN..

I have an idea, let's give the veto to every nation. That way nothing would get passed.

Or we could just give it to a few nations that represent less than half of the worlds people and let them decide for everyone else . .

Wait, nevermind.