Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (219711)	2/18/2005 2:48:30 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

re: a) Defense spending as a percentage of GDP isn't that high. Compare that with most despotic nations out there, and I think the situation isn't as distorted as you make it. Who cares wrt GDP. We don't battle other other countries with our GDP, we battle with our military. re: b) The problem with any federal government agency is how we spend the money. Not how much they spend? Get real. re: c) Americans are more overweight than ever, so that puts a lid on your theory that we're diverting money from food to defense. LOL. re: Maybe if we spent a little more on taking out the sources of inhumanity, despotism, torture, and terrorism, we can actually make progress toward that ideal. On the torture front we could take out our own military for a start. For the rest, it's a lot more than "a little more". We're already spending much more than we have. Where does the "little more" come from? Are you going to enlist, fight for free? John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (219711)	2/18/2005 3:11:28 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

Now is there any reason to doubt what was the real reason why Bush refused to sign Kyoto. Big oil owns this president......lock, stock and barrel. And for the real reason why we are in Iraq.........look no further! ******************************************************* Exxon chief calls for Kyoto reality check By Saeed Shah 18 February 2005 The head of ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, has warned Europe that "a reality check" is needed over its commitment to the Kyoto treaty on climate change. Lee R Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, caused outrage among environmentalists with his comments, given in a speech in London to an oil industry gathering. He declared that the targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions set by Europe, which is leading the world in the implementation of Kyoto, would prove very difficult to achieve. Mr Raymond also took a swipe at the British Government's tax policy for North Sea operators. Exxon extracts 15 per cent of the oil and gas supplied from the UK continental shelf in the North Sea. Speaking at a dinner on Wednesday night at the Grosvenor House Hotel in London, to mark the International Petroleum Week conference organised by the Energy Institute, a trade body, Mr Raymond said the UK's tax and regulatory regimes needed to be more competitive. He said the costs of operating in the UK continental shelf were among the highest in the world. "We have only to look back to the tax changes made in the UK North Sea in 2002 to see the interruption that subsequently took place in exploration." In the 2002 Budget, an extra 10 per cent tax was applied to oil companies operating in the UK part of the North Sea. Mr Raymond said that, to those calling for windfall taxes to be applied to the multi-billion pound profits now being made by oil majors, "I would remind them that ours is a long-term business and that project lives often exceed 20 years". Exxon, which also trades as Esso in this country, has never accepted the mainstream science on global warming that led to the signing of the Kyoto treaty in 1997.** The company points to "uncertainties" in the science and funds a number of think tanks and academics that have questioned the research. The EU has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which are blamed for global warming, to 8 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Mr Raymond said: "I also think there will be a need to be realistic about environmental targets. While the political commitment to the Kyoto process and targets is quite strong in Europe, attaining those targets is going to be very challenging, given the energy supply and demand realities. That is why a reality check may be needed regarding the attainment of those targets." He said the world will experience a dramatic rise in energy demand - equal to an extra 100 million barrels per day of oil by 2030 - more than 10 times the current output of Saudi Arabia, the world's leading producer. He said fossils fuels remained the only way of meeting those needs, in particular from new sources of gas. Mr Raymond predicted wind and solar energy would provide just 1 per cent of global requirements in 2030. Unlike Shell and BP, Exxon opposes the Kyoto treaty - many saw its hand behind the decision taken by the Bush administration in 2001 to pull out of Kyoto. But Exxon insists it is taking practical actions to reduce emissions. A spokesman said that Kyoto would "impose dramatic economic costs in the developed world" while failing to tackle the emissions from the developing world. He said the company believed that "it is time to move beyond Kyoto" and focus on developing technologies to reduce emissions. The dinner Mr Raymond addressed was disrupted by protesters, who labelled him "the number one climate criminal". Even in Mr Bush's Republican Party and in the US oil industry, some leading voices have called for America to adopt a Kyoto-style system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. US Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman introduced the Climate Stewardship Act 2005 earlier this month, but Exxon said that it opposes the move. news.independent.co.uk

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (219711)	2/18/2005 3:18:09 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

Ted, Oh my God, we are spending 6 times more than the next largest spender. How can you even begin to say the problem is how we spend the money within the defense arena? Americans go without food so we can have enough money for bombs. How insane is that? a) Defense spending as a percentage of GDP isn't that high. Compare that with most despotic nations out there, and I think the situation isn't as distorted as you make it. What does the percentage of the GDP matter? Those are silly numbers. The reality is we are spending over $500 billion per year on defense. How many people would that feed in Africa? How many economic programs in the world could be funded by that much money? Instead, we use the money to kill and maim. b) The problem with any federal government agency is how we spend the money. Defense is no different. Same thing with CIA, Homeland Security, housing and urban development, NASA, and agriculture subsidies. Gobbley-gook. Half of the budget's discretionary funding goes to defense! HALF! Its too bad your idealism does not extend to the concept of a world where one country does not have to spend so much on defense. Paranoia is a terrible disease and it is exacting a terrible toll on our budget and the world. Actually, that's EXACTLY what my ideal is. Maybe if we spent a little more on taking out the sources of inhumanity, despotism, torture, and terrorism, we can actually make progress toward that ideal. May be if we stopped screwing with the world and made it possible for others to reach our standard of living, tyrants wouldn't find a ready audience. Or we could all pray that none of this is necessary, but that all depends on where our faith in God is. Praying would be better than what you are doing now. ted