View Full Version : God bless George Bush!!
Hey guys, I just posted this over at rage3D (so I apologize for the redundancy if any of you saw it over there) ... :)
Anyway, I just thought I'd share. Any thoughts??
---------------------------------------
Hmm... just saw some bad news and TV and was reminded of something I read online a few weeks ago. I saw on the news here in Japan that over 50 whales beached themselves (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/29/beached.whales/index.html) near Cape Cod today. That reminded me of an interesting article (http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/781022.asp) which talked about the Bush administration ok'ing use of an LFA system (http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/nlfa.asp) for the US Navy.
Researching a little more about LFA, I found the following information:
from msn.com:
Whales are particularly susceptible to sonar interference because they rely on sound for communication, feeding, mating and migration. According to the Navy, each of the sonarfs 18 speakers transmits signals as loud as 215 decibels, equivalent underwater to standing next to a twin-engine F-15 fighter jet at takeoff.
Environmentalists say, however, that with the convergence of sound waves from each of the speakers, the intense effects of the system would reach farther, as if the signals were 235 decibels.
...
Some biologists believe whales are irritated by sounds louder than 110 decibels and that a whalefs eardrums could explode at 180 decibels.
Environmentalistsf fears are partly based on the Navyfs deployment of a powerful mid-range sonar in March 2000 during a submarine detection exercise in the deep water canyons of the Bahamas.
At least 16 whales and two dolphins beached themselves on the islands of Abaco, Grand Bahama and North Eleuthera within hours. Eight whales died. Scientists found hemorrhaging around the brain and ear bones, injuries consistent with exposure to loud sounds.
And here's another interesting tidbit:
from nrdc.org:
According to the Navy's study, scientists briefly exposed a 32-year-old Navy diver to LFA sonar at a level of 160 decibels -- a fraction of the intensity at which the LFA system is designed to operate. After 12 minutes, the diver experienced severe symptoms, including dizziness and drowsiness. After being hospitalized, he relapsed, suffering memory dysfunction and seizure. Two years later he was being treated with anti-depressant and anti-seizure medications.
IMHO, President Bush should be exposed to, alas, not 160 decibels - but rather the full 215 decibels he thinks are ok for whales to hear.
Anyway, I seriously wonder if the Bush administration's wanton disregard for life is indeed responsible for the mass beaching today. I really hope not ... :mad:
mavis
StealthHawk
07-30-02, 05:42 AM
yeah, i heard about this explanation before. sad stuff :( humans just have this way of destroying the environment with their technology.
vampireuk
07-30-02, 05:44 AM
I dont think he really cares about the wildlife human...or much else as long as he gets what he wants
StealthHawk
07-30-02, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by vampireuk
I dont think he really cares about the wildlife human...or much else as long as he gets what he wants
and what exactly is it that he wants? the President doesn't exactly do things for himself, since he will be out of office soon enough :rolleyes:
vampireuk
07-30-02, 05:51 AM
I think he just wants to follow in daddys footsteps and overthrow Iraq.
the President doesn't exactly do things for himself
live in a country where blair is in charge and that view would change...and i know hes not the president:p all Blair wants is to make himself look good and doesnt give a rats ass about us:mad:
StealthHawk
07-30-02, 05:57 AM
Bush Sr. should have just finished the job and killed Saddam when he had the chance then
Originally posted by StealthHawk
and what exactly is it that he wants? the President doesn't exactly do things for himself, since he will be out of office soon enough :rolleyes:
Well, if I were Dubya, and had lots of friends in the oil business and big business in general, I would probably make sure things go well for them, since I would be in a position to benefit from reciprocal "favors" at a later date (maybe even after I leave office). In fact, I might even be in debt to them for their financial support of my campaign - getting into office in the first place... :eek:
mavis
btw I don't see how the mass killing of whales would stand to benefit either Bush or his pals, it seems to me just an exercise in terrific cruelty, and wanton disregard for life ... But, that's just my opinion.
StealthHawk
07-30-02, 06:03 AM
well yeah, the navy doesn't use sonar for the express purpose of killing whales. the methods they are using must have some advantage of communication though.
Bush is rich...does he really need "favors."
Yes! Unless he doesn't mind the public kicking him out of office ;) :D
Originally posted by StealthHawk
well yeah, the navy doesn't use sonar for the express purpose of killing whales. the methods they are using must have some advantage of communication though.
Bush is rich...does he really need "favors."
Yes, the advantage of using this LFA tech is that it allows you to see much farther underwater (albeit at the expensive of a few whales' busted eardrums ...) thus being able to detect submarines better, etc.
Let's see, would the public approve of a new technology which allowed the gov't to possibly detect terrorists living in the United States (let's say in a city like New York) if it meant that hundreds or even thousands of household pets (dogs and cats) would suffer burst eardrums and then die, as a direct result of using the technology? Obviously not. That kind of weapon would never be allowed. And yet, here we have the US Navy trying to bolster it's submarine detection abilities by using a technology which has been proven to kill whales and dolphins by causing their eardrums to burst. Furthermore, the US Navy won't be looking for terrorists (as in my example above), rather, they'll simply be looking for other country's submarines out in the open ocean, as if those countries don't have just as much right to be out there as the US does. Pathetic.
mavis
[Corporal Dan]
07-30-02, 06:25 AM
Whoo!
Another bush screwup!
He has got to be one of the worst US presidents.
Is it any wonder that he is universally hated thoughout europe?
No matter what anyone says, I like Clinton. He was a good president, a highly intelligent person, and he played the saxophone dammit!
Bush is french compared to him...
SnakeEyes
07-30-02, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by [Corporal Dan]
No matter what anyone says, I like Clinton. He was a good president, a highly intelligent person, and he played the saxophone dammit!
I'd argue point one to the hilt, but he knew how to use a cigar, so he was at least talented.
Actually, come to think of it, I wouldn't consider him all that intelligent either, since he got caught repeatedly. :p (Okay, so he knows law well enough to sleeze his way outta trouble- "Define Sexual.." :D)
[Corporal Dan]
07-30-02, 07:18 AM
Blah, he was better than Bush
vampireuk
07-30-02, 07:32 AM
Clinton also wasnt a war monger
how long till the next election so bush can be kicked out?
Why not just sign a petition already in progress? :)
SnakeEyes
07-30-02, 08:12 AM
I guess whether or not Bush is a warmonger is a personal opinion, like everything else here. But at least he recognizes the need for a military. Clinton practically raped the US Armed Forces. Unit closings, downsizings, and budget cuts had a severely negative effect on mission readiness and capability due to lack of equipment, manpower, and training, not to mention a rather marked increase in OPsTempo (deployments, etc.). You don't seriously think the US's ability to be involved everywhere it has was helped by this do you?:rolleyes:
I know, some think we shouldn't be, and that argument has merit in some cases- but the members of the armed forces don't make the decisions, the government in general does this, including Congress, and not just the President. You have to realize that while Clinton was busy cutting our capability to the bone, that same government was sending us into even more hotspots, with more simultaneous missions going on around the world.
In an ideal world, the military is obsolete, but this isn't yet that world, as the events of 11 September have shown conclusively. :(
vampireuk
07-30-02, 08:17 AM
I have nothing against increasing the size of the armed forces, how he seems so cavalier about using them I have a problem with. Just take a look at Britains armed forces now the numbers havnt been so low for hundreds of years and the navy is just pathetic now. The british military needs a HUGE cash injection and if Blair is to commit troops to Iraq if a attack does happen I hope he will see sense and give them this increase that is sorely needed
WYSIWYG (a monkey) meaning Bush
SnakeEyes
07-30-02, 10:17 AM
There is a cycle to the shrinking and growth of the services and their capabilities, due in large part to whether there is a perceived need for them by the public. What this means is that as conflict breaks out, the services go through a ramp-up phase where we achieve the growth needed to be able to effectively carry out the new mission (and it speaks much for the services that we are as successful as we have been in the initial stages of recent conflicts with this trend in place). Possibly Bush's warmongering (not my term) is related to keeping the public perception that we need the services right now, so that he can continue to justify funding them, vs. going back into the cutback phases.
IMO, the armed forces are underrated and generally maligned until they're really needed, then suddenly they're the heroes again. :(
it just seems funny when clinton wanted to do anything everybody got down on him for it. they always said we have no money and not enough military to go around. but with bush in office all of a sudden we have all this stuff????
wolfie
SnakeEyes
07-30-02, 02:44 PM
What is there to get?
With Clinton, we didn't have enough money because it was taken from DoD for the 'balanced budget', and we didn't have enough people because of the same thing- they CUT personnel and equipment, and closed bases.
With Bush, more funds have been allocated to DoD, and the services are trying to make up the manpower through recruiting and retention. Not to say we're near what we'd like to be. There is still a fairly high OpsTempo, with lots of people deployed at any one time right now.
What else do you expect from a man who choked on a pretzel? Actually, I believe that Powell gave him a beating for being such an idiot in public, and Bush came up with a story of an assault by a snack.
so my ? is still the same, were's all the money coming from now?
we got groves of money trees someplace :D
LORD-eX-Bu
07-30-02, 04:12 PM
NUKE THE WHALES!:D :p
netviper13
07-30-02, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
What is there to get?
With Clinton, we didn't have enough money because it was taken from DoD for the 'balanced budget', and we didn't have enough people because of the same thing- they CUT personnel and equipment, and closed bases.
With Bush, more funds have been allocated to DoD, and the services are trying to make up the manpower through recruiting and retention. Not to say we're near what we'd like to be. There is still a fairly high OpsTempo, with lots of people deployed at any one time right now.
With Clinton we had a budget surplus, and he wasn't stupid enough to not think about the possible consequences of a multi-trillion dollar tax cut.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.