Rainbow Warrior sinking

[VoodooAce]

Uh, no. I won't.

Rather, I'd like to buy her dinner and a drink!

Once again, we see the attitude that state sponsored terrorism is wrong....unless they're doing something I agree with.

If you're committing an act of terrorism, it doesn't matter that you agree with them. Otherwise, there would be thousands of Muslims that were correct in cheering on Osama and his henchmen for their murderous acts of 9/11.

AllhailIndia, when you applaud this action by French terrorists, you are JUST LIKE Osama and his boys sitting there cheering with joy as the WTC came crumbling down.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, here, but the crew of the Rainbow Warrior had committed NO crime at the time they were attacked. Making the attack 'unprovoked'. Making the attack a crime.

 

[mrog]

Whatever you think of Greenpeace (and personally I think they are show ponies) I do not believe they deserved to be attacked.

If the French had intellegence regarding GPs intentions and the only thing they could think of doing to protect their interests was to sink the ship then then frankly I don't think they should be trusted with a burnt out match let alone nuclear weapons.

 

[Adamski]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Since a lot of people do agree with me, i would like to go further. Until the French took some action against Greenpeace, they were encouraging other psychos to perform stunts "for the environment" and get away with harming others. Even in India, we had ridiculous protests against the construction of major H.E project, which would benefit over a 20 million people, just because a few tribals did not like the place they were being relocated to. For this issue, there were hunger strikes, road blocks, day long marches and general disruption of normal life. And this was led by Arundhati Roy, the Booker prize winning novelist. If any of you come across her, punch her very hard in the nose for me and 20 million other Indians.[punch]

Ah, don't get carried away because 1 finn with fascist tendencies agrees with you. It ain't about whether Greenpeace are a worthy organisation, its about an act of war, committed by the French, in Auckland harbour. As someone said, we (Kiwis) fought 2 world wars on French soil. Heard of those? We ought to have partitioned France amongst the victorious powers at the end of WW2.

And why shouldn't people who are being pushed out of their homes protest about it? How would you like it if it was you. Just because it suits the majority doesn't mean it's right. Those are the sorts of aguments that Joe Stalin and Mao used to use. Try broadening your mind a little - I'm sure there's room.

 

[stavro]

Originally posted by Adebisi
What? The French should just stand by and watch as GP sabotaged their crucial nuclear experiments? They were terrorists, and France had intelligence. If America knew a few terrorists were gonna sabotage their nuclear tests, do you think they'd just sit back and do nothing?

This is just so very wrong. "Crucial nuclear experiments"? Please! The French nuclear arsenal is a pathetic attempt to prove they are still a Great Power (with capital letters, of course). But that misses the point. What right does France - or anyone else in Europe or the US - have to detonate nuclear weapons in the Pacific? If they want their big boys' toys so much, they should test them in Europe or the US. Oh, that's right, I forgot - we can't test them there because Europeans and Americans are more important than Pacific peoples. How silly of me...

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by stavro


This is just so very wrong. "Crucial nuclear experiments"? Please! The French nuclear arsenal is a pathetic attempt to prove they are still a Great Power (with capital letters, of course). But that misses the point. What right does France - or anyone else in Europe or the US - have to detonate nuclear weapons in the Pacific? If they want their big boys' toys so much, they should test them in Europe or the US. Oh, that's right, I forgot - we can't test them there because Europeans and Americans are more important than Pacific peoples. How silly of me...

The areas used were and are French sovereign territory, even if the are basically colonial possessions. It is by that right that they test their strategic arsenal there. They are not big boys toys, and testing them in densely populated areas would be irresponsible, and contrary to international treaties.

I disagree with the French action, which was criminal, but I also disagree with the silly fools from Greenpeace. This in no way means they deserved to be bombed, but they did not have the right to disrupt activities in sovereign territory. Environmental issues are important; too important to be hijacked by a gang of radicals given to publicity stunts.
All the same, all terrorism is wrong, and the miscarriage of justice in this case is a blot upon the honour of France that cannot be expunged.

I would concur that Arundhati Roy can be quite the sanctimonious, self righteous, long winded fool with no idea on many matters, but the compulsive construction of dams as symbols of national pride is somewhat dated. The needs of the people living there need to be considered, not completely brushed aside.

It comes down to the fact that the French really screwed up and went terrorist when if they wanted to prevent the meddling of Greenpeace, they should have waited until it entered their territorial waters, and then detained the ship and crew in safety until such time as the tests were concluded. This is still unpalatable and somewhat controversial, but it is not terrorism.

 

[allhailIndia]

First of all this dam , the Sardar Sarovar project is not about national pride etc., it is about fulfilling the needs of over 20 million people, who suffer from constant drought, power shortage and lack of Industrial growth. It is really unfair that developing countries should be penalized for pollution while developed countries choke the world with indutrial smoke.

All I am asking is that if environmentalists( real genuine ones which actually care about the environment), do not want us to build dams and power plants, show us another way of making power and achieving parity with developed nations.


P.S
Sorry to disappoint you VoodooAce, A. Roy may be on a hunger strike for all you know because slum dwellers are being asked to clear out hand the land back to the owners

 

[Simon Darkshade]

In terms of alternate energy sources that work right now, I would concur with Dick Cheney in saying the nuclear power is the obvious option until other sources become viable.

In terms of the dams, they may be necessary, but the say of those living in its path should be noted. There are, as has been said, two sides to every story.

I don't believe that any countries should have carte blanche for pollution and unrestricted development, but until this can be realistically enforced by an evil fascist world dictatorship (give me about 18 or 19 years, as I am feeling a little tired ) then all should at least take these matters into account, even if it does seem unfair

Does India or any other nation need to achieve "parity", an ephemeral term if there ever was one, or does it need to fulfil its own needs instead of trying to chase great power status?

 

[allhailIndia]

ITS OWN NEEDS ARE ACHIEVING PARITY WITH A NATION WHICH CAN FEED, CLOTHE AND SHELTER ALL ITS PEOPLE. :aargh3:
BTW, A. Roy does not want us to build nuke plants either:crazyeyes

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
ITS OWN NEEDS ARE ACHIEVING PARITY WITH A NATION WHICH CAN FEED, CLOTHE AND SHELTER ALL ITS PEOPLE. :aargh3:

They might start by reducing their population. The biggest problem facing the world in the future is not that we can't "support" so many billions of people, in the sense of keeping them alive, but that we would pollute ourselves to death if we tried to bring them all up to Western levels of conspicuous consumption.

In my opinion, the most equitable way to address this is by a twofold effort. The rich nations need to stop wasting so many resources, and the poor nations need to stop creating so many more people.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Jimcat


They might start by reducing their population. The biggest problem facing the world in the future is not that we can't "support" so many billions of people, in the sense of keeping them alive, but that we would pollute ourselves to death if we tried to bring them all up to Western levels of conspicuous consumption.

In my opinion, the most equitable way to address this is by a twofold effort. The rich nations need to stop wasting so many resources, and the poor nations need to stop creating so many more people.

Very true, but I don't think either is going to happen until we get some kind of rude shock. Whether it is climate based or poulation based remains to be seen. Which would be worse is also up for discussion (note I said would, not could).

The Chinese have, in theory, been trying to limit population, but their numbers keep growing despite this. (Further checking reveals that they have lowered their growth rate to about the same as the US, but US figures include migration into the country, whereas China's numbers include migration out of the country.)


India on the onther hand is growing at close to twice the rate of China, and like China, this is despite Indians moving abroad.