FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Thank you Mr. Bush





icecool
now we have it from the horses mouth.... oops, sorry, no disrespect intended. it was mr. bush, the man who represents america and its inhabitants to the rest of the world.

yes i know what some of you are gonna say or even shout....
hey - that's not what i think
BUT
if he is interviewed in his capacity as the official top honcho of the us of a - the president - then whatever HE says is seen by US - that's the rest of the world, all 6.3 billion of us - as an official statement. that's how it works.

so now we know that for him in his capacity as president it's more important to have gas in american cars than affordable food in the bellies of the worlds poor.
Quote:
"We need to feed the stomach before we need to feed our cars," said Rattan Lal, an Ohio State University soil sciences professor who in the past has been a critic of some of CGIAR's priorities. "We have 1 billion people who are food insecure. We can't afford the luxury of not taking care of them and taking care of gasoline."

In an interview after the CGIAR teleconference, von Braun said the United States and other countries have to make a hard choice between fighting high fuel prices and fighting world hunger.

"If you place a high value of food security for poor people, then the conclusion is clear that we step on the brake awhile," said von Braun. "If you place a high value on national energy security, other considerations come into play."

Energy security is what Bush emphasized in his press conference. When asked about the conflict with world hunger and the rising cost of food at home, he said the high price of gasoline would "spur more investment in ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.

"And the truth of the matter is, it's in our national interest that our farmers grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us," Bush said.

Still, Bush said the international food crisis "is of concern to us" and said the U.S. government earlier this month added another $200 million in food aid.

A World Bank study has estimated that corn prices "rose by over 60 percent from 2005-07, largely because of the U.S. ethanol program" combined with market forces.

Other nations, such as South Africa, have stopped or slowed the push to ethanol. But because the United States is the biggest producer, if it does nothing, other nations' efforts will not amount to much, von Braun said.


yes, i know, it's not EXACTLY what he said, word for word (is that ok as a disclaimer?) but please read the whole article here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_sc/food_vs_fuel;_ylt=Alk_BZwMTPSdAIg8p_TNSzSzvtEF
and make up your own mind.
link to CGIAR http://www.cgiar.org/
and International Food Policy Research Institute http://www.ifpri.org/themes/foodprices/foodprices.asp

thank you mr. bush
now bugger off

cheers
liljp617
You addressed it but let's make it clear Smile


81% of the people in the US say we're on the wrong track. Bush had an approval rating in the 30%s last time I checked. He does not represent us. Maybe 4-5 years ago, you could make the argument. It has been nearly 8 years of pure bullshit and the vast majority of the US denounces everything he does. That's not allowing him to represent the US and its views. Whether or not he is the elected President is irrelevant...the overwhelming majority of the US population does not support him in anything he does and we surely don't support him when he opens his mouth and attempts to make a statement that requires using one's brain.

To be honest though, you cannot expect the US to lead the way in (or attempt) finding fuel alternatives and then condemn them when they strive to do that. Ethanol is a joke...we know that and it was something that shouldn't have been done. But sacrifices will be made regardless of what fuel alternative we test. You cannot blame the entire world's food crisis on the US. There are dozens of other factors involved. And it's not like we're intentionally starving people (not that people dying is THAT BAD in reality considering the overcrowding of the planet). I would say we still fund as many or more third world countries than any other country on Earth...and we're increasing our aid as the article said.

We're in a very tight predicament. Bad decisions will be made and mistakes will be made before we can actually have a useful method and plan. People will die in the process. Nothing we can do.
escritor
George W. Bush wrote:

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!

Make the pie higher! poem is composed of actual quotes from George W. Bush.
thadnation
What's with all the hate? he's a bad president, not a bad person. I don't like him, but it seems so dumb to just hate on him. none of us know his true reasons for anything, but they were probably quite respectable. Bush isn't in league wiht al quida, he wants what's best. He is the wold's worst leader, but I wish people would stop taking shots at his personal life. Case in point: Mr. Clinton was the best president ever, and had the worst social life ever.

hate who you want, but but attack policies, not people. and like the other guy said. he doesn't represent us.
escritor
thadnation, it happens in my country too. People hate the president for silly reasons.
Agent ME
So when the US invades countries harboring terrorists and removes them with force, the world hates us for thinking we run it, but when its decided to focus once on our problems here, we're blamed for not taking care of the world? Do they or do they not want us to be world police? Rolling Eyes (Not a flame to anyone here, just a partly-sarcastic irony I find)
liljp617
thadnation wrote:
What's with all the hate? he's a bad president, not a bad person. I don't like him, but it seems so dumb to just hate on him. none of us know his true reasons for anything, but they were probably quite respectable. Bush isn't in league wiht al quida, he wants what's best. He is the wold's worst leader, but I wish people would stop taking shots at his personal life. Case in point: Mr. Clinton was the best president ever, and had the worst social life ever.

hate who you want, but but attack policies, not people. and like the other guy said. he doesn't represent us.

=/ Well, when you have a President and Vice President who are in deep with the largest oil companies and many private companies making incredible profits due to this war...people tend to be angry. If oil and profit was on their mind even the least bit when they were considering invading Iraq, they are bad people. Not much more to it.
Jinx
Agent ME wrote:
So when the US invades countries harboring terrorists and removes them with force, the world hates us for thinking we run it, but when its decided to focus once on our problems here, we're blamed for not taking care of the world? Do they or do they not want us to be world police? Rolling Eyes (Not a flame to anyone here, just a partly-sarcastic irony I find)



^^^Quoted for Truth.

You can't make all of the people happy all of the time. It seems like no matter what we do, someone's going to bitch about it.

Yes, The U.S.A. is big, and wealthy. We also try to be the good guys most of the time. We like to see ourselves as heroes. Unfortunately, we are as human as everyone else. We make mistakes (like electing Bush), and sometimes we have to look out for number one. It's not a perfect world.
ocalhoun
Agent ME wrote:
So when the US invades countries harboring terrorists and removes them with force, the world hates us for thinking we run it, but when its decided to focus once on our problems here, we're blamed for not taking care of the world? Do they or do they not want us to be world police? Rolling Eyes (Not a flame to anyone here, just a partly-sarcastic irony I find)


Exactly! If we are responsible for those starving in other countries, then we need to have control over those countries. How come nobody is complaining about Canada's failure to feed the world's starving? Sometimes I think the US really should go imperial and start claiming colonies...
Bikerman
The US (and other countries, including my own) have a certain amount of responsibility for world hunger - this is undeniable. It is not necessary to 'control' specific countries to end this, it is rather a case of stopping existing abuses (such as protectionist tarrifs, conditional food aid, political development projects etc) and coupling this to a realistic aid program which is designed to genuinely end the problem rather than further political self-interest.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
The US (and other countries, including my own) have a certain amount of responsibility for world hunger

That's a curious statement... Why do they have a responsibility? It just seems a little strange for me. Wasn't the past more of a 'each nation for itself' kind of place? Why the change?
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The US (and other countries, including my own) have a certain amount of responsibility for world hunger

That's a curious statement... Why do they have a responsibility? It just seems a little strange for me. Wasn't the past more of a 'each nation for itself' kind of place? Why the change?

I mean responsibility as in cause and effect - the effect (world hunger) is at least partially a result of causal decisions, policies and actions by the developed western countries. Thus we can say action A is responsible for effect X. It is not a simple relationship, to be sure, but it certainly exists.
Whether you care to extend this to a moral/ethical responsibility will depend on your own morality/ethics - personally I do.
ganesh
It is really unfortunate that Americans had to choose someone as unworthy as George Bush Jr. to lead them for eight years! He definitely doesn't have the credentials to run the government and is more of a puppet leader dancing to the tunes of the oil companies and other vested interests. He has made himself, as well as the US, a laughing stock for the whole world.

Just hope that whatever new leader that the US elects takes it forward into a much better era of prosperity and out of the current outlook of economic gloom.
liljp617
I don't want to sound like an ******, but are we the only species that fights nature to this extent? It seems we're the only species that purposely saves millions of individuals...even billions...simply because it's the "right" thing to do. I hate that people starve and that people die of illness, but in all reality, we're more than overcrowded and it's obviously having gross effects on the planet. It seems like our medical advances, aiding less successful countries, and so on has had and continues to have extremely bad effects on the planet.

I'm all for helping people, but lately it looks like the benefits of helping people to this extent is outweighed by the negatives.

I don't know...just kind of rambling on. Looking into other species, it seems like they allow the forces of nature (natural selection) to act as they should (or they obviously don't have the means of controlling them). Yet we constantly undercut natural selection and keep it from acting as it should. It's a sad fact, but individuals do die as well as populations. I just think we fight it way too much and that it's hurting us more than helping us in the long run.

I just don't understand the concept of humans being held to a different standard than every other species on this planet.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
Looking into other species, it seems like they allow the forces of nature (natural selection) to act as they should (or they obviously don't have the means of controlling them). Yet we constantly undercut natural selection and keep it from acting as it should. It's a sad fact, but individuals do die as well as populations. I just think we fight it way too much and that it's hurting us more than helping us in the long run.

I just don't understand the concept of humans being held to a different standard than every other species on this planet.


The difference is that homo sapiens is the only moral species on the planet. To allow "nature to take its course" (e.g. denying individuals medical care because nature wouldn't keep them alive otherwise, allowing entire regions to starve because they can't provide for themselves based upon their indigenous resources or because of local climatological conditions, etc.) would be considered immoral by the vast majority of people.

Respectfully,
M
icecool
Moonspider wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Looking into other species, it seems like they allow the forces of nature (natural selection) to act as they should (or they obviously don't have the means of controlling them). Yet we constantly undercut natural selection and keep it from acting as it should. It's a sad fact, but individuals do die as well as populations. I just think we fight it way too much and that it's hurting us more than helping us in the long run.

I just don't understand the concept of humans being held to a different standard than every other species on this planet.


The difference is that homo sapiens is the only moral species on the planet. To allow "nature to take its course" (e.g. denying individuals medical care because nature wouldn't keep them alive otherwise, allowing entire regions to starve because they can't provide for themselves based upon their indigenous resources or because of local climatological conditions, etc.) would be considered immoral by the vast majority of people.

Respectfully,
M

thank you for mentioning moral responsibility - something that in my opinion doesn't seem to fit in what we see as "modern" societies. the "western" world has become so self-centered and materialistic that all the elements that are needed to show this moral responsibility have all but vanished - on an individual and a global scale.

but then again, hasn't it always been like that. is it just more obvious now with instant global information at our fingertips? is it not time that western society should admit that alot of the global disparity between the privileged and the not so privileged has actually been caused by the west? that talk of natural selection just brings back pictures of the white explorer on distant shores encountering the natives - and selecting naturally with the gun. or the bigger gun. or more guns. by extension, mainly the usa as a member of modern western society is still doing that and bush is and has been a main advocate of the policy:
i am right
my system is the best
look how prosperous we are - self justification
what you do is wrong
and i am here to prove it
AND I GOT A BIGGER GUN THAN YOU

and still all on the back of the poor and hungry.
morally justifiable?
i think not

cheers
liljp617
Moonspider wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Looking into other species, it seems like they allow the forces of nature (natural selection) to act as they should (or they obviously don't have the means of controlling them). Yet we constantly undercut natural selection and keep it from acting as it should. It's a sad fact, but individuals do die as well as populations. I just think we fight it way too much and that it's hurting us more than helping us in the long run.

I just don't understand the concept of humans being held to a different standard than every other species on this planet.


The difference is that homo sapiens is the only moral species on the planet. To allow "nature to take its course" (e.g. denying individuals medical care because nature wouldn't keep them alive otherwise, allowing entire regions to starve because they can't provide for themselves based upon their indigenous resources or because of local climatological conditions, etc.) would be considered immoral by the vast majority of people.

Respectfully,
M

But then we save them, and we wonder why we have all the problems we have today (as many of the major ones are caused by overcrowding/overpopulation).

I'm not truly stating we should allow everyone to starve and deny medical care, just throwing random thoughts or observations out.

Also, there are some "moral" species out there besides humans. There are species that sacrifice themselves for the good of the population or the good of that particular species just as humans do. While it's not as common, and it is probably more innate in their case, it still occurs.
Jinx
It's something of a paradox, I guess.
It's horrible to think of people dying when something can be done to stop it. Feeding the hungry, rendering medical aid to the sick, sending help to a region in the middle of a natural disaster... these are the moral things to do. For most of us it would be unthinkable to stand by and let people die when we can do something to help.
But, on the other hand, the planet is overcrowded, resources are becoming stretched, and it's getting hard to find a little elbow-room around here. But how can we turn away from our gut reaction to help people in need?
Birth control is a start, but people have to choose to do it on their own, which requires education and access to contraceptives. But then, we'd have to fight our instinct to procreate.
The government could step in and lay down a one or two child per family law, or start licensing people to become parents... but we'd all be up in arms if they tried. Kind of goes against the whole 'Pursuit of Happiness' thing.

I guess, in the end, we are just too successful as a species.

But, nature always finds a way to maintain a balance. Eventually we will stretch the resources of this planet to the point where our technology can't keep up, and billions of people will die from disease or famine, and it will be horrific.

But it will solve the overpopulation problem.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have to find a solution before Mother Nature does it for us. I think the voluntary birth control method would be the most humane.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:

Also, there are some "moral" species out there besides humans. There are species that sacrifice themselves for the good of the population or the good of that particular species just as humans do. While it's not as common, and it is probably more innate in their case, it still occurs.


I beg to differ. Although you may perceive it as a moral action, it is not because the animal's decision is based on instinct, not a moral thought process of what is right and what is wrong. Aside from humans, animals can be neither good nor evil. Their actions are neither wrong nor right.

Respectfully,
M
liljp617
Moonspider wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

Also, there are some "moral" species out there besides humans. There are species that sacrifice themselves for the good of the population or the good of that particular species just as humans do. While it's not as common, and it is probably more innate in their case, it still occurs.


I beg to differ. Although you may perceive it as a moral action, it is not because the animal's decision is based on instinct, not a moral thought process of what is right and what is wrong. Aside from humans, animals can be neither good nor evil. Their actions are neither wrong nor right.

Respectfully,
M

Wouldn't sacrificing food or shelter for others be "moral" in our sense of the word? There was a study done on vampire bats in South America - in time of food (blood) shortage the bats would share food with the others in the colony even if it meant they wouldn't get a full meal. There are many other examples.

You say their "moral" actions are innate, or instinct. I have to argue so are humans to an extent. I think people naturally want to help others in a time of suffering. I think the average person has sympathy/empathy for others in times of struggle, suffering, pain, etc. At first, they inherently jump to sacrifice something for others if they're capable of doing so. Of course, there are those who choose not to help, but I think at first, most people naturally think about helping in some fashion.

Some of this, if true, would make sense as there are theories and hypotheses stating morality is a product of evolution.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

Also, there are some "moral" species out there besides humans. There are species that sacrifice themselves for the good of the population or the good of that particular species just as humans do. While it's not as common, and it is probably more innate in their case, it still occurs.


I beg to differ. Although you may perceive it as a moral action, it is not because the animal's decision is based on instinct, not a moral thought process of what is right and what is wrong. Aside from humans, animals can be neither good nor evil. Their actions are neither wrong nor right.

Respectfully,
M

Wouldn't sacrificing food or shelter for others be "moral" in our sense of the word? There was a study done on vampire bats in South America - in time of food (blood) shortage the bats would share food with the others in the colony even if it meant they wouldn't get a full meal. There are many other examples.

You say their "moral" actions are innate, or instinct. I have to argue so are humans to an extent. I think people naturally want to help others in a time of suffering. I think the average person has sympathy/empathy for others in times of struggle, suffering, pain, etc. At first, they inherently jump to sacrifice something for others if they're capable of doing so. Of course, there are those who choose not to help, but I think at first, most people naturally think about helping in some fashion.

Some of this, if true, would make sense as there are theories and hypotheses stating morality is a product of evolution.


This train of thought is probably more appropriate in the "philosophy" forum. (It may have even already been discussed.) But I would argue that the difference is that bats, in your example, can't choose to be selfish and eat a full meal rather than share for the benefit of the whole. Humans can and do choose. For humans, even doing the "right" thing is a choice. If it wasn't, there would be nothing actually "moral" about helping someone or a group of people if such an action is simply a programmed response.

Respectfully,
M
liljp617
Razz Well this is much too far off topic so we'll leave it at that. Continue it some other time, somewhere else Very Happy
iguk
thanks for bush family that gives us world war news from 1990....so lets hope the grandson of mr bush senior will give us star wars next time....wars...wars..
iguk
dear to all Mr BUSH
thanks for Gulf War I and Gulf War II...we will wait your grandson declare Gulf War III... Shocked
escritor
iguk wrote:
dear to all Mr BUSH
thanks for Gulf War I and Gulf War II...we will wait your grandson declare Gulf War III... Shocked

Will there be any building standing in that place? Sad
parmaster
Yeah bush is real bad for america! Done alot of damage and can only hope that he doesnt go to Iran and make it unrecoverable!
TomGrey
Icecool says:
Quote:
the "western" world has become so self-centered and materialistic that all the elements that are needed to show this moral responsibility have all but vanished - on an individual and a global scale.


Which is laughable. There is plenty of morality, even too much morality -- because there has been a breakdown in agreement on what is moral.

Do the ends justify the means? Or do the means justify the ends?

White ruled Rhodesia, a big exporter of food, was replaced by black rule and President / dictator Mugabe. And is now full of starving people. The difference? The change away from successful capitalism to anti-rich semi-socialism. 20-30 years ago, ending Apartheid was a big moral crusade, with first Rhodesia and then the richer South Africa.

But the point is that capitalism succeeds -- so why are capitalist countries given the guilt that there are hungry people in non-capitalist countries?


Where are the free market capitalist countries full of starving people? There aren't any.

Reduce starvation -- change the gov't to protect property rights, especially of poor farmers.

Bikerman is also correct about market influences, but the EU's Common Agriculture Policy, CAP, is a far bigger and more damaging to the poor gov't program. Which, like the US subsidies, were trying to support farmers who were willing and able to grow a lot more than customers wanted to buy (at profitable prices).

The success of semi-capitalist China and India has temporarily increased the demand for food -- within two or three years, there will be a food surplus, if not a glut, and prices will come down again. But the market does work in years and seasons, not in weeks like gov't, in theory, can do in emergency.


The US should drop its anti-Brazil ethanol tariffs and import from Brazil, while growing corn for food.
The EU should drop its food tariffs, too.
jordygrunn
All weapons must be down!
no more war!
Peace!
RESPECT
thadnation
liljp617 wrote:
thadnation wrote:
What's with all the hate? he's a bad president, not a bad person. I don't like him, but it seems so dumb to just hate on him. none of us know his true reasons for anything, but they were probably quite respectable. Bush isn't in league wiht al quida, he wants what's best. He is the wold's worst leader, but I wish people would stop taking shots at his personal life. Case in point: Mr. Clinton was the best president ever, and had the worst social life ever.

hate who you want, but but attack policies, not people. and like the other guy said. he doesn't represent us.

=/ Well, when you have a President and Vice President who are in deep with the largest oil companies and many private companies making incredible profits due to this war...people tend to be angry. If oil and profit was on their mind even the least bit when they were considering invading Iraq, they are bad people. Not much more to it.


just one question: who are the oil companies? is it bp, mobil, shell? what private companies? and can you direct me to a news source reporting on that? If our wretched president is oh so evil and wishes to bring about the end of our nation? then should we see headlines on this stuff? or is that just internet conspiracy bullshit? back up your claims man.
Melsens
So when the US invades countries harboring terrorists and removes them with force, the world hates us for thinking we run it, but when its decided to focus once on our problems here, we're blamed for not taking care of the world? Do they or do they not want us to be world police? Rolling Eyes !!!
icecool
Melsens wrote:
So when the US invades countries harboring terrorists and removes them with force, the world hates us for thinking we run it, but when its decided to focus once on our problems here, we're blamed for not taking care of the world? Do they or do they not want us to be world police? Rolling Eyes !!!


is there an echo???

Agent ME wrote:
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:35 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So when the US invades countries harboring terrorists and removes them with force, the world hates us for thinking we run it, but when its decided to focus once on our problems here, we're blamed for not taking care of the world? Do they or do they not want us to be world police? (Not a flame to anyone here, just a partly-sarcastic irony I find)


would be nice to hear your own opinion.

cheers
Tutor
I remember people liking the US when Clinton was in charge. Kosovo's bombings were awful but it helped to bring independence to a lot of countries which had its own people and culture.

In the Middle East Clinton almost got the peace done. Just because Arafat was plain stupid and Israel got new and violent Prime minister Ariel Sharon, the negotiations seized.

US had things well in their own country too.

Then came Bush who attacked everything and everyone. Killed, molested and destroyed. Nuclear weapons were used (uraniumheads in bullets and missiles) and the soldiers committed crimes against humanity. "Terrorists" were taken to concentrationcamps were they are even know brutally tortured.

And now when the everything is all ****ed up in US, Bush is trying to cover his trails by more war (Iran is going down!) and terror. US is not bankrupt thanks to the money coming from oil-producers.

No, we don't want a world police. We have Interpol. We don't need a country which all the people in the world, even its own people, have to be afraid of. We don't need a country of torture and terror. We don't need a country which runs by the interest of multinational companies. We don't need a world police which commits almost as much crimes as the criminals it's trying to prevent.

And if people forgot, thanks to Clinton, what US has done in the past they are remembering it now thanks to Bush. Vietnam, Afganistan (US' support got it torn in to the ground, which lead to 9/11), the Korea, Cuba and all the little things that US supported and lead to massacres of civilians (Chile, Peru, Panama, Pakistan and so on).

I see no reason why world shouldn't hate the US right now.
Moonspider
Tutor wrote:
I remember people liking the US when Clinton was in charge. Kosovo's bombings were awful but it helped to bring independence to a lot of countries which had its own people and culture.

In the Middle East Clinton almost got the peace done. Just because Arafat was plain stupid and Israel got new and violent Prime minister Ariel Sharon, the negotiations seized.

US had things well in their own country too.

Then came Bush who attacked everything and everyone. Killed, molested and destroyed. Nuclear weapons were used (uraniumheads in bullets and missiles) and the soldiers committed crimes against humanity. "Terrorists" were taken to concentrationcamps were they are even know brutally tortured.

And now when the everything is all ****ed up in US, Bush is trying to cover his trails by more war (Iran is going down!) and terror. US is not bankrupt thanks to the money coming from oil-producers.

No, we don't want a world police. We have Interpol. We don't need a country which all the people in the world, even its own people, have to be afraid of. We don't need a country of torture and terror. We don't need a country which runs by the interest of multinational companies. We don't need a world police which commits almost as much crimes as the criminals it's trying to prevent.

And if people forgot, thanks to Clinton, what US has done in the past they are remembering it now thanks to Bush. Vietnam, Afganistan (US' support got it torn in to the ground, which lead to 9/11), the Korea, Cuba and all the little things that US supported and lead to massacres of civilians (Chile, Peru, Panama, Pakistan and so on).

I see no reason why world shouldn't hate the US right now.


I’m not going to argue all of your other points with which I disagree. No amount of debate on my part will sway your opinion.

However I will take exception to a point of fact upon which you are mistaken. Depleted uranium is not a “nuclear” weapon. It is a very dense material no more toxic than lead (but twice as dense). It is used in a wide variety of applications, including armor piercing rounds. This notion that it is radioactive and incredibly harmful is pure nonsense unfounded in science. Other uses include:

Counterweights in helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft
Airplane control surfaces
Radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines
Containers for the transport of radioactive material
Defensive armor plating
Yacht keels

If it is as toxic and “nuclear” as you and some others claim, why do we use it to shield people from radioactive material!? Does it make sense to you to use what you believe to be a radioactive material to shield people from radioactive material?

Studies have been done in Kosovo by the United Nations following widespread use of such ordnance during that war. (The Clinton administration you lauded earlier.) The results are listed in the second article below.

Here are some links on DU, including from the World Health Organization: WHO Article
Uranium Information Centre
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/

In combat the only people who might inhale dangerous levels of the uranium oxide dust are those in close proximity to vehicles or other targets of DU weapons. If I’m that close, I’d be more worried about getting hit directly or by shrapnel than inhaling the dust!

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Whilst I would perhaps take issue with the assertion that DU is no more toxic than lead* I have to agree that the description of DU as a 'nuclear' device is misguided and unhelpful.

* There are several studies in progress which cover the effects of DU on the Central Nervous System and there is, as yet, no consensus on this issue (to my knowledge). Whether this will make DU more or less toxic than lead (which is certainly known to cause damage to the CNS, as well as kidneys, heart and reproductive system) is yet to be fully determined. The point is well made, however, that currently there is no reason to state with any certainty that DU is more toxic than lead.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Whilst I would perhaps take issue with the assertion that DU is no more toxic than lead* I have to agree that the description of DU as a 'nuclear' device is misguided and unhelpful.

* There are several studies in progress which cover the effects of DU on the Central Nervous System and there is, as yet, no consensus on this issue (to my knowledge). Whether this will make DU more or less toxic than lead (which is certainly known to cause damage to the CNS, as well as kidneys, heart and reproductive system) is yet to be fully determined. The point is well made, however, that currently there is no reason to state with any certainty that DU is more toxic than lead.


Point taken. But whether more toxic than lead or not, like lead bullets, I'm more worried about getting struck by them than contaminated by them. Wink
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
Point taken. But whether more toxic than lead or not, like lead bullets, I'm more worried about getting struck by them than contaminated by them. Wink

Yes, I concur. I do have some worries, however, about the syndromes reported by Gulf war veterans and other troops over the last 2-3 decades. I don't believe the whole thing is media-hype and I think the government here (I can't speak about the US) has behaved pretty shabbily in investigating and properly compensating cases.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Point taken. But whether more toxic than lead or not, like lead bullets, I'm more worried about getting struck by them than contaminated by them. Wink

Yes, I concur. I do have some worries, however, about the syndromes reported by Gulf war veterans and other troops over the last 2-3 decades. I don't believe the whole thing is media-hype and I think the government here (I can't speak about the US) has behaved pretty shabbily in investigating and properly compensating cases.


Yes, I believe those are serious health concerns not to be treated lightly or swept under a rug. I also believe there may even be more than one cause. My Kuwaiti campsite during Iraqi Freedom was surrounded by chemical plants which were notorious for chemical releases. Naturally, our gas mask filters were for weaponized agents, not industrial agents. I'm thankful that I've seen no long term effects. However I know of at least one person with whom I served there who contracted Parkinson's in his 50s. At least the U.S. government is covering all of his medical expenses since his late onset Parkinson's was diagnosed as directly related to chemical exposure.

And with all the drugs pumped into military personnel (including small doses of chemical weapon agents to build up resistance during Gulf War I) who knows?

R,
M
Tutor
Moonspider wrote:

However I will take exception to a point of fact upon which you are mistaken. Depleted uranium is not a “nuclear” weapon. It is a very dense material no more toxic than lead (but twice as dense). It is used in a wide variety of applications, including armor piercing rounds. This notion that it is radioactive and incredibly harmful is pure nonsense unfounded in science. Other uses include:

Counterweights in helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft
Airplane control surfaces
Radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines
Containers for the transport of radioactive material
Defensive armor plating
Yacht keels

If it is as toxic and “nuclear” as you and some others claim, why do we use it to shield people from radioactive material!? Does it make sense to you to use what you believe to be a radioactive material to shield people from radioactive material?

Studies have been done in Kosovo by the United Nations following widespread use of such ordnance during that war. (The Clinton administration you lauded earlier.) The results are listed in the second article below.

Here are some links on DU, including from the World Health Organization: WHO Article
Uranium Information Centre
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/

In combat the only people who might inhale dangerous levels of the uranium oxide dust are those in close proximity to vehicles or other targets of DU weapons. If I’m that close, I’d be more worried about getting hit directly or by shrapnel than inhaling the dust!


I'm suprised that first and only topic you are ready to argue includes weapons. Weapons of massdestruction. And even worse, you're protecting the usage of them. But I think you haven't heard the latest statistics which US government tries to hide from the rest of the world.

Yes, WHO article was giving a "very low"-threat to the levels of radioactivity. I don't argue with that. But the problem is that I'm not talking about the 1995 Kosovo bombings while Clinton was on the charge. I'm talking about Afganistan and Irak while Bush is on the charge, which was the mainpoint of the conversation. Bush the Führer.

There has been a dramatic amount of leukemia among the British soldiers (notably among privates in the artillery) returning from Afganistan and Irak. Due to this, researchers visited the places where US had bombed, destroyed tanks and so. And the level of radiation was, suprisingly, highly dangerous.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html
http://blondesense.blogspot.com/2004/04/depleted-uranium-radiation-in-iraq.html

Clinton would have never approved this.
Moonspider
Tutor wrote:
I'm suprised that first and only topic you are ready to argue includes weapons.


This is far from my first topic since joining, and weapons certainly aren't the only topic I discuss. However it is an area in which I have some expertise and therefore am willing to readily discuss. As for the rest of your points, you seem entrenched in your opinions regarding the Bush administration, so there is no point in me debating it.

Tutor wrote:
Weapons of massdestruction.


DUs are not WMDs by any stretch of the imagination.

Tutor wrote:
Yes, WHO article was giving a "very low"-threat to the levels of radioactivity. I don't argue with that. But the problem is that I'm not talking about the 1995 Kosovo bombings while Clinton was on the charge. I'm talking about Afganistan and Irak while Bush is on the charge, which was the mainpoint of the conversation. Bush the Führer.

There has been a dramatic amount of leukemia among the British soldiers (notably among privates in the artillery) returning from Afganistan and Irak. Due to this, researchers visited the places where US had bombed, destroyed tanks and so. And the level of radiation was, suprisingly, highly dangerous.

Clinton would have never approved this.[/


There is no difference in depleted uranium rounds used in Kosovo and depleted uranium rounds used in Iraq. None. If later studies build a consensus that depleted uranium rounds are extremely hazardous and create a more toxic battlefield than is acceptable, than the WHO study was wrong and reached an incorrect conclusion for some reason. It has nothing to do with Clinton being more conscientious than Bush. If you order the military into action against an enemy with armored vehicles, you’re going to get depleted uranium on the ground because that is what the military uses in its chain guns as an armor piercing weapon. And like I said and will reiterate, a 30mm depleted uranium round in 1995 is no different from a 30mm depleted uranium round in 2003. It’s not as if the military decided to go with something more toxic the day Bush took office in 2001.

I honestly don't understand why DU would be linked to leukemia among men in the artillery. I would think they'd serve no where near action involving depleted uranium rounds.

I still have seen no comprehensive study that demonstrates battlefield exposure to DU to be significantly hazardous. There are far more hazardous heavy metals, such as arsenic and mercury and it is only weakly radioactive.

With what would you recommend replacing depleted uranium in armor-piercing rounds?

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Tutor wrote:
In the Middle East Clinton almost got the peace done. Just because Arafat was plain stupid and Israel got new and violent Prime minister Ariel Sharon, the negotiations seized.


Would be wonderful if the Middle East situation could be that easy to solve and personalities like Clinton and Ariel Sharon can have that much power Smile Think it is much more involved and complicated than that.


Quote:
I see no reason why world shouldn't hate the US right now.

Not quite true. Perhaps the US citizens are not happy with where their country is going at the moment and some are mirroring those perceptions on the people of the rest of the world. Certainly there are many people internationally unhappy with Bush's lack of diplomatic style and the invasion of Iraq, but the US is quite some country and most people outside are looking up to the US! I am very happy with the US presence in Afghanistan as certainly it has to be much better for the US to hunt terrorists right at their roots in Afghanistan, than in the US. With the number of years out there in the Middle East the US has also had the opportunity to really get to know the enemy allowing it to refine its warfare tactics as well as build an enormous databank of intelligence.
Moonspider
Well, I decided to change my mind and go ahead and argue with you on the other issues.

Tutor wrote:
US had things well in their own country too.


I personally don’t place much stock in any president’s influence over the economy. But that’s debatable. Nevertheless I think the strong economic growth of the United States in the 1990s had less to do with President Clinton than it did with other factors. That decade saw dramatic technological innovations that revolutionized the market (not unlike the United States in the 1920s). And the collapse of the Soviet Empire opened up a huge array of new markets, creating new business and investment opportunities for U.S. companies.

I don’t think President Clinton was any more directly responsible for the 1990s economy than President Hoover was for the 1929 stock market crash. A national/global economy is far too complex for any individual, no matter how powerful, to easily influence in my opinion.

And speaking of comparing the 1990s to the 1920s, let us not forget that much of the good U.S. economic times in the ‘90s resulted from the “dotcom” bubble. That bubble burst beginning in 2000, just as the stock market bubble of the Roaring ‘20s burst in 1929. During the dotcom bust NASDAQ lost 78% of its value.

Like I said, I’m not one to play politics with the economy, especially regarding presidents. They either luck into a good one or a bad one I think. But if I were to do so and look at the U.S. economy since Bush took office in 2001, I’d argue that the economy didn’t start deteriorating until after 2006. (Gas prices have gone up since then, the housing marketed plummeted since then, the unemployment rate is up…) Hmmmm what changed in American national politics in 2006? Wink

Tutor wrote:
Then came Bush who attacked everything and everyone.


All military events in the Bush Administration were precipitated by 9/11. Without 9/11 neither the Afghan war nor the Iraq war would have occurred. The invasion of Afghanistan was obviously directly related. The Iraq invasion was indirectly related in that without the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I don’t think the Bush Administration would not have had much of a threat argument or the political capital to get the U.S. congress to approve action.

Tutor wrote:
Killed, molested and destroyed. Nuclear weapons were used (uraniumheads in bullets and missiles) and the soldiers committed crimes against humanity. "Terrorists" were taken to concentrationcamps were they are even know brutally tortured.


I’ve already argued against your tirade regarding depleted uranium. A nuclear weapon they are not. You say individual soldiers are committing “crimes against humanity.” How do you define that?

Terrorists may be “tortured” within the guidelines of U.S. policy (the illegal actions of U.S. personnel not withstanding), but I don’t know that I would call it “brutal,” even though I am against it.

Tutor wrote:
And now when the everything is all ****ed up in US, Bush is trying to cover his trails by more war (Iran is going down!) and terror.


I doubt it. I’ve discussed this in other threads, but I think the odds are very slim. In the unlikely event that war breaks out between the U.S. and Iran, I don’t believe the United States will instigate it. We have enough on our plate.

Tutor wrote:
US is not bankrupt thanks to the money coming from oil-producers.
There are many reasons that the United States is not “bankrupt.” Our economy is far more diversified than just one subset of a sector.

Tutor wrote:
No, we don't want a world police.


I don’t believe the U.S. is trying to be. I think the United States is simply attempting to accomplish what it believes to be in its own best interests, as any nation does.

Tutor wrote:
We don't need a country which all the people in the world, even its own people, have to be afraid of.


The only people in the United States afraid of their own government are either on the far right or the far left, a small minority indeed on both counts. And I may be wrong, but I don’t think many people in the world are afraid of the United States.

Tutor wrote:
We don't need a country of torture and terror.


Discussed earlier in the “Torture” thread of this forum.

Tutor wrote:
We don't need a country which runs by the interest of multinational companies. We don't need a world police which commits almost as much crimes as the criminals it's trying to prevent.


Obviously I disagree with you here. I’m willing to discuss specific details rather than generalities.

Tutor wrote:
And if people forgot, thanks to Clinton, what US has done in the past they are remembering it now thanks to Bush. Vietnam, Afganistan (US' support got it torn in to the ground, which lead to 9/11)


You know, for many of us who had first-hand or second-hand knowledge of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism in the 1970s and 1980s, 9/11 wasn’t much of a surprise. Sure, the manner in which it was carried out surprised us. But the fact that such a monumental and severe terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil for me and others was just the culmination of what we had feared for two decades and had been telling people to watch for. I personally thought the first major attack of that scale would have been a small nuclear device. Fortunately I was wrong (for the moment).

Tutor wrote:
I see no reason why world shouldn't hate the US right now.


I’m not sure that “the world” does. I don’t see the United States being isolated diplomatically or economically.
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
All military events in the Bush Administration were precipitated by 9/11. Without 9/11 neither the Afghan war nor the Iraq war would have occurred. The invasion of Afghanistan was obviously directly related. The Iraq invasion was indirectly related in that without the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I don’t think the Bush Administration would not have had much of a threat argument or the political capital to get the U.S. congress to approve action.
Hmm...yes I agree with the analysis, but what does that say for the legitimacy of the Iraq 'venture'?
Quote:
I don’t believe the U.S. is trying to be. I think the United States is simply attempting to accomplish what it believes to be in its own best interests, as any nation does.
Agreed.
Quote:
The only people in the United States afraid of their own government are either on the far right or the far left, a small minority indeed on both counts. And I may be wrong, but I don’t think many people in the world are afraid of the United States.
I have to disagree here. I think there are many people who are suspicious and fearful of the US - particularly in light of the new doctrine.
Quote:
I’m not sure that “the world” does. I don’t see the United States being isolated diplomatically or economically.
Well, here again I would take issue. The US has built up a great deal of international resentment over the last few years. Obviously this is not apparent in many of the establishment outlets, because you don't publically 'dis' the big boy on the block. When the chips are down, however, I think the US might be surprised by how little support it has in the electorates of the other western democracies - let alone the populations of other parts of the world.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
All military events in the Bush Administration were precipitated by 9/11. Without 9/11 neither the Afghan war nor the Iraq war would have occurred. The invasion of Afghanistan was obviously directly related. The Iraq invasion was indirectly related in that without the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I don’t think the Bush Administration would not have had much of a threat argument or the political capital to get the U.S. congress to approve action.
Hmm...yes I agree with the analysis, but what does that say for the legitimacy of the Iraq 'venture'?


Touché, mon ami.

I think it simply says that, in the context of 9/11 (and provided that the intelligence mistakes/interpretations were honest errors) the Iraq invasion’s legitimacy is debatable. Without the 9/11 context there would have been little to no room for debating its legitimacy. (How’s my tap dancing? Wink)

Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
The only people in the United States afraid of their own government are either on the far right or the far left, a small minority indeed on both counts. And I may be wrong, but I don’t think many people in the world are afraid of the United States.
I have to disagree here. I think there are many people who are suspicious and fearful of the US - particularly in light of the new doctrine.
Quote:
I’m not sure that “the world” does. I don’t see the United States being isolated diplomatically or economically.
Well, here again I would take issue. The US has built up a great deal of international resentment over the last few years. Obviously this is not apparent in many of the establishment outlets, because you don't publically 'dis' the big boy on the block. When the chips are down, however, I think the US might be surprised by how little support it has in the electorates of the other western democracies - let alone the populations of other parts of the world.


I won’t argue with you here, you may be right. I certainly don’t spend a lot of time out of the country (my only visits have been to South Korea and Thailand in the past three years). And when I do it is often in the context of military service, so the foreigners with whom I deal aren’t the average locals.

Nevertheless I think if the chips are truly down, disagreements over the past few years will go by the wayside with regard to the United States’ traditional allies. Other countries would love to see us down no matter how nice we are. The price of being such a powerful nation is that no matter what, your interests will conflict with those of others. And the United States, because of her size, has interests in every corner of the globe.

For other diplomatic issues, important but not dire, you may be right. I think even in the past few years we’ve seen some of that in U.S. foreign relations with our allies. But that too is nothing new and I actually expect it to get worse, no matter what U.S. foreign policy is.

This would be the subject for another topic, but I expect U.S. power to wane over the next century or two even as environmental and health issues coupled with population pressures and dwindling energy resources, increase international tensions. I think the United States will start finding herself more and more at odds with her allies, for no other reason than global competition. Like Britain a hundred years ago, we just need to carefully manage our empire’s setting sun.

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
I agree with pretty much all of that analysis (your tap dancing was quite nicely done Smile )
The US has (I think) 'peaked' as regards being a global power (I think the period of decline will be decades rather than centuries). This is implicitly recognised in the new doctrine. The US can already no longer mostly rely on economic might to acheive its foreign policy objectives - this is becoming more evident as time passes. It now has to rely more on its military superiority to maintain its interests.

There will be, I think, dangerous times ahead as the US adapts to its decreasing importance on the world stage. You draw a valid analogy with the decline in UK power as the empire faded and Britian became just another European 'power'. It is my hope that the US does not try too hard to maintain its global hegemony over the coming decades, or there could be real problems.
Tutor
Moonspider wrote:
Tutor wrote:
I'm suprised that first and only topic you are ready to argue includes weapons.
This is far from my first topic since joining, and weapons certainly aren't the only topic I discuss. However it is an area in which I have some expertise and therefore am willing to readily discuss. As for the rest of your points, you seem entrenched in your opinions regarding the Bush administration, so there is no point in me debating it.

I appologize, we have a little languagebarrier so I wasn't really aware of the proper use of the word. What I meant was that the only section you were commenting.
Moonspider wrote:

I personally don’t place much stock in any president’s influence over the economy. But that’s debatable. Nevertheless I think the strong economic growth of the United States in the 1990s had less to do with President Clinton than it did with other factors. That decade saw dramatic technological innovations that revolutionized the market (not unlike the United States in the 1920s). And the collapse of the Soviet Empire opened up a huge array of new markets, creating new business and investment opportunities for U.S. companies.

I don’t think President Clinton was any more directly responsible for the 1990s economy than President Hoover was for the 1929 stock market crash. A national/global economy is far too complex for any individual, no matter how powerful, to easily influence in my opinion.
(Eventhough it really doesn't matter in the big scale what I think) I think that president has a lot of influence over the economy. Simpliest point of view: does the berserk-like war-making have any effect on economy?
Moonspider wrote:
All military events in the Bush Administration were precipitated by 9/11. Without 9/11 neither the Afghan war nor the Iraq war would have occurred. The invasion of Afghanistan was obviously directly related. The Iraq invasion was indirectly related in that without the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I don’t think the Bush Administration would not have had much of a threat argument or the political capital to get the U.S. congress to approve action.
Iraq war would have never occured... "So now when we're making some war, let's take it all the way. Give me the map!"? Now that's some wellconstructed foreign policy. No matter Iraq let the inspectors to search the bases, US was on the roll.

Moonspider wrote:
I honestly don't understand why DU would be linked to leukemia among men in the artillery. I would think they'd serve no where near action involving depleted uranium rounds.
Because they where using depleted uranium (or some better stuff) on warheads of the artillery. And privates of artillery were the ones to carry the rockets. Bullets aren't the ones I'm really damning in here. It's the warheads.

Moonspider wrote:
Tutor wrote:

No, we don't want a world police.

I don’t believe the U.S. is trying to be. I think the United States is simply attempting to accomplish what it believes to be in its own best interests, as any nation does.

Well call me paranoid but this forum has a lot of writers who talk about US being world police. US movies are showing US as world police not to talk about US TV. Even the speeches of US government seek the path of being world police. And I don't even have to mention this last factor but I cannot keep it to myself: George W. Bush.

Edit: Oh, and talking about the warcrimes. This is just some small stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki17673d_Qk

But remember what happened in the abu ghraib
deanhills
I find the US a powerful giant and am most relieved about its presence in Afghanistan. The fact that it is there is to me testimony of its power, its expertise and its progress in warfare with the terrorists. I think millions of people are looking up to the US in every major field. Military, technology, science, medicine .... I do not always agree with some of the political decisions, nor Bush's lack of diplomacy, but in overall this is certainly an empire to be reckoned with. 50 large States in a central democratic federal government, that already is quite an achievement. Am happy that the US is in Afghanistan in its own capacity. US must have very powerful generals in the military with unique leadership abilities. Current politics cannot be very easy for them.
Moonspider
Tutor wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
I honestly don't understand why DU would be linked to leukemia among men in the artillery. I would think they'd serve no where near action involving depleted uranium rounds.
Because they where using depleted uranium (or some better stuff) on warheads of the artillery. And privates of artillery were the ones to carry the rockets. Bullets aren't the ones I'm really damning in here. It's the warheads.


DU is used in anti-armor rounds, air-to-air cannon rounds, and at one time in point defense anti-missile systems like the U.S. Navy CIWS because of its density and self-sharpening properties as it fragments. Furthermore, DU is pyrophoric, which means that it burns upon impact with a hard object, potentially causing secondary explosions or fires in the target’s fuel systems or ammunition or igniting anything flammable. You say that “bullets” are not what you are damning, but “bullets” are basically all there is in that all DU munitions that I know of are kinetic energy weapons. I don’t know of any depleted uranium being used in warheads, although I would not be surprised to hear that it was used in some other aspect, such as a counterweight in a missile.

To my knowledge, the only artillery rounds ever to carry DU are the ADAM and PDU (Area Denial Ant-Personnel Mine and Pursuit Deterrent Munition). However the DU is used only as an epoxy catalyst in construction. Therefore these are not DU munitions. Even if DU is as toxic as some claim, I cannot imagine these munitions being hazardous to anyone handling it or it creating any significant hazardous material after detonation.

GlobalSecurity.org wrote:
The ADAM and PDM are not of the kinetic energy “penetrator” type design. These munitions contain an extremely small amount of DU and not categorized as “DU ammunition”. The resin which forms the body of the ADAM mine wedge contains a small amount of DU in the “hardener” portion of the resin. The DU is less than 0.15% (0.024 oz) of the total resin and is present only as a chemical agent that allows the resin to cure at less then 160°F in less then 12 hours. These cure characteristics are required to efficiently produce the mine and to protect the electronic components during manufacture.


I don’t know if these were used during Gulf War I or II. As fast as the lines were moving, I’d be surprised if they were. But I don’t know.

What I think is funny (if one can call it that) is that so many people when deploring depleted uranium usage focus on radioactivity. The primary hazard is chemical (by a significant factor), not radiation. And I am sure the ground where any significant amounts of DU have been used is contaminated, just like lead contaminates the ground of every firing range in the world. Heavy metal poisoning I can see if one ingests or inhales a large enough amount, but not radiation. (It’s less radioactive than natural uranium!) If you wish to go into a discussion on that, I’m game.

Respectfully,
M

References:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pdm.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/adam.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du-history.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/03/mil-030314-dod01.htm
horseatingweeds
Come on Moon, you're shoot'n awful high.

Tutor, what Moon is trying to say up there is that DU isn't used in warheads or artillery round. It's used in bullets that are made for destroying armor. These weapons have only kinetic destruction properties, meaning they don't explode.

UM is just really hard. If you make it go fast and hit something, it punches through it or melts into it. So, shooting something like a tank with it would be like shooting liquid metal into the tank.

Moon is also trying to say that worrying about DU's radioactivity is like worrying about bleeding to death from a snake bite. It's not dangerously radioactive. It is metal though. Like any metal, it can be poisonous.
virtus

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
say 2Bush Hello! Very Happy
Related topics
FOR WAR OR NOT
"terrorist" my thoughts
The downfall of american society
George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People - Kanye West
BUSH'S Poll Numbers Up
Why is the USA in Iraq?
Bush spells out 'LA terror plot'
Is the US Government a Bully?
Bush raves about the deficit, only $300 billion this year!!
Threat to world peace - Bin Laben and Bush on Top
How to test that who is the intelligent...
Who is the leader of your country?
[Opinion] Iraq War
Bush faces arrest in London as war criminal
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.