Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Necronomicon

This is a test of my offensive Avatar Image

Recommended Posts

Fence Sitter,

 

Check out the article “The Earth’s Changing Glaciers” in The American Alpine Journal, 2000. It should answer all your questions. Figure 5 shows the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1000 years. There is definitely an abnormal spike since 1910.

 

Cheers,

 

Gearbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont doubt it...in fact i personally believe was have created "human" global warming...but i think DFA was a lil off rocker saying he had proof...if he had PROOF... i would be interested as i'm sure would the scientific world at large... [Roll Eyes]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Tell me who you'd think would be better before you pan this point."[/QB]

 

Ok,

 

I like GW and can think of only one person who would do a better job:

 

Ariel Sharon.

 

[ 09-16-2002, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, Greg W. Ever been attacked or mugged? You don't stand around and ponder why your attacker feels like his way of life is threatened.

 

The resentment of 2,000 years that has caused the recent Islamist movement is well documented and has been talked to death in recent months. We ain't gonna change it through "understanding" at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

SK wrote: what is it that we do when the government of a people is evil?


It depends. If we think their evil helps our good, like Saddam when he was fighting Iran, or Osama when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, then we give them weapons and training and money. Or, if its a brutal but effective dictatorship serves our strategic or economic needs, like Saudi Arabia, we'll help them consolidate their grip on power, sure that a friendly evil dictator is preferable to a hostile democracy.

 

And its worked real swell, eh? With friends like we bought, who needs enemies!

----

 

"one calleth retreat what another calleth strategic redeployment..."

 

"Run away!!!"

 

[ 09-16-2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Tricky ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Tricky:

It depends. If we think their evil helps our good, like Saddam when he was fighting Iran, or Osama when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, then we give them weapons and training and money. Or, if its a brutal but effective dictatorship serves our strategic or economic needs, like Saudi Arabia, we'll help them consolidate their grip on power, sure that a friendly evil dictator is preferable to a hostile democracy.

 

And its worked real swell, eh? With friends like we bought, who needs enemies!

Nice answer - another sheep being spoonfed by the liberal media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Your argument goes wrong in failing to look at the situation from more sides than just one, i.e. America's. The terrorists who killed so many innocent people on 9/11 saw their way of life threatened somehow, and engaged in an act of war to preserve their way of life.

Flashboy;

 

Who said that we have to look at the situation from any other side than ours? Did we look at the side of the Japanese in '41? In 1942 did we look at the "other" side when we committed to war with Germany? Maybe the Jews WERE a threat to the German way of life; we could have realized this if we stopped to look at the "other" side.

 

You are wrong in your assumption that the terrorists "saw their way of life threatened." Their goal is to EXPAND their way of life by DESTROYING ours. THAT is the reason this act of war was perpetrated on innocent citizens of our country. Regarding your "collateral damage" question. The people murdered in the World Trade Center attack were not "collateral" (i.e., secondary); they were the primary target.

 

Ask yourself if you are willing to fight for what you have and defend your way of life.

 

Greg

I ask myself that question, would I defend my way of life, and I answer yes, but going to war with Iraq? I do not see how Iraq poses an immediate threat to my way of life. We are talking about making a pre-emptive strike against another nation because we perceive some kind of threat. In desert storm we attacked Iraq, but that was in response to their invasion of Kuwait. We invaded Afganistan because their government was not taking action against known terrorists and in fact they were knowingly harboring terrorist.

 

I cannot condone the actions of terrorist organizations or suicide bombers, but I also cannot condone bombing the fuck out of a country and toppling its government because we have created a false perception that they pose a threat to our way of life.

 

RobBob, sorry, but we haven't been attacked by Iraq yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Paco:

RobBob, sorry, but we haven't been attacked by Iraq yet.

Paco, you are wrong there! Iraq HAS attacked us! Repeatedly!!! Just none of us knows about it and they (our executive branch) can't explain it to us 'cause of security issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paco, I'm glad you brought up Desert Storm, that skirmish which will be a textbook case in military strategy 1,000 years from now. The moral of the case will be: In war, you must conquer the enemy. Way to go, George, Sr., look what you left us with now by not having the intestinal fortitude to get rid of the maniac then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Paco:

I do not see how Iraq poses an immediate threat to my way of life. ...sorry, but we haven't been attacked by Iraq yet.

Follow the money trail, Paco. Who has the major money and a huge chip on his shoulder? The Saudis and the Iraqis. Osama provides the Saudi connection, but the Iraqis have the infrastructure to create and disseminate weapons of a serious magnitude. The President and Congress committed to routing out those that support Al Qaeda (sp?) and Saddam fills that bill. Do we wait until he has the means to hurt us or sell weapons to someone who wants to hurt us? Despite the fact that he has been in violation of U.N. mandated weapons inspections since the mid '90's. We know what happens when we go soft on these guys, they hit us were it hurts because they perceive us as weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by RobBob:

Way to go, George, Sr., look what you left us with now by not having the intestinal fortitude to get rid of the maniac then.

You can blame our current Secretary of State for that one. If they had listened to Schwartzkopf, Saddam would be a distant memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RobBobDude,

 

We got just what we (George Sr.) wanted by not wasting Sadaam. By keeping Iraq a threat, we did not "disrupt the balance of power in the region", which meant that Saudi Arabia still felt compelled to be our lapdogs and keep the oil a flowin'.

 

I don't know whut they are thinking this time with Iraq part II, but I doubt it's what it appears on the surface. It might be meant to rile up Sadaam enough to get him to scare Saudi Arabia again, since the Saudis are starting to act a bit recalcitrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baaaaa! Baaaaa!

 

Actually, I think that after we invade and conquer Iraq, we should head East and take out Iran, the second leg of the Axis of Evil. After that, we should recognize what's plainly staring us in the face and invade Saudi Arabia. After all, that's where most of the money and terrorists came from anyway. And then we should invade Pakistan, because it's ruled by an evil dictator, who has admitted posessing weapons of mass destruction in the form of nukes. Plus Pakistan is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalists, so occupying it would make us safer. And of course we can't forget about North Korea, those terrorists almost beat Ono in speed skating. And hell, while we're in the hood, China is just begging to be liberated....

 

Sound like a plan that will fit our nation's cold strategic interests?

----

 

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nice answer - another sheep being spoonfed by the liberal media."

 

What liberal media? If you're talking about major media, you've gotta be kidding. Most of the major media outlets are part of huge multi-tentacled corporations which are owned by the uber-rich, a group not usually known for their liberal tendencies.

 

If you're talking about actual "liberal" media sources like IndyMedia.org or Mother Jones, people aren't exactly spoon fed that information, because they're not getting bombarded by it. You have to go out and find "liberal" media, and feed yourself.

 

[ 09-16-2002, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

uber-rich, a group not usually known for their liberal tendencies.

[Roll Eyes] Shall I start my list of "uber-riche" liberals? Bill Gates (Jr. & Sr.), The Kennedys, The Roosevelts, Ted Turner, Al Gore & his Father, most of Hollywood,...

 

Check yourself Dr. Flush, your naivete is showing...

 

Greg W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh haaa we are back to both sides of one coin bantering back and forth to no avail... when will they see that EXTREAMISM is part of the problem? All of you need to learn what all women know (to a lesser degree in the US for sure) there is NO SAFE! there is no answer. you can fight wars, send my son to war, you can turn your back on the war. you can avoid conflict. Or you can pay others to fight your war if they will suite your needs for a while, and then try to anihalte them when they get in the way.... all of that has been done for centuries, by all nationalities (need I bring up the cursaides?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle T, TV is one of the major reasons why that part of the world has gotten so worked up! TV beams our western culture into their homes and to their kids...Islamists alternately are offended by and jealous of what TV shows them of the western world.

 

What you suggest by your post is that perhaps we control the media message to deal with them...is that not a cynical and Machiavellian solution?? Do you really believe that our gov't can control television media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle T, TV is one of the major reasons why that part of the world has gotten so worked up! TV beams our western culture into their homes and to their kids...Islamists alternately are offended by and jealous of what TV shows them of the western world.

 

What you suggest by your post is that perhaps we control the media message to deal with them...is that not a cynical and Machiavellian solution?? Do you really believe that our gov't can control television media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"but I also cannot condone bombing the fuck out of a country and toppling its government because we have created a false perception that they pose a threat to our way of life."

 

All those false perceptions.. seems to me the purposeful deaths of 3000 people at work isn't too much of a false perception. Neither are the known activities of supporting Abu Nidal who also killed many Americans.

 

What part of the intense hatred for the west, the self stated goal of killing Americans by those Saddam supports strikes you as false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by sk:

... when will they see that EXTREAMISM is part of the problem? ...(need I bring up the cursaides?)

SK, you can only bring up the C-R-U-S-A-D-E-S if you spell them properly [Wink] . I don't agree that 'extremism' is the problem, per se. To many on this board I am an 'extremist'; to others I may be too liberal. 'Extreme' is a relative term. It is when those individuals move to use force to convey their message that there is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×