This is a test of my offensive Avatar Image

[gearbot]

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

[Fence_Sitter]

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...

[Fairweather]

"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 ]

[RobBob]

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.

[Uncle_Tricky]

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 ]

[Greg_W]

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.

[Paco]

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.

[RobBob]

I can smell liberal-arts college cynicism oozing out of this thread. What campus you kids on?

[chucK]

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.

[RobBob]

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.

[Greg_W]

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.

[Greg_W]

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.

[Uncle_Tricky]

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

[chucK]

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.

[RobBob]

Oh brother!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

"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 ]

[RobBob]

I meant Oh Brother to Uncle Tricky, not ChucK. Uncle Tricky mis-cast SunTzu.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

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

---

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

[Uncle_Tricky]

TV is the most powerful weapon in our high tech arsenal.

 

"Thus, those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle. They capture the cities without assaulting them and overthrow the state without protracted operations." (More Sun Tzu)

[sk]

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?)

[RobBob]

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?

[RobBob]

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?

[Greg_W]

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 . 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.

[MtnGoat]

"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?

[MtnGoat]

This is going to be fun....

 

DFA says:

"It would seem that while there is some contention regarding whether CO2 and other gases are causing the earth to warm up,"

 

Well then you mean it isn't a done deal? That's not exactly the feeling I get from proponents, not by a long shot.

 

"there is no contention regarding the fact that things like CFC's are wrecking the ozone layer, allowing more UV to get through the atmosphere."

 

OK then lets take that on.

 

"OK, so global warming due to CO2 may be a crock. Fine."

 

So are we done with this angle, putting it down to maybe? I can hang with maybe.

 

"How about the fact that the climate has grown rapidly warmer since the 1920's? You know, around the time we started getting after the fossil fuels?"

 

Correlation is not causation. I know many smart people with good conscience work hard on these issues, but given the ton of data pouring in from archeological climate projects, I just don't think the natural cycles and changes are well enough documented. I'd like, just once, to see a normalized climate graph using all known measurements for the past say 1000 years, 10,000 would be even better. Is there such a source? Link?

 

"So, the Doctor will bet that there are a shitload more websites out there with more specific information indicating that man is having a detrimental effect on the earth's climate."

 

Gee, whoda thunk people convinced the world was ending would flood the net with information about it? It's pretty easy to find man slandering man for some reason, it's a big fascination. On this note I'd have to go for quality.

 

"We managed to cluster-bomb and daisy-cutter a World Trade Center's worth of civilians, yet we still seem to be facing a major terrorist threat. Way to go, USA! Wooooooo!"

 

So you wouldn't have broken up Al Queda in Afghanistan? You would have left training resources, money, organization, materials and expertise of all kinds there, until what? Not knowing where they are, giving them time to plan more?

 

OK smart fellow, cough up the alternative.... while realizing military realities.

 

"It's OK, though, because we're distracted by the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein, which even Republican elected officials aren't buying."

 

Heck no, no threat there. A guy whose press release extol him as the return of nebuchadnezzar or somesuch, here to rebuild babylon, I kid you not. he views himself as an Islamic hero who will leave a legacy and example for Muslims to follow.

 

This guy gives Kuwait the shakedown with murders, rapes, and mass looting. He gases ethnic populations with chemical weapons, picks a fight with Iraq that kills what, 10 million? He sets fire to oil wells and intentionally causes enormous spills. Fires missiles on Israel, funds an assasination attempt on Bush Sr.

 

He ordered the execution of his own son. He has slaughtered his own immediate family, uncles and such. His people starve as he spend oil money while he chases weapons.

 

He is known to have funded and trained Abu Nidal, who killed many Americans. He is known to train still other Islamic terrorists and personally pays bounties to families of suicide bombers who manage to kill Israelis.

 

No supposed threat there, no, just the *fact* that he has already directly contributed to the deaths of Americans, by terrorism via Abu Nidal *and* the payments to Palestinians who have *also* killed Americans. I call activities proven to have caused American deaths, a threat, what about you?

 

Now this guy could get an atomic bomb. A guy with a vision who probably would probably welcome matyrdom, given the right circumstances. And he's getting old. Dandy.

 

No threat?

 

"Touché, fucker."

 

Touche, indeed!

 

***********************

Fence Sitter:

 

"skewed for dramitization...it goes -1.5,-1,-.5,0,1,2,3 etc... hm...i wonder why they would have done that"

 

Funny how these things happen, isn't it?

 

********************************