Apollo

Will Global Warming Trigger a New Ice Age? (read more about it on the site) Could you immagine the disaster of a new Ice Age?<belive me ,even if i know such speculation is risky ,i'm fairly frightened by this.Immagine most of Europe and America being thrown back to Siberian climate ,it would mean the end for whole nations and society's.

Media all over the world are putting the responsiilety for the extent of this disaster directly on the US or local goverment.It are only a few politicians in the USA who dare to say that this evacuation has been handled correctly. (and i wouldn't like to be in their position if after they voiced such an oppinion) And the worldwide media isn't exactly moderate in it's allegations neither ,they are really shocked by the extent of this failure ,especially for a country like the USA with such massive means. Then why not criticise? If it's due then it's justified IMO ,and it's more than due ,if you never would critisize a goverment that has seriously faltered in disaster control just because of the effects of their errors and the human tragedy ofthat ,then how do you expect that this situation will be prevented the next time. Personally i find the negationism of certain politicians shocking ,i know when it comes to my country Belgium by now 2 or 3 ministers would have resigned if they had made such errors ,if not forced to do it to save the goverment. It's like with Rumsfled on the time of the Abu-Graib scandal ,many people expected him to resign but it didn't happen ,and that was actually quite surprizing to me ,In Any European country he would have been simply forced.It seems American politicians can often get away with errors that in Europe would mean the end of youre carreer ,i think that is because there isn't enough political pressure in the US to force such a thing ,and then i'm thinking ,if you never critisize the goverment then the same error-makers will stay in their positions.

Beautifull ships ,thx for the pictures. I saw a documentary once of a group that sailed around the world in such a ship in mostly in conditions of the time that they used such ships.Afcourse it's very harsh work ,but it looks most sattisfactory to having completed such a voyage as a true searot of that time. (get out the rum matey! )

With other words ,many US politicians are currently following a crash course on dodging as they expect bullets of criticism that ininvatably will hit something hard.As thus scapegoat searching will intensify this week ,and as usually it will probably be some disconnected indivudual that has to take the load to protect the higher echelon's.

I genneraly never seem to know how to prioritize donations ,though i give some to medcin sans frontiere because i believe them to be very cost-effeciant in the most derperatly needing care area's ,well mostly Africa. Not with any disrespect ,but i never felt that i should donate to good causes ment for the rich western world ,afterall there are plenty of means around here ,and there are far more dying in far poorer country's. Sorry if this shocks you ,i guess if youre personally involved cold rationality can look offensive. And another thing with some of those good causes ... are they trustworthy?Such scams have happened before.

Normally regatta's are so typical Brittish ,and they do not tend to inspire my heart as much as those of the countrymen of that much greater sea faring nation that is called England. But then i read the list of this regatta ,and then i began to read thing's like schooner ,barque ,bomb ketch ,brigantine ,cutter ,and realized this is not just a regatta of sail ships ,but probably one of authentic 15-16th century ships?Atleast the type of ships suggest that. If it are really such old time vessels ,then ill be more than interrested to see photographs of it ,especially the Bm ketches and the brigantine's wich i find quite cool.Are they the 15th century kinda of brigantines or the 17th century type's? or are they just modern type vessels with old style classifications?

NO! You can't look at it like that ,politicians that do not take priority on maintaining life and security for it's citizins in favour of economical factor's are not worth to be politicians IMO ,money is not the essence of a country ,the people are ,and their benifit is priority. Take it as you wish ,but i expect of a goverment to provide me security ,and orderly enviroment with laws in place ,availabilety of life sustainable goods ,etc. ,if my goverment can't provide that then why am i paying taxes?Politicians are not primarily responsible for the economical health of a region ,the economical part is there only to provide a better life inviroment for it's citizin ,a goverment that cannot provide it's citizin when in dire need and potential a plenty is a goverment that severely failed.And this is very important ,by defacto IMO a goverment that cannot maintain order ,law and stabilety is not worth existing. A good politician looks out for the economical aspects of it's people in stable times ,yes thats logical ,but when times are dire the time for sweettalk has ended and action is needed ,and there failure has been massive.True she's probably not responsible ,but even if politicians cannot help in a practical matter they are atleast expected to show sincere symphaty for the suffering of THEIR people and not go all negationistic and actually congratulate their leaders for a realy messed up job.

And then TBA goes investing whole percentage's of the BNP in Iraq because of 3000 dead in New York ,talk about priority's.

Yeah ,my grandfather was a lower officer at the fortress of Eben-Emal when it was taken by german Fallshirmjägers ,he managed to escape with a few other men after having been captured by germans ,and had to hide himself for 4 years on a farm to avoid winding up in a German labour camp.I don't dare to ask him about his experiences though he's still alive ,i asked it once and all it resulted in was my grandfather silently crying and my grandmother being furious at me ,after that i never dared to ask it anymore ,but i know from my grandmother that he saw many of his close friends die in combat.

Well ,i guess the USA should really ask the help of the Netherlands to make new Orleans livable again and prepared for when another such one occurs ,i wager that after having worked almost half a century on their massive delta project's to keep Holand uber safe from such thing's that they have quite the expertise and equpment to handle such thing's effeciantly ,now New Orleans is basicly a new part of the Mexican gulf...

And Noone was discussing Kyoto specific or "change this thread in a Kyoto topic" ,people adressed global warming in light of this tragedy and as you can see concerns about the effect of global warming on possible disasters are shared here by multiple posters. in addition ,you seem to be genneraly of the oppinion that there is no reason to blame the TBA administration for the extent of this tragedy ,while i would say the majority of the rest of the world clearly see this as a hughe failure of TBA ,much worse than Putin's kursk failure.You only have to read on BBC the comments of newspapers and media worldwide on this tragedy ,most media is just baffled by the extent of TBA's failure here ,not understanding how a superpower with such enourmous means performs worse than certain 3rd world country's would do. I would say in the end this is a most humiliating affair for the USA ,and i do not doubt that it will have hughe reprecusions on the Republican party ,afterall it was they who slashed disaster funding and send the guards to Iraq. I feel it's also a bit a generation conflict ,the rich oil magnat's are usually elder people ,theyll never see the consequences of their greed ,theyll be death by then ,so why care?Or society is materialistic and selfish ,and the elder generation is the largest demographicly in most country's.It's easy to see that usually younger people are much more concerned about the enviroment than older people ,as younger people have more reason to care about it. Seriously ,i saw recently a quite frightening BBC documentary on the North Sea gulf stream (providing Europe with heat) ,and the possibilety that melted ice from the pole caps could interrupt the warm gulf stream altoghether ,wich would result in a new European ice age.Afcourse there is probably some speculation to it ,but it's quite frightening as it is ,immagine a new ice age ,Europe is basicly screwed ,no way to support almost a billion of people on a continent as arid as Siberia ,in would mean the ned for many of our society's.And it's even not that farfetched ,interruption of the gulf stream has been known as origin of the ice ages that covered Europe before people could begin to live here. Afcourse there is a certain threshold ,afcourse unknown ,thats the most frightening thing of all ,if it can not be accuratly predicted upon wich value's such a thing could happen then the chance is high that we will only know it when it actually happens.

No ,you are misusing my words ,i never said this wouldn't have happened if Kyoto was signed ,noone said that here ,rather you are using this to post anti-Kyoto BS. You can say what you want about Kyoto ,i don't care about that ,fact is that if the USA didn't agree with Kyoto ,that didn't mean they had to tottaly neglect the problem all toghether.Supposedly the USA didn't sign the treaty just because it had clausules wich they didn't agree on.It's their right to do that ,but it looks pretty dumb that the USA first criticizes a treaty for lacking effeciancy ,and therefore decided to neglect the problem altoghether ,rahter than proposing an other treaty with clausules they think are right. And you have to take into account other people to with this problem ,every country in the world is affected by global warming ,not to speak of my native dutch lands wich are caved in behind large dikes as half the country is under the sea level here.The pollution the USA create's also affects us ,just as our pollution effects the USA.Most people are not mad that the USA didn't agree on a treaty ,however are mad that the USA therefore didn't propose an other treaty or revissions ,but just chose to neglect the whole problem while 80% of world country's agreed on it and many of them are doing economical sacrifices to reduce global warming. Ah ,so we critisize kyoto because it's useless "withought action" ,and therefore we choose to neglect ecology problems at all? Seems that the whole reasion the Bush administration didn't sign kyoto was just because they didn't want to take action ,as that is how it effectivly panned out really.And for reasons known ,afterall it would have ment large economical sacrifices for the USA. How dare you to say we "exploit" this situation ,for petty thing's like political motivtions ,such remarks only show youre own blatant ignorance and short-sightness.This is not discussing ,this is slander ,breaking off another person's views with wild unfounded accusations. And now plz stop about this Kyoto BS you repeated 5 times in youre previous post on tottaly unfounded reasons ,and try to participate into this discussion in a sensible way rather than with ignorant and emotional remarks.I do not need the patriotic censor brigade.

one of the main problems of refuge center down there is organization. people don't know what thier supposed to do. You obviously don't get the point. Yes, natural disasters will always be a problem, but all research show that the greenhouse effect causes more natural disasters, and that it causes more extreme weather. Which means you will have more hurricanes and the hurricanes will be stronger than before (no, it doesn't mean that every hurricane is c-5, but more will be). If you have a very dry forest somewhere in Spain, it will be a very big chance for it to start to burn. If you add some live fire, that chance increases... Well, I bet they'll get a lot of help from a crashed chopper To say such a thing as that is absolutly absurd and dispicable. Blaming the USA for its emissions of greenhouse gasses, saying that thats the reason why we have a number of hurricanes is completely absurd and poposterous. If I were you my friend, I would stop trying to exploit what has happened to the Gulf coast for political and ideological gain. Instead of saying that local and federal gov. is to blame becasue of untimely reatction to such an inimagineable even. You slash the USA policy of not signing some stupid treaty. Saying that becasue the USA does not beleive in Kyoto treaty, they brought this on themselves. I tell you one thing my friend, you better do a deep soul search right now inside you and see who has their priorities messed up. If anything, I would blame the geography of the area and the lack of preparation, but certainly not a treaty not being signed. Just take your treaty and walk down to New Orleans and tell the people there at the superdome and convention center about how the country had forsaken them all becasue they didn't sign the kyoto treay. Gee I wonder what kind of response you would receive from them... I have never heard anything so ingnorant and poposterous in my entire life. I suggest you look at the TV a little more so you can see for yourself if the Kyoto treaty would have made a damn difference in New Orleans. Do you think the storm would have been less powerful if the treaty was signed? Do you think if the treaty was signed the levees wouldn't break? I suggest you ask yourself those questions, and see for yourself if the treaty has anything to do with what has happened. Well BAZ i think youre ,let me call it "emotional reaction" is far from objective to ,clearly one-sided and anti-Kyoto from point of view.You may think that patronizing or intimidating a person in discussion might help to get youre point across ,but i doubt many poeple will agree on this tone on wich you "discus" in a discussion board. While the scientific world is wildly devided on the effects of global warming ,the general concensus nevertheless is that global warming is as a fact happening ,and this due to human intervention not naturraly ,the real discussion is the extent of global warming ,not wheter or not it does not exist. Now im not tootally going to solely blame the US for greenhouse gasses ,though it must be said they do take a major share of it ,mainly because a) America is a big and poppulated country b)America is the most industrious country in the world and c) very liberal ecology policy's of the Bush administration have not drasticly cut emmisions while in certain other country's that has been done.Granted it must be said that those who do cut emmisions are mainly those who can easily afford it ,like Norway with it's abbundant resources ,while China on the other hand does not have the economic luxury. However ,with global warming being a fact ,also knowing that it's proven that human industry's speed up this phenonema ,it's fairly logical to conclude that the USA has it's given share of greenhouse emmision contributing to global warming.Add to this the fact that global warmin in itself can indeed increase the severity and occurence's of major storms it's fair to conclude that US global warming does contribute to a certain extent to the size of this disaster. To be true ,youre reaction reminds me of the reaction of most US citizins after 9/11 ,and i must say this sort of emotional reactions tend to be more typical among Americans that most other nationalities ,atleast from my experience.Afcourse it depends on the indiividual to ,but atleast on the aftermath on the bombing in Madrid or Londen there was far less emotional reaction on the internet and less of the sort of attitude that "you can't criticise my goverment for the slightest bit just because an x amount of people just died in a disaster".I wonder why you want to intimidate people in sharing their views just because of the disaster ,it looks to me as a kinda excesive moralism. personally ,i think if the goverment made errors in this tragedy ,they should be adreessed and the goverment critisized.Afterall if the goverment can't look out for our lives anymore than what use does it have to us ,people in a society expect the goverment to provide law and order ,stabilety ,acces to life sustainable needs etc ,if the goverment isn't there to provide that for me when i need it then why the hell m i paying taxes? To fight some war in a far away land that i didn't ask for?

It's indeed probably quite a nightmare for the US administration ,to only have the option to politicly support a predominantly Shia majority for stabilety reasons in Iraq ,and to see that Shia part of Iraq being heavily influenced by Iran ,While the Sunni's want nothing more than civil war and the Kurds are all to eager to go their own way to. As i have read in my favourite weeky local political magazine ,the situation in the south are already as such that Iran arms millitia's in the south ,Even has Irani citizins among those militia's ,and some reports even mention Irani deathsquads opperating in the south.It's also said that concerning control of the region neither Brits or American's arn't much present anymore and the shia's in the South control the area mostly by own power.As for the Iraqi Shia leaders ,many of them have been in exile in Iran for years if not decade's ,and are heavily influnced by them. The most worysome thing IMO is the political reality of sepperation of groups in Iraq ,something that seems to make Iraq as entity non-existant.The Shia have their region in the south ,the Kurds in the North ,and the Suni in the centre and West ,all groups have their own millitia's and leaders and respective millitary control of their region ,excpet for the Suni who are still largely dukeing it out with the American's.There are hopes of a federal state ,but i don't see it happen ,the civil war is lready a reality.

This is an appaling situation ,especially for a country like the US that is on the cutting edge of technoligy ,has superb infrastructure and has a massive productional means of any life sustainable product in such times. And afcourse really dumb of the Bush administration to cut funding there ,i do not doubt they will be widely seen as responsible for the extent of this disaster ,i hope it severely backfires on them and their policy's ,maybe also the republicans in general. Funny that Venezuela is one of the first to offer help ,i think i see some hidden agenda there. I begin to wonder ,if i had been a reporter ,would i rather have liked to be in New Orleans or Iraq?

Looks very nice ,i see you took a lot of attention to detail ,to make some nice scenery places.Looks like a well balanced island in scenery. Btw ,about that shot from the ship looking up to the oil refinery ,i just love those beach ridge texture's ,looks so real.

Superb as always!

@ Sophion-Black I think you give OBL to much credit in the first place. OBL is a product on a movement ,not the origin of the movement itself.While individuals can have a profound influence on major events ,they are as much subject to it than that they stand above it.Was Hitler the origin of WW2 ,or a product of a movement in Germany.Was it Alexander the great who wanted the greek to defeat the Persians ,or were it the Greek who wanted Alexander to defeat the Persians?Would Napoleon have existed withought the withought the French revolution? I bet you ,if OBL would today tell his terrorist budy's that he wants to retire from the position and have his pension they'll probably frag him. OBL's poppularity under elements of society all over the muslim world can only be explained by Anti-American resentment in those society's ,and that resentment has an origin ,you can ask yourself if the resentment is justified ,but it exist. Primarily it seems ,that the general movement that include's moderate elements like conventional mujahedeen and radical terrorists ,has it's primary goal to Defend the soverignity of muslim country's and promote a theocratic goverment ,or atleast a goverment based on moralism and clericalism. The danger of greater millitant movement's is it's power to grow larger ,the more people join themselfs to it's cause the harder it is to defeat the cause. That is the problem with Iraq ,you might see it as a justified cause ,but the majority in the Muslim world doesn't.Then youre justification is irrelivant ,because in reality the movement grows regardless of youre arguments ,and the real danger for the USA grows. Even more ,the danger in the middle east grows.For the Less stable goverments of the middle east this movement could be very dangerous ,even more the fall the goverment of a major middle east country to fanatical elements pro Mujahedeen might spark more revolutions in the Middle east ,could give the movement real power. (regardless who leads it) The danger is even greater financially for the whole western world for the effect this movement could have if it grows on teh suplly of oil to the Western world ,oil prices are rising ,production peeking ,demand With country's as China and India growing rapidly.Sabotage of oil supply from the ME might lead to economical downturn in the west. Afcourse ,the ME ,as a whole ,is very diverse ,with many differnt custom's ,languaghe's ,etc.Some country's are more stabel that others. The stress is mostly on the Persian gulf surrounding's of the Middle east ,Saudi Arabia ,Iraq ,Iran ,the rich oil sector of the Middle east basicly.And it's felt out there.It's not a poppulation rich region though ,so it's not that manpower intensive ,though Iran with it's 60Million and 75% mountains looks like a bigger challange than Iraq conventionaly. In the end though i'm sure America's resources are so vast that it can always win war ,if they throw about a million and a half on Iran it should probably do the trick.But that would cost a lot though and would be aa big hit for the US budget ,and then you still havn't won the harder to get peace and tranquility ,as you only angered the movement.

Exactly. the situation is endlesly spiraling out of control ,conflict is continualy escalating ,casualty's mounting in greater speeds.this year several month's presented a new record in US army deathtoll in Iraq.The political situation is equaly deterioating. Media? They probably don't dare to even come to Iraq anymore ,and with good cause i reckon. And it comes down to the question ,where does this end?Withought fundamental changes the situation is only going to worsen  ,and attempts for changes like with the elections have proven to hae had few effect.How long canthis conflict escelate before it comes to much? 15 years?

He's Chinese ,somehow i suspect that even going so detailed in English was hard for him ,so give him some slack we get the point don't we? Probably he just wants something relating to ofp ,like an M16 cursor that shoots the icons when you click.

Safety first ,and so you shoot a man 5 times? Were theyreally sure it was a terrorist?if they were sure he was a terrorist i can understand but such rules of engagement frighten me a bit.

looks very nice ,will be great for the more commando style missions.

I think what Denoir means is that terrorism isn't nessecary a consequence of depraved living conditions of the individual who commits it. But IMO i think the majority of "terrorists" are just people attackign from a depraved position ,only specialized terrorists organizations like Al-Quaida really use good educated people for operattions that also are quite complex.As a matter of fact many of Al-Quaida's opperational method's remind me of the KGB in the cold war era ,not the bombing itself ,but the method's of covering the prepperations making use of sleeper cell's and on the spot indoctrinated people. ANother thing ,while many see religion as an origin of the Al-Quaid for of terrorism ,personally i think the origin that made Al-Quaida strong to the level that it is today ,and it's specific goals it has ,has to do with the political situation in key country's of the midlle east (most notably Saudi Arabia) ,the relation between the USA and these goverments ,the influence of the USA on these goverments (Saudi Arabia is practicly a USA puppet) ,and the resentment of much of the Middle east poppulation of the political meddling of the USA in such country's. With other words ,IMO the political origin is way more important than the religious origin ,IMO Terrorists don't have the goal of ridding the world of all infidels (although such "populist" words might intice support for them) ,but their goal is far more political ,carving power in the Middle east for a greater entity that needs religion to create an form of unity. Religion can unite many people from the Midle east ,north Africa or West Asia for a common goal ,whereas nationality cannot achieve that. The fact that there have been long time mujahedeen movements ,where volunteering muslims of the whole muslim world fought a specific country ,for the comman muslim goal ,must have convinced some people in the middle east that religion is an awsome power tool in that region ,and that it can be used to crave power there. IMO terrorists ,atleast at the top ,misuse religion for purely political gains ,as they know they can créave manpower of it ,religion is only the means ,the goal is worldly power IMO. 44% curch attendance??? are you using figures from the 60's?

Hey ,any precedent of a succesfull anti-terorist opperation must look good in a world that does not seem to know how to erradicating it.

Trying to think as hard as marble now! If you just need to illiminate them... simple ,shoot them ,or put them behind bars ,or let them blow themselfs up even works to. (although less optimal) Problem is not erradication itself ,it's finding them. Ah the core of the problem. (btw terrorists can also be from other religion ,Timothy McVeign for ex.) Well you can caught them in the act easily ,but that isn't much good.You can try to intercept communications and funds ,or you can check whos buying strange stuff like explosion material or just doing weird stuff (like ordering plane lessons withought being interested in learning how to land) ,thats actually the way most terrorist arrests are achieved.Why can't they always achieve?Terrorists work often with sleeper cell's ,they can be good citizins of a western nation for 10 years and suddently they activate and boom.This makes it very hard to find them ,especially if they are working fully individually. Other options: -Infiltrate the network (fat chance ,and volunteers not lining up i presume) -Get a high al-Quaida member to rat out the network (kinda like How costra nostra ended in the USA) -Plainly find a list of their connections ,well there probably exist some. -Get Al-quaida to disband (fat chance) -Limit their recruiting potential by stigmitazing them among their natural supporters and showing youre morally better (worked wonders for spain VS the ETA) -Also ,improving the rights and living standards of ethnic and religious minority's tend to help for that matter ,otherwise said ,win the "hearts and minds". Well ,just some thoughts of the bat ,but as i said sleeper cells are just extremely hard to find ,especially if they work fully independant and do not rely on orders and suply's. By being scrupulous ,if you find them just send someone in to kill em ,or let the nation alligned to you do it if they can.Afcourse again the problem is to find them ,if the nation is allied to you then coorperation in inteligence and investigations shouldn't be a problem. Well i do not even see the Iraq war in the context of the war against terrorism ,it just blatantly has nothing to do with it ,atleast innitially ,now Iraq has become a terrorist magnet though. conclusion ,USA ,get youre priority's right?