Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Newsweek magazine

Expand Messages
  • Lovejoe
    ... about ... None of above are right qualites to be concerned or to be respected. My concerns of USA would be around: Biggest consumer of the Earth resources
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@...>
      wrote:

      > The US accounts for almost half the global defence budget and is
      about
      > one sixth of the global economy as well as having nuclear weapons and
      > the ability to rocket mail them pretty much anywhere on the planet.
      > I think that makes the US matter quite a lot to those outside it.

      None of above are right qualites to be concerned or to be respected.
      My concerns of USA would be around:
      Biggest consumer of the Earth resources and
      biggest pollutant of Earth
      and having largest foreign debts
      and having 15% of population starving etc...
      Similar concerns go to China nowadays.

      Having largest arsenal of nuclear weapons?
      That Russians have, Chines, Pakistanis, Indians have,
      Kubans harbours, even Iran and S.Korea develops...
      USA has no way to use its nuke arsenal unless they want
      to end humanity on Earth.
      Rocket mail to the anywhere in the world???
      Americans even afraid to use electronic mail after patriot act! :-)

      If nuke was a solution, breaking up the Iraq would cost
      only 15 billion US$ (15 warhead each 1bn) instead of
      150 billion every year! :-)

      Now if you do not hear from me anymore it means CIA captured
      my mail and assasinated me to silence my critics! :-)

      Cem
    • bestonnet_00
      ... A lot of those stupid questions are things you re going to need to have a good answer for. ... Such as? ... When it comes to influencing politics
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 29, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Lovejoe" <konusan1@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > You can create another group but if there's no demand for it then
        > > you really shouldn't complain.
        >
        > No, it's not a demand problem.
        > My complain was totally different.
        > I was complaining from stupid questions I received from atheists!
        > Nobody said no thanks, some joined and few asked right questions
        > like why, what etc. I would not care if there was no demand.

        A lot of those 'stupid' questions are things you're going to need to
        have a good answer for.

        > When I created another one in another network I sent
        > invitations to various atheist declared users
        > of that network and I received
        > lots of strange or stupid questions.

        Such as?

        > That was my complain and concern.
        > And this is why I'm questioning your counting of
        > "quantities" of atheists rather than "qualities"

        When it comes to influencing politics (something we really do need to
        be doing) it is quantity that matters most (i.e. being the swing vote
        that politicians have to pander to if they want to be elected).

        > More direcly and unpolitely, I don't like the idea of
        > millions of stupid or pacifised atheists...

        I don't either though a stupid atheist is less dangerous than a stupid
        religious fundamentalist.

        > I'd like to see few but thinking, gathering and acting atheists.

        Well I'd rather see lots of thinking atheists (say our whole society).

        > > We are going to have to confront the religious at some point in
        > > time although we are winning the younger generations over to our
        > > side so if we can just keep them from outlawing atheism long
        > > enough we'll eventually be the ones who end up in power.
        >
        > Gaining more and more younger generations may not mean winning.

        When it gets to the point at which the majority of the youth are
        atheists we'll only have to wait for the older more religious segments
        of the population to die off.

        > Religions gain also younger generations and they "educate" them,
        > they are very "active". They have plans and targets.
        > That's the danger.

        Religions don't do a very good at actually keeping those that they
        'educate' (which is why we are winning).

        They do have plans that would be very dangerous if enacted and there
        is great concern that the US might end up following them but the
        religious will only have power so long as they are the majority and
        they are losing their majority despite their activities.

        Wait long enough and we'll end up having the majority.

        > We never win if we stay passive and un-united.

        That's why there are people speaking out (and putting atheism books at
        the top of the amazon.com top 100).

        The moderate position needs to be moved away from religion and the
        taboo breaking is starting to do that (even in the backwards US, much
        of the rest of the western world has already moved the moderate
        position to atheism).
      • bestonnet_00
        ... Maybe not but it does mean that the US is capable of a lot of damage (and I would be quite willing to respect having one sixth the global economy). ...
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Lovejoe" <konusan1@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
          >
          > > The US accounts for almost half the global defence budget and is
          > > about one sixth of the global economy as well as having nuclear
          > > weapons and the ability to rocket mail them pretty much anywhere
          > > on the planet. I think that makes the US matter quite a lot to
          > > those outside it.
          >
          > None of above are right qualites to be concerned or to be respected.

          Maybe not but it does mean that the US is capable of a lot of damage
          (and I would be quite willing to respect having one sixth the global
          economy).

          > My concerns of USA would be around:
          > Biggest consumer of the Earth resources and
          > biggest pollutant of Earth

          That can be dealt with by merely using better technology (and adding a
          good carbon tax). History has shown that when the US really wants to
          reduce pollution it can do a very good job of it.

          > and having largest foreign debts

          I wouldn't be lending money to the US government then.

          > and having 15% of population starving etc...

          Not sure it's quite that many in the US though it can be fixed.

          The biggest problem with the US is the excessive religiosity of those
          running the place, if you could deal with that you'd make the other
          problems a lot more manageable.

          > Similar concerns go to China nowadays.

          With China I'm more concerned about it being an autocracy though I
          hope the dictators lose their power.

          > Having largest arsenal of nuclear weapons?

          I didn't say that though the US probably does right now (Russia's
          nuclear arsenal is a bit run down).

          > That Russians have, Chines, Pakistanis, Indians have,

          Yes, not to mention the UK, France and Israel.

          > Kubans harbours,

          If you mean Cuba that would be a no, they don't have any (the Soviets
          did briefly have nuclear weapons there but they were removed after an
          international incident).

          > even Iran and S.Korea develops...

          Actually it's North Korea that recently had a fizzle, South Korea
          doesn't seem to be working on nuclear weaponry though in the future it
          might be in their interest to have a nuclear deterrent (North Korea
          might also prompt Japan to develop nuclear weapons).

          > USA has no way to use its nuke arsenal unless they want
          > to end humanity on Earth.

          There are people in the US who want exactly that (and they very well
          can use their nuclear weapons without ending our civilisation, they
          managed it at Hiroshima and Nagasaki after all, though probably not
          against another nuclear power).

          > Rocket mail to the anywhere in the world???

          Their ICBMs have a range greater than 10 000 km and they have the
          technology to put nuclear weapons in orbit (illegal though it would
          be) or fractional orbit (probably legal but it certainly violates the
          spirit of the law, the Soviet Union used to have such a system).

          > Americans even afraid to use electronic mail after patriot act! :-)

          Good point, but there are some Americans who trust their government
          and president and who would not expect the patriot act to be misused.

          > If nuke was a solution, breaking up the Iraq would cost
          > only 15 billion US$ (15 warhead each 1bn) instead of
          > 150 billion every year! :-)

          Nuke is the most likely solution to our global warming problem (cause
          a nuclear winter to counteract the temperature rise :-p or maybe just
          build nuclear power plants) but it isn't the solution to the mess in
          the middle east (though having everyone in the region nuclear armed
          might be effective at stopping them from fighting, part of the reason
          that the Arab countries don't attack Israel directly any more (instead
          supporting terrorist organisations) is probably because Israel has
          nuclear weapons making any war with Israel impossible to 'win').

          > Now if you do not hear from me anymore it means CIA captured
          > my mail and assasinated me to silence my critics! :-)

          LOL.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.