|
U-Know! Forum » Afghanistan |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 15:02
|
||
|
>> Oppose with all our might these terrible >> things that someone's daddy builds. Could you imagine this "Hi honey, I'm home!" "Welcome home dear. What did you do today?" "Well, darling, I finished my design for the second most destructive weapon ever created. Where are the kids?"
|
|||
|
Wella Balsam 34 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 16:47
|
||
Interesting. But even though it might have nothing to do with oil IN Afghanistan ITSELF, it certainly is an excellent place in the centre of Central Asia. Isn't there a border with China too?
|
|||
cancer boy 977 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 16:53
|
||
Let's start a campaign to give their products more accurate nicknames. Perhaps they'll feel less impressed with themselves if they have to fire a "genocide bomb" with a "can't tell an orphanage from a silo fuse" from their "asshole transporters".
|
|||
|
cancer boy 977 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 16:55
|
||
"Day Today" reporter Ted Maul's phrase "a soldier's head flew past the window shoouting the word VICTORY!" has been ringing in my ears for the last month.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 17:00
|
||
|
Glossy advertising bumph with slogans such as Find them in the "Weapons Of Mass Murder" aisle at an arms trade fare near you.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 19:52
|
||
|
as a tangential 'aside' (i.e. nothing at all to do with the Caspian or Afghanistan specifically); i don't - as it happens - think the oil companies are all that worried about kyoto and future environmental legislation. recent statements (which haven't received nearly as much publicity as they should have - probably because of the 'war' and all) by oil companies (first Shell and then ExxonMobil) have made me prick up my ears somewhat. Both companies (and this is far more significant, in my eyes, than BPs 'beyond Petroleum' publicity stunt) have indicated that they are considering massive corporate re-evaluation and self-assessment of future goals. the reason for this is, it is claimed, that they want to be friendlier to the planet and focus on renewables. just as you say. well, call me a cynic, but i can't see an oil company voluntarily moving away from the oil business if there was still a lot of money in it. fear of kyoto? maybe, but... well, i kind of think that Big Oil fixed the last american elections to get anti-Kyoto Bush into power rather than pro-Kyoto Gore; they wanted to open up Alaska too, of course, and Gore would have held that up. if they don't have a problem rough-riding over the wishes of the american electorate, i suspect they don't concern themselves too much with international opinion or a bunch of activists... hell, Bush proved himself more than willing to unilaterally turn his back on at least three major international treaties within four months of taking office! my belief (and this is moving into 'speculation' territory, though more and more facts i'm turning up seem to support it) is that the oil companies are starting to stop letting economists make all the decisions and are actually starting to listen to their geologists and engineers... many of whom are asking very serious questions about the ability of global oil production to meet global oil demand past the end of this decade. there's some damn convincing reasons for believing that (though, ultimately the jury is still out), but if it is true, then the world is in for a very major shakeup before long - the day oil demand outstrips supply could well spell the beginning of the end for globalisation as we know it. and as nice a thought as that might be; the dependency we have developed on oil is mind-boggling, and the effects of shortages will be nothing short of catastophic for us all. (do please disassociate that from my caspian piece though. one is well-researched fact as best as i can assess ... the other is merely well-researched opinion). g.jim.
|
|||
|
Wella Balsam 34 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 22:29
|
||
|
..."This is then ignited by a second detonator, scorching the surrounding area, consuming oxygen and creating a shock wave and vacuum pressure that destroys the internal organs of anyone within range." Is the man who invented this a nutter, a psycho or a terrorist? Or all? Isn't it 'illegal' to create weapons designed to maim, kill or burn someone's internal organs? Civilisation MY ARSE!!
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 22:59
|
||
|
the way that bomb and its effects are described really got me thinking about the sort of people who make those weapons. [ off on a tangent... ] y'know, i worked on some dubious projects back in the days before i left corpo-suit-land, but dodgy in the sense of being part of the big machine that ultimately churned out fizzy-pop into bottles and cans. certainly i would be hard pushed to defend the cosmic necessity of my work at the time, but as much as i have a tendency to spout the "all part of the same system" line at times, there's clearly a major difference between going to work every morning building fuel-air bombs specifically designed to vaporise the internal organs of anyone in the blast radius, and going to work to improve the efficiency of a fizzy-orange can-filling machine. and while i like to see myself as being pretty damn tolerant when all's said and done, i'd probably find it hard to maintain civility in a room with a man (and let's face it, there's something very testosterone about a fuel-air bomb) who builds "daisy-cutters", whereas i would actually relish the opportunity to have a chat with, say, a guy working on genetically modifying wheat... for all manner of reasons. we might end up shouting at one another eventually, but you assume that someone in that line of work has a vision of what they do as a positive thing. the man who makes "daisy cutters" though... how does he sleep? g.jim.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 23:13
|
||
|
"In the 1980s, there was more literature on this, in particular, the Brandt Report, which showed that, while 51% of the scientific skill of the world was being used for the manufacture of armaments, only 1% of the world's scientific skill was used for solving problems of the developing world. There was also the Presidential report on the year 2000 and the OECD report called Interfutures. The matter of the destructiveness of modern science began to attract wider public recognition. " http://www.unu.edu/unupress/lecture4.html
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 23:26
|
||
|
I once worked on a job doing some software for a piece of machinery that measured the thickness of metal tubing (what?). I later found out that the particular metal tubing it was measuring and maintaining quality of was actually nuclear fuel rod casings !!! I seem to remember going absolutely ballistic at the guy I was subbing to at the time. The git knew damn well I would never have done it if I'd known. It still really fucking bugs me 10 years on!! The only positive thing I ever managed to glean from this (and let's face it you have to get some sort of plus just to cope sometimes) was that at least I knew there was some very good quality control procedures in place in at least one part of the process. I think I'll go and hang either myself or my head .....
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
