BBC Blog Network

User Profile

PeteComas

Listed below are comments made by PeteComas between Thursday, 24th July 2008 and Tuesday, 24th March 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Is the green movement part of the problem? 11:18pm on 24 Mar 2009 #9 -- Suppose your the GM company in your hypothetical prices its seeds so it costs you 3500. You would save (read, make) 3500, the GM company would make 3500, and the nitrogen-efficient plants will help alleviate climate change. Why can't you envision a scenario where everyone wins? Are you so cynical that you can't imagine that possibility? Or is it that you just fundamentally dislike captialism and, therefore, assume that anything a corporation does will necessarily harm you?
Is the green movement part of the problem? 9:27pm on 24 Mar 2009 Of course Mr. Skar is wrong. (But then, he's a member of Greenpeace, so I'm not really surprsied.) I've never understood what the anti-GM crowd have been so afraid of. This technology only helps, well... everyone. Scientists, it seems to me, don't seem to be against GM foods. In fact, it's the scientific community that has been responsible for developing this stuff. The resistance comes mainly from activists who in many cases don't understand the science. This makes them no different from religious fundamentalists who refuse to accept evolution.
Take me home, country roads 9:16pm on 10 Oct 2008 If Obama loses this campaign, it won't be because of Rev. Wright, or Bill Ayers, or Tony Rezko, or any of the associations he has. It will be because the McCain campaign was successful in turning a United States Senator into a foreign agent. It will be due to the shameful and cynical appeal to xenophobic and borderline-racist sentiment they are obliging. Happyhammer has it completely correct.

The Republicans managed to do this four years ago when they attacked John Kerry's war record in Vietnam while ignoring the fact that both candidates on their own ticket did everything in their power to stay as far from Vietnam as possible. The strategy is not new, but the consequences may be catastrophic if they keep this nonsense up. I used to respect McCain and even considered voting for him. Not anymore. Not after this latest descent into the gutter.
Openness and staying power 05:09am on 12 Aug 2008 171. At 04:11am on 12 Aug 2008, eddienix wrote:

These comments boards are insane. The subject invariably drifts away to comparing America with Nazi Germany. It's always the same. Why bother?
---------------
My advice: Don't bother. First of all, you can't argue with people when you can't even agree on the basic premises. For example, if someone insists on telling me that the sky is green and that I'm just too stupid to see it, then I give up and move along because any discussion will be pointless. Soon, other green-sky people will respond and validate the original "argument." And eventually, you get a community of people all reinforcing each other's sincere belief that the sky is green. An outsider will not get very far trying to convince the whole lot that it is in fact blue.

It's a bit like trying to convince a message board full of 9/11 conspiracy nuts that it was actually Saudi-born terrorists trained in Afghanistan who knocked down the towers. Good luck to you.

Me? I enjoy reading the messages here when I'm bored because I find the ignorant diatribes amusing. Part of me wonders if this whole thing isn't mostly a wind-up because I can't believe there are so many irrational and ignorant people who read the BBC. Either way, just sit back and watch the show.
Openness and staying power 4:23pm on 11 Aug 2008 31. At 3:57pm on 11 Aug 2008, jacksforge wrote:

oh I know. because you are a self opinionated idiot with no sense of history despite continued attempts to show yuor knowlege you fail and only show you are not so good at reading
-------
so are you the pot or the kettle?
Anti-Americanism will continue, whoever wins 3:46pm on 24 Jul 2008 I'd be interested to see where in his post at 144 any such inference is made. The main contention is that "bad" policy has driven anti-American opinion - nothing further is stated or implied. It is you who are mis-reading.
--------
From #144:

"Anti-Americanism is the product of good sensible upbringing with sound ethics and good morals as one is non-antisocial or anti-rackateering - nothing to do with guts."
---------
Good morals = Anti-Americanism
sound ethics = anti-americanism

am i misreading someting?
Anti-Americanism will continue, whoever wins 3:32pm on 24 Jul 2008 WHEN ISRAEL ALLOWS IAEA INSPECTORS IN THEN IRAN WILL TO.
That is my guess.

So israel the ball is in your court not iran.
-------
Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel is not. Israel has no treaty obligation to allow the IAEA to do anything. Iran does. Iran has several options:

1. Withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's a pretty simple thing to do. Sovereign nations are not eternally bound to anything, and if Iran thinks the NPT is unfair, it should announce it is withdrawing from the treaty. That's a perfectly legitimate position.

2. Abide by their commitement to the NPT and allow the IAEA to do its job.

3. Pretend to abide by the NPT, while developing a nuclear program away from the IAEA's inspectors.

Choosing the first option will confirm that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons. Choosing the second option will require Iran to abandon its quest. So, it has chosen the third option, which will only lead to confrontation. It's their choice.
Anti-Americanism will continue, whoever wins 2:54pm on 24 Jul 2008 178 Ed Iglehart:

Firstly, I'm not arguing grammar. I'm saying that the argument is disingenuous. It is constructed thusly: "Conclusion -- America is evil. Now find premises that support the conclusion." This is backward, and, as knightg brilliantly described "selective understanding." The correct way to do things is to look at the entire picture. Take in all the good and bad, and from that draw a conclusion.

Now, since you at least seem to appreciate mature conversation, I'll attempt to respond to your points:

"1. We do unconditionally support the atrocious Israeli behaviour."

Your characterization of Israeli behaviour as "atrocious" reveals your bias regarding that state. Obviously, Israel has been responsible for some atrocities -- but reasonable people tend to look at things in context and recognize a modern democratic state struggling to be left alone in the middle of a terribly hostile environment. But aside from that observation, your statement is just not true. We did not support the Suez action Israel undertook with the UK and France. We did not support the settlement activity during the first Intifada, which resulted the suspension of loan guarantees to Israel. We have not released the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from prison, despite great pressure from the Israeli government. We reconciled our differences with Libya and Col Qaddafi. These are just some examples where US and Israeli interests have diverged.

"2. Pre-emptive invasion based upon falsified and inaccurate "intelligence" and non-existent threat."

This completely ignores the fact that EVERY major intelligence organization in the WORLD belived that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. What we were debating prior to the 2003 invasion was how best to deal with what WE ALL BELIEVED was reality. The debate about whether to continue inspections or to pull out the UN team was based on that premise. Now, an argument can be made that this belief was manipulated by the Bush administration to achieve a pre-determined goal. But one would have to supply evidence to support that assertion, not just repeat popular opinoin. In any case, the UK, the USA, France, Germany, the UN, Hans Blix himself -- all believed independently of each other that Iraq had WMD. We were ALL wrong. Being wrong does not equate with lying.

"3. Warlike sabre-rattling, e.g. Iran"

I believe we are actually TALKING to the Iranians for the first time since 1979. We are even discussing the possibility of opening an American Interests section in Tehran, similar to the one we have in Havana.

"4. Such policies are transparently behind foreign criticism"

Such policies are excuses used by people who have already decided that America is bad. Cherry-picking facts to support a pre-determined conclusion is not "criticism." See my first paragraph.

"5. Guantanamo and Rendition likewise."

Perfectly legitimate criticism. Guantanamo is a blight and an embarassment. As an American I am ashamed the government opened it up, and I'm happy that both presidential candidates have indicated it will be closed when they take office.

"6. Predatory marketing of subsidized rice (and cotton) have indeed caused much misery."

The United States is hardly the only country in the world that subsidizes its agriculture. I'm not sure what you mean by "predatory marketing," so I'll reserve judgment. But this appears to be a case of blaming the US for a practice the entire world engages in. A bit like blaming the US for deforestation, which knightg did in his original post.
Anti-Americanism will continue, whoever wins 1:45pm on 24 Jul 2008 163, knightg:

Selective understanding... It's interesting that you choose that phrase, as it describes your arguments in toto. I'm not going to bother going through a ponit-by-point refutation of your ignorant screed because I fear it will do no good. You have already revealed that you're not going to be swayed by arguments contrary to the ones you espouse ("Case closed regretably"). Incidentally, it's a bit disingenuous to make a provocative post filled with ridiculous claims, and then be shocked when someone takes issue with it and dismisses you as a kook. When you're ready to have an adult, mature discussion on the "issues" you've raised, let me know and I'll be glad to have it.
Anti-Americanism will continue, whoever wins 00:53am on 24 Jul 2008 acquarizonagal

oldnat and i were discussing the Marshall Plan and how it related to nation/state-building. i don't believe i requested that anyone thank us or love us or anything like that. But I appreciate your efforts to keep things civil

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

PeteComas