Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ...

    ...

  • #2
    ...

    Comment


    • #3
      http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
      Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash

      Comment


      • #4
        Perhaps, but not today.

        G8 FMs predict solid growth of global economy
        "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

        Comment


        • #5
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
          The reason why I will always be European...

          </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
          What makes you think Europe will not be immune if there is a global economic collapse? In a global economy, each country is interdependent on everybody else. If a major economic player falls, it will be felt worldwide.

          However, Europe's economy does have several weaknesses. It does not understand competition and is highly protectionist, even within the EU itself. Second, the economies are not resilient. This means that when major market shocks take effect, European economies are slow to respond. Finally, the last time Europe, particularily Germany and France as the European leaders, the world was engulfed in two major world wars and several smaller ones. Africa and Asia is still reaping the attrocities by European colonialism of France, Belgium, Germany, and England.

          But then again, nobody's perfect.
          "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by iperson:
            While the Asian economies will be severely affected from the collapse of the Anglo-Saxon economies, they will survive and recover. The future for the Anglo-Saxon people looks bleak.

            More than 100 countries now import wheat. Some 40 countries import rice. Iran and Egypt rely on imports for 40 percent of their grain supply. Algeria, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan import 70% or more. Israel and Yemen import more than 90%. And just 6 countries - the US, Canada, France Australia, Argentina and Thailand - supply 90% of grain exports. The United States alone controls close to half of world grain exports, a larger share than Saudi Arabia does of oil.

            Water deficits, which are already spurring heavy grain imports in numerous smaller countries, may soon do the same in larger countries, such as China or India. The water tables are falling in scores of countries (including Northern China, the US, and India) due to widespread overpumping using powerful diesel and electric pumps. Other countries affected include Pakistan, Iran, and Mexico. This will eventually lead to water scarcity and cutbacks in grain harvest. Even with the overpumping of its aquifers, China is developing a grain deficit. When this happens, it will almost certainly drive grain prices upward. Most of the 3 billion people projected to be added worldwide by mid-century will be born in countries already experiencing water shortages. Unless population growth can be slowed quickly by investing heavily in female literacy and family planning services, there may not be a humane solution to the emerging world water shortage.

            For the world's poor "” the millions living in cities on $1 per day or less and already spending 70 percent of their income on food "” rising grain prices would be life-threatening. A doubling of world grain prices today could impoverish more people in a shorter period of time than any event in history.

            The big test of the international community's capacity to manage scarcity may come when China turns to the world market for massive imports of 30, 40, or 50 million tons of grain per year "” demand on a scale that could quickly overwhelm world grain markets. When this happens, China will have to look to the United States, which controls nearly half the world's grain exports. This will pose a fascinating geopolitical situation: 1.3 billion Chinese consumers, who have a $120-billion trade surplus with the United States"”enough to buy the entire U.S. grain harvest twice "” will be competing with Americans for U.S. grain, driving up food prices. In such a situation 30 years ago, the United States would simply have restricted exports, but today it has a stake in a politically stable China.

            Within the next few years, the United States may be loading one or two ships a day with grain for China. This long line of ships stretching across the Pacific, like an umbilical cord providing nourishment, may link the two economies much more closely than ever before. Managing this flow of grain so as to satisfy the needs of consumers in both countries may become one of the leading foreign policy challenges of this new century.

            After China and India, there is a second tier of smaller countries with large water deficits "” Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, and Pakistan. Four of these already import a large share of their grain. Only Pakistan remains self-sufficient. But with a population expanding by 4 million a year, it will also likely soon turn to the world market for grain. Iran and Egypt, each with some 70 million people, have become leading importers of wheat, in recent years vying with Japan "” traditionally the leading wheat importer "” for the top spot. Both countries now import 40 percent of their total grain supply. Morocco brings in half of its grain. For Saudi Arabia, the figure is over 70 percent. Algeria, with 31 million people, imports some 75 percent of its grain, which means that the water used to produce the imported grain exceeds water consumption from domestic sources. Because of its heavy dependence on imports, Algeria is particularly vulnerable to disruptions, such as grain export embargoes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hudson:
              Finally, the last time Europe, particularily Germany and France as the European leaders, the world was engulfed in two major world wars and several smaller ones. Africa and Asia is still reaping the attrocities by European colonialism of France, Belgium, Germany, and England.

              But then again, nobody's perfect.

              Germany commited a genocide and horiffic attrocities in Eastern Europe, not in Africa. World wars engulfed largery Europe. In fact, aside from some attrocities (19th century Belgian Congo and Algeria) colonialism above all brought western education, health care and inventions. Colonialism brought peace to the 300 warring tribes of Africa. Colonialism for Africa meant more development (cities, rail networks, dams etc.) than it had ever known - before or after colonialism. It´s the lighter (and purposely marginalized) side of colonialism.

              On 22 February 1807, twenty years after he first began his crusade, and in the middle of Britain's war with France, William Wilberforce and his team's labours were rewarded with victory. By an overwhelming 283 votes for to 16 against, the motion to abolish the slave trade was carried in the House of Commons. In 1809, the British government mobilised its Navy to search suspected slave ships, even foreign vessels on the high seas. In 1810, the British Parliament declared slave trading a felony, punishable by fourteen years hard labour. In 1814, the British representative at the Congress of Vienna insisted on the abolition of the slave trade being included in the International Treaty. This Treaty was signed by all the European powers on 9 June 1815. In 1825, Britain passed a bill making slave trading punishable by death.

              With peace in Europe from 1815, and British supremacy at sea secured, the Navy turned its attention back to the challenge and established the West Coast of Africa Station, known as the ˜preventative squadron', which for the next 50 years operated against the slavers. Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against ˜the usurping King of Lagos', deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers. Large numbers of people from the interior of Africa had been sold as slaves in Arabia, Persia, and even India for centuries. In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of Arab atrocities against enslaved Africans stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. Throughout the 1870s, the Navy attempted to suppress ˜this abominable Eastern trade' at Zanzibar, in particular (On January 12, 1964, a violent revolution in Zanzibar ousted the Arab-dominated ZNP-led coalition...More than 5,000 Arabs and Indians were killed by former black slaves, according to reports, and thousands of others were detained and their property either confiscated or destroyed.)

              In fact, British occupation of Africa was more human, more successful and more beneficial for natives than current disastrous American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The first Islamic countries to abolish slavery "” Tunisia, Egypt, the Ottoman Empire "” did so under pressure from the West. As recently as 1878, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina served as major slave markets, trading 25,000 black slaves annually. The eradication of slavery, in fact, is one of the great and unheralded legacies of colonialism.

              The current Asian economic growth is possible only THANKS to colonialism.

              99% of the world´s most important inventors in human history were white men from Europe and USA.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors
              List of inventors

              Comment


              • #8
                Who can predict the future even economically? But if the tend continues, China would soon be the world's superpower. She is right now economically. If you have the money, you have the political and military clout in the world. That's what America fears most. America can't imagine to find herself waking up one day to see her crown taken and gone. But it's not too late too keep the crown even if she has to share it with China later. First, eliminate war freaks like Bush. Second, Americans must learn how to be humble and stop their bullish tactics. Gone are the days of others being scared just mere mentioned of "Uncle Sam". Next step: Get out Iraq...and quickly. We're losing the war. If we were man enough to get out of Vietnam, why not again Iraq? Are we there to save face? Forget about the great American pride. We don't have it no more.

                Comment


                • #9
                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Malinsky:
                  Germany commited a genocide and honorific atrocities in Eastern Europe, not in Africa. World wars engulfed larger Europe. In fact, aside from some atrocities (19th century Belgian Congo and Algeria) colonialism above all brought western education, health care and inventions. Colonialism brought peace to the 300 warring tribes of Africa. Colonialism for Africa meant more development (cities, rail networks, dams etc.) than it had ever known - before or after colonialism. It´s the lighter (and purposely marginalized) side of colonialism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                  European colonialism had a devastating impact on Africa.

                  "The artificial boundaries created by colonial rulers as they ruled and finally left Africa had the effect of bringing together many different ethnic people within a nation that did not reflect, nor have (in such a short period of time) the ability to accommodate or provide for, the cultural and ethnic diversity. The freedom from imperial powers was, and is still, not a smooth transition. The natural struggle to rebuild is proving difficult.
                  Artificial Borders Created by Imperial Europe

                  "In the 1870s European nations were bickering over themselves about the spoils of Africa. In order to prevent further conflict between them, they convened at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 to lay down the rules on how they would partition up Africa between themselves.

                  "Between 1870 and World War I alone, the European scramble for Africa resulted in the adding of around one-fifth of the land area of the globe to its overseas colonial possessions.

                  "Colonial administrations started to take hold. In some areas, Europeans were encouraged to settle, thus creating dominant minority societies. France even planned to incorporate Algeria into the French state, such was the power at the time. In other cases, the classic "divide and conquer" techniques had to be used to get local people to help administer colonial administrations. Some were only too willing to help for their own ends."

                  http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:eCEcD0F_PBsJ:www.p...=us&client=firefox-a
                  This site gives reasons why France and Great Briton wanted colonialism in Africa. Great Britain wanted to use the natural resources to continue its dominance while France wanted to establish a French identity in the region. Both have, and still have, lasting impact on Africa that has been plagued by wars, corruption, human atrocities, etc. I don't think the lighter side of colonialism will wash the stain of what the European counties committed on that continent. It is also the reason why the US should not get involved in that part of the world. But, African leaders also have contributed to the ongoing problem in Africa as well.

                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On 22 February 1807, twenty years after he first began his crusade, and in the middle of Britain's war with France, William Wilberforce and his team's labours were rewarded with victory. By an overwhelming 283 votes for to 16 against, the motion to abolish the slave trade was carried in the House of Commons. In 1809, the British government mobilised its Navy to search suspected slave ships, even foreign vessels on the high seas. In 1810, the British Parliament declared slave trading a felony, punishable by fourteen years hard labour. In 1814, the British representative at the Congress of Vienna insisted on the abolition of the slave trade being included in the International Treaty. This Treaty was signed by all the European powers on 9 June 1815. In 1825, Britain passed a bill making slave trading punishable by death. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                  Ah, the infamous Slave Trade Act of 1807 and America's counterpart, yet slave trade still long after the act was passed. In fact, it took another 30 years before it would be completely abolished by the Emancipation Act of 1833.

                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In fact, British occupation of Africa was more human, more successful and more beneficial for natives than current disastrous American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The first Islamic countries to abolish slavery "” Tunisia, Egypt, the Ottoman Empire "” did so under pressure from the West. As recently as 1878, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina served as major slave markets, trading 25,000 black slaves annually. The eradication of slavery, in fact, is one of the great and unheralded legacies of colonialism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                  What makes you think Iraq and Afghanistan are forms of a colonial agenda by the US? But the end of slavery came more by a political and religious agenda. However British colonialism, as noted above, did have some nasty side effects.

                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The current Asian economic growth is possible only THANKS to colonialism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                  I guess you never heard of the Boxer Rebellion, have you. With the foreign powers defeat of the Ming Dynasty, caused a rise in Chinese nationalist movement and consequently with the Communist movement as well.

                  China's economic success has more to do with structural reform, infusion of investment capital from outside sources (wealth distribution), and Chinese culture infusion with western economic development are the reasons for its success, not because of some invention as you described.

                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">99% of the world´s most important inventors in human history were white men from Europe and USA.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors
                  List of inventors </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                  A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHINESE MEDICINE AND ITS INFLUENCE
                  List of Chinese inventions
                  Four Great Inventions of ancient China
                  China may have been the first to make wine.
                  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hudson:
                    Great Britain wanted to use the natural resources to continue its dominance. What makes you think Iraq and Afghanistan are forms of a colonial agenda by the US?

                    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm
                    Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

                    http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
                    Halliburton Watch

                    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071526/
                    Iraqi oil, American bonanza

                    http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/...947859,00.html
                    War propels Exxon profits to record $7bn

                    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6532
                    Bechtel Wins Iraq War Contracts

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Aug3.html
                    $1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Malinsky:
                      Originally posted by Hudson:
                      Great Britain wanted to use the natural resources to continue its dominance. What makes you think Iraq and Afghanistan are forms of a colonial agenda by the US?

                      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm
                      Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

                      http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
                      Halliburton Watch

                      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071526/
                      Iraqi oil, American bonanza

                      http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/...947859,00.html
                      War propels Exxon profits to record $7bn

                      http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6532
                      Bechtel Wins Iraq War Contracts

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Aug3.html
                      $1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                      Why we went to war with Iraq
                      " "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

                      --Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

                      Debunking Gas Myths & Conspiracy Theories

                      Big Oil myths and big worries

                      Debunking Iraq War Myth 2: Oil War?
                      But more than a decade of neglect has left Iraq¿s oil infrastructure desperately in need of fresh investment, without which Iraq cannot top and sustain $23 billion.

                      (Sabotage by terrorists and additional security measures are not factored into this calculation).

                      The US has so far spent in excess of $100 billion on the war.

                      By the time all is said and done, the war could cost in excess of $200.

                      If this was a war for oil, it was a spectacularly poor business decision.
                      Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil

                      Oil Company Profits: Just Who Is Gouging Whom?
                      "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Both have, and still have, lasting impact on Africa that has been plagued by wars, corruption, human atrocities, etc. I don't think the lighter side of colonialism will wash the stain of what the European counties committed on that continent. It is also the reason why the US should not get involved in that part of the world. But, African leaders also have contributed to the ongoing problem in Africa as well.

                        And Mongols still have lasting impact on Eastern Europe that has been plagued by wars, corruption, human atrocities, etc. Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, Stalin, Hitler, Bosnian War, Chechnya War etc. All thanks to Mongols. Am I right?

                        In 1237–40 the Mongols (commonly called Tatars) under Batu, a grandson of Genghis Khan, invaded Russia and destroyed all the chief Russian cities except Novgorod. The Mongols then invaded the Kingdom of Hungary and Poland. Where they found local resistance, they mercilessly killed the population. Where the people did not offer any resistance, they forced the men into servitude and the women and children were killed or carried off. Leaving the whole of Eastern Europe depopulated and in ruins, they ruled region for the next 230 years.

                        China's economic success has more to do with structural reform, infusion of investment capital from outside sources (wealth distribution), and Chinese culture infusion with western economic development are the reasons for its success, not because of some invention as you described.

                        So electricity, computer, telephone, transistor, automobile, nuclear reactor etc. aren´t important for economic growth?

                        http://corporate.britannica.com/press/inventions.html
                        Great Inventions

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Malinsky:
                          And Mongols still have lasting impact on Eastern Europe that has been plagued by wars, corruption, human atrocities, etc. Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, Stalin, Hitler, Bosnian War, Chechnya War etc. All thanks to Mongols. Am I right?

                          In 1237–40 the Mongols (commonly called Tatars) under Batu, a grandson of Genghis Khan, invaded Russia and destroyed all the chief Russian cities except Novgorod. The Mongols then invaded the Kingdom of Hungary and Poland. Where they found local resistance, they mercilessly killed the population. Where the people did not offer any resistance, they forced the men into servitude and the women and children were killed or carried off. Leaving the whole of Eastern Europe depopulated and in ruins, they ruled region for the next 230 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                          Hardly although the Mongolian invasion did have an impact on Russia though, but not Eastern Europe or Europe itself.

                          Some of the long-term consequences of the Mongol Empire include:

                          * The Mongol empire is traditionally given credit for reuniting China and expanding its frontiers.
                          * The language Chagatai, widely spoken among a group of Turks, is named after a son of Genghis Khan. It was once widely spoken, and had a literature, but eventually became extinct in Russia.
                          * Moscow rose to prominence during the Mongol-Tatar yoke, some time after Russian rulers were accorded the status of tax collectors for Mongols (which meant that the Mongols themselves would rarely visit the lands that they owned). The Russian ruler Ivan III overthrew the Mongols completely to form the Russian Tsardom, after the Great stand on the Ugra river proved the Mongols vulnerable, and led to the independence of the Grand Duke of Moscow. It is worth noting, however, that Russian historians have for centuries viewed the Mongol occupation as a period of arrested development for Russia, and the primary reason for its backwardness in the following centuries compared to the rest of Europe.
                          * Europe's knowledge of the known world was immensely expanded by the information brought back by ambassadors and merchants. When Columbus sailed in 1492, his missions were to reach Cathay, the land of the Genghis Khan. Some research studies indicate that the Black Death, which devastated Europe in the late 1340s, may have reached from China to Europe along the trade routes of the Mongol Empire.
                          * Among the Western accounts, historian R. J. Rummel estimated that 30 million people were killed under the rule of the Mongol Empire, and the population of China fell by half in fifty years of Mongol rule. David Nicole states in The Mongol Warlords, "terror and mass extermination of anyone opposing them was a well tested Mongol tactic."
                          The Legacy of the Mongol Empire

                          Most of what you cited such as the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Bosnian Wars, World War 1, World War II, does not have anything to do with the Mongol invasion, nor the Moors invasion. These were primarily internal conflicts within Europe with political complexity that takes too long to explain here. However, the Roman Empire defined what Europe was and is today.

                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So electricity, computer, telephone, transistor, automobile, nuclear reactor etc. aren´t important for economic growth?

                          http://corporate.britannica.com/press/inventions.html
                          Great Inventions </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                          If you look at the Terracotta Warriors and Horses from the Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, the technology to create such pristine figures did not even exist in Europe. China was already a society with far more cultural, political, and economic prominence that far outweighed what Europe has accomplished.
                          "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hudson:

                            * The Mongol empire is traditionally given credit for reuniting China and expanding its frontiers.

                            Many ancient sources described Genghis Khan's conquests as wholesale destruction on an unprecedented scale in their certain geographical regions, and therefore probably causing great changes in the demographics of Asia. For example, over much of Central Asia speakers of Iranian languages were replaced by speakers of Turkic languages. China reportedly suffered a drastic decline in population during 13th and 14th centuries. Before the Mongol invasion, unified China reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest was completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people. According to historians, over 80% of the Volga Bulgaria's population was killed during the Mongol invasion.

                            The last years of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty in China were marked by struggle, famine, and bitterness among the populace. The dynasty was, significantly, one of the shortest-lived dynasties in the history of China, covering just a century, 1271 to 1368. The reigns of the later Yuan emperors were short and were marked by intrigues and rivalries. Uninterested in administration, they were separated from both the army and the populace. China was torn by dissension and unrest; bandits ravaged the country without interference from the weakening Yuan armies.

                            * Moscow rose to prominence during the Mongol-Tatar yoke. It is worth noting, however, that Russian historians have for centuries viewed the Mongol occupation as a period of arrested development for Russia, and the primary reason for its backwardness in the following centuries compared to the rest of Europe.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...Yoke_in_Russia
                            Timeline of the Tataro-Mongol Yoke in Russia

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatar_invasions
                            Tatar invasions

                            Annually Russian population of the borderland suffered of Tatar invasions and tens thousand soldiers protected the southern boundaries that was heavy burden for the state and slowed its social and economic development. Since Tatars did not permit settlement of Russians to southern regions where soil is better and the season is long enough, Muscovy had to depend on poorer regions and labour intensive agriculture.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Kazan_Wars
                            Russo-Kazan Wars

                            Russian chronicles record about forty attacks of Kazan khans on the Russian territories just in the first half of the 16th century.

                            http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/ru...eantatars.html
                            List of Wars of the Crimean Tatars

                            If you look at the Terracotta Warriors and Horses from the Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, the technology to create such pristine figures did not even exist in Europe. China was already a society with far more cultural, political, and economic prominence that far outweighed what Europe has accomplished.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology
                            Roman technology

                            One question that has been the subject of debate among historians has been why China did not develop a scientific revolution and why Chinese technology fell behind that of Europe. Many hypotheses have been proposed ranging from the cultural to the political and economic. In fact, the Chinese political system was hostile to scientific progress. Joseph Needham argued, and most scholars agreed, that cultural factors prevented these Chinese achievements from developing into what could be called "science". It was the religious and philosophical framework of the Chinese intellectuals which made them unable to believe in the ideas of laws of nature.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Forget all this Bu****e clap-trap that "Well, even Clinton believed he had WMD." It doesn't matter what anyone else thought or believed. It is evident that Bush and Blair knew that the UN weapons inspectors were finding the truth -- no WMD. Period. The Guardian reported: "Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme."

                              That is a war crime. Bush knew that there was no WMD in Iraq. He knew it before he ordered the attack and invasion. He is a LIAR.

                              http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...700881,00.html
                              Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo

                              The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies and using chemical weapons, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

                              http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
                              Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

                              A national survey of mortality in The Lancet estimates 654,965 Iraqi deaths (range of 392,979-942,636) from March 2003 to July 2006. That total number of deaths (all Iraqis) includes all excess deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc, and includes civilians, military deaths and insurgent deaths. Although the British Government initially tried to dispute the accuracy of this report, the UK Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser later said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".

                              The latest UN figures concerning the refugee crisis in Iraq indicate that between 1-1.2 million Iraqis have fled across the border into Syria; about 750,000 have crossed into Jordan (increasing its modest population of 5.5 million by 14%); at least another 150,000 have made it to Lebanon; over 150,000 have emigrated to Egypt; and over 1.9 million are now estimated to have been internally displaced by civil war and sectarian cleansing within Iraq. About 100,000 people are fleeing the country each month. These numbers are staggering in a population estimated in the pre-invasion years at only 26 million. At a bare minimum, in other words, at least one out of every seven Iraqis has had to flee his or her home due to the violence and chaos set off by the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq.

                              http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/world/middleeast/29sy...f=slogin&oref=slogin
                              Desperate Iraqi Refugees Turn to *** Trade in Syria

                              http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG2MNJBIS1.DTL
                              CONFLICT IN IRAQ / 40% of middle class believed to have fled crumbling nation

                              A November 11, 2006 Los Angeles Times article reports:

                              The [Iraq] nation's health has deteriorated to a level not seen since the 1950s, said Joseph Chamie, former director of the U.N. Population Division and an Iraq specialist. "They were at the forefront", he said, referring to healthcare just before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "Now they're looking more and more like a country in sub-Saharan Africa."

                              http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/185c5735-f...d7-0e79c50d83b1.html
                              Iraq: Health-Care System On Verge Of Collapse - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY

                              http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0070223cc.html
                              Iraqi survivors face health-care collapse

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X