# Interesting....



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I am sure this will provoke a heated response (or lack of) from many people... but here goes:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2834552&page=1


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Global Warming - a cause supported by people who have plenty, for those who don't, to do with less.


----------



## madseiler (May 20, 2005)

What happened to global cooling?
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Global cooling would require too many people to buy fur coats, and that would get the PETA crowd upset.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

global warming seems to have two camps: Those who strongly support it and those who strongly do not. I have tried to keep an open mind... but the evidence seems to be mounting against it being a normal phenomenon & earth cycle. It seem that even scientists with their careers at stake (like the guy from Nasa in Houston that went against the Bush administration and spoke his findings) are coming out of the "there is no global warming" box. 

I do have to say that I find it interesting that the UN report is made by scientists, then it has to be reviewed by EVERY member states POLITICIANS to decide what is actually presented. What the hell does a politican know about it? And if it is not true, why would the VAST, VAST majority of all scientists speak out about it with such a fervor?

The unofficial word is that the scientists are up in arms over the politicians watering down (no pun intended) their report and making statements that are not supporting the facts. They are purportedly going to say that the ocean level will only rise 1-3 feet over the next 100 years (because of the politicians) versus the much higher theories (theories being the optimal word) supported by computer models. But let's say they are right. Let's say it is only... 3 feet. Can you guess how many islands that will put under water? Fort Myers Beach is what... 4 feet above sea level? What about a high-high tide? What about a tropical storm? Any storm surge basically puts it under water right now. At 4 feet, would that sink New Orleans? The last paragraph of the article depicts the President of Indonesia saying that by 2030, 2000 of their 18000 islands will be under water. That is not one hunderd years... that is 23.

Thoughts?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

One word says it all....theories. Climate change scenerios are based on computer models, which are inexact at best. One volcano erupting would completely skew thier forcasts.

Remember how last season was going to be such a bad one for hurricanes? Oops, we didn't realize El Nino was going to have such an effect. And that's just a 6 month or so projection. When you do a DR on a chart, the longer it runs, the further off it gets, right?

That doesn't mean we should ignore the possible effects of humans on the enviorment, but fanaticism and obsession are never good things. Not to mention that the draconian measures that are always promoted don't really affect those who are most contributing to this "problem", because they'll just ignore them as being too costly.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Well, I am not a climatologist, but here is an observation. I went into Dallas the other day. I got stuck on LBJ (what a surprise for anyone that has been there). A moment of awe struck me as I gaxed off into the distace of countless, countless cars and truck. The brown haze and crap hovered above them. Both sides of the highway were bumper to bumper off into the horizon. That was only one small section of Dallas, an even smaller section of Texas, an even smaller section of the US, and an extremely small section of the world. 

So, from the purely non-Phd, non career climatologist, point of view: How can you have that many cars and trucks pumping that much crap into the atmosphere without there being considerable conscequences??? I have not even brought up the factories, trash burning, forest burning, etc. And as far as the volcanoes, one pop there and it does throw it all off - the wrong way. We cannot do anything about volcanoes, we can about our impact. 

Not starting an argument, I truly am trying to keep an open mind about it. But my opinion is starting to waver 'to the dark side' of the force!!

Regarding the alarmist position, I agree. But at the same time, it would seem logical to me that there would be many businesses and countries with a hidden agenda on Climate Change more than there would need to be scientists with a hidden agenda. What difference would it really make to a scientist??? They aren't going to get anything out of it. Now Detroit and Saudia Arabia on the other hand, well that seems a different story.

THoughts?


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

I think the real problem is that humans remain jumped-up chimps with little tolerance for anything that doesn't offer immediate gratification.

If we accept that it took 200 years of gradually increasing emissions to get to now, we should equally accept that it would take 200 years of emission _reductions _to get us back to that equilibrium. Most people have difficulty understanding why carrying a credit card balance or a 30 year mortgage is a bad idea, and politicians start campaigning two years into a four-year term for the next election...

...so things will have to get significantly worse before something is done that will have little or no effect on those "sacrificing", but may provide some stability for their grandchildren.

And people ask me why I bought a steel full keeler...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Val,

The same reducction would have little impact because of the increased number of cars. My grandfather said he rode a horse to school (whehter he was lying or not... as it was uphill both ways). Still, the citizens of our nation and most others in an industrial coutry either own a car, multiple cars, or use cars and busses in transportation. Nah. Because o the massive number of people here today, it would have to be something considerably larger in reduction.

At least that is my observation.

Here is another one: I met with some guys from England not long ago. We really hit it off and became friends. They did not have a problem with the Iraq war, not a problem with the perceived (or not perceived) AMerican dominance in foreighn affairs, etc. However, on the subeject of climate change, they were not very positive of America's influence and the Kyoto Treaty. In fact, they were somewhat brazen over AMerican ignorance and seemed to portray that that was the opinion of a large majority of the English and other people of the world. 

Agree with them, or not agree, I wonder if that is the perception?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, the real problem is that America is one country that vastly skews the pollution averages... per capita, Americans probably generate far more waste than any other country. We've gotten to the point where most things are disposable to some degree or another... if you have a broken VCR or DVD player, do you repair it... No, of course not.... since it is cheaper to buy another one. Do we recycle any of the vast amount of electronics that we throw out... not really... in fact we're pretty poor at recycling anything at all.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

As madseiler said, what happened to global cooling? How can such dire predictions change 180 degrees in such a short time? Remember when DDT was going to kill all life on the planet? Well, we saved the mosquitoes at the price of a considerable amount of the African population dying. Now they've decided, maybe DDT isn't so bad after all. Saccahrin? Trans-fat? Healthy alternatives, till now they aren't.

Do humans have an effect? Of course, but so do cow farts. And there are one heck of a lot of cows on this planet.

Can you remember a time in your life when there wasn't some looming disaster just around the corner? Be it pesticides, population boom, and on and on. One thing all these "causes" have in common is that people could support them at no cost to themselves and feel good about "saving the planet".


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> As madseiler said, what happened to global cooling? How can such dire predictions change 180 degrees in such a short time? Remember when DDT was going to kill all life on the planet? Well, we saved the mosquitoes at the price of a considerable amount of the African population dying. Now they've decided, maybe DDT isn't so bad after all. Saccahrin? Trans-fat? Healthy alternatives, till now they aren't.
> 
> Do humans have an effect? Of course, but so do cow farts. And there are one heck of a lot of cows on this planet.
> 
> Can you remember a time in your life when there wasn't some looming disaster just around the corner? Be it pesticides, population boom, and on and on. One thing all these "causes" have in common is that people could support them at no cost to themselves and feel good about "saving the planet".


PB I agree with you...a lot of mental "frenzy" here, too...

I flew from Lisbon to NY, sometime ago, and was reading a magazine article that had a 6 page article on Osteoporosis....by the time I left the plane.....I had Osteoporosis!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Agree with them, or not agree, I wonder if that is the perception?


Well, in a little bit of semi-related irony, I am Canadian, and in Toronto. But the wee country flag on my Sailnet messages is the Stars and Stripes...

This tendency of Americans to see the world largely through America-only or America-first lenses is understandable, but it is part of the perception that America is only a decent global citizen until the moment a soccer mom in Wichita is told she can't drive her SUV alone in the car whenever she feels like it.

It's interesting to meet Americans who've lived abroad. It takes them on average about 18 months in a foreign (yes, that includes Canada) milieu to stop being defensively patriotic and to start seeing some of the reasons why other countries still like Americans, but have stopped admiring America.

You still make decent boats, however (not wanting to get _too _political!)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Val,

I have not lived abroad but my views differ a bit. I did a lot of travelling and deep woods backpacking (until sailing) and met soooo many super people. Whether deserved or underserved, it REALLY REALLY REALLY bothers me that America has developed this negative perception in the world. How can it not bother anyone? 

Uh-Oh... I am pushing into that political talk again. Let me get off of that and get on something that is not as opionated... like global warming (smile).

Anyone reading this ever sailed off the southern California coast? Oxnard, LA, San Diego, etc? I bet a bunch of you have... me too. Let me tell you about one of my first experiences. Landed at Burbank and could not see to the end of the block. I am not kidding... the BLOODY END OF THE BLOCK. When we were coming down, I thought we were going through a cloud but it was pollution. Now I will say that it was considered a much worse than normal day... but still. Holy crap! Sailed offshore from Oxnard down to Catalina Island. That crappy haze was with us for hours. It is no wonder California is leading the country on emissions. It is like living in a tail pipe. And that is not volcano made... that is human made. 

Houston had that problem (well, and still does depending on the wind and the day) but the surrounding area is not as developed so it is not as pronounced. I could not live in that junk everyday. And ask yoursleves this question: What if... just what if the scientists are right? What if it is real and we have a serious issue (or catastrophe, depending on who you ask) looming? Is it better safe than sorry? Does a society, an advanced society, reach a point in their development where they are stewards of their planet and their environment and should be responsible to do everything they can to protect it - for themselves, their children, and the billions of other organisms that live under our rule? Are webetter safe than sorry? Are we there? 

- CD

PS You can blame the media not the scientists for the sensationalism as it sells papers and books. Most of the scientists I knew and know (though they are chemists and biologists) would put you to sleep.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Since the key feature of global warming/cooling is that we individuals can't do much about it and our politicians are, of course, what we chose them to be....

Then the next best thing is to prepare for the consequences. Buy land on high ground further North. Build a jetty on it and start on the Ark. No - I've already got the boat, but a jetty in a sunny place would be nice.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

A comet will hit the Earth before the oceans rise so we don't have to do anything but enjoy ourselves in the meantime. I read it in the science section of the National Enquirer. <g>


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Dang! Now I have to dodge comets too?!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CD - look into the economic impact of impletmenting the Kyoto Accords. Then see who will be most affected by them. Then look at who will not, because they'll simply ignore them. Then do the math on where that will lead.

Once you're done with that, ask yourself... who will oversee these "regulations"? Then, try to keep the politics out of it (which I think I've done quite admirably so far).

There is no so called uniminity on global warming, but, when anyone questions it, they are treated like some kind of crackpot, so we never get the whole story. There is plenty of evidence in the past 100 years that things were "worse" long before the effects of man could have made them so. Facts, not supposistions or computer projections.

And finally, do you really believe that all those crass, callow, greedy polluters have no concern for the future of their children and grandchildren?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PB,

No, I don't believe that and am not trying to start an argument. Please do not take it as such. Just observations. I find myself skeptical of both sides. I agree that the Kyoto would hurt the US economy more than most(well, probably any)... but does that make it right or wrong? But I can also definitely see where we endorse it and others sign on and dont bother. Who is the oversight? And don't you know, as usual, all eyes will be on the US. 

I will say, again putting in writing, I am uneducated on climate change on the specifics of it. But I see Ice sheet melting and breaking off, snow dissapearing on mountains where it has been for thousands of years, etc. I don't think anyone would argue whether the earth is getting warmer... I guess the question is who is causing it. Is the envronment so fragile that our influence would put it over the edge? Is this just a passing phenomenon? 

It would be interesting to see the comments of others that are more educated in climate change than I am.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

CD - We know from geology that the Earth's temperature wanders around without our assistance. Should we be helping it in either direction? 

Conversely, messing our own beds is a bad habit, out of which, we should get.

Now they are putting extra tax on boat fuel, I have resolved to do my bit by paddling out of the marina.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Climate is a dynamic force, not a static one. Because of that, it changes. Can humans have an effect on those changes? Undoubtably. The real question is how much of an effect, and to what extent can those effects be mitigated in a prudent manner, or even if it is necessary to mitigate them.

Yet, that debate is not taking place. Instead, those that believe in global warming simply say....we are right, and you are wrong, end of discussion. They have made up their minds, and brook no contrary opinion that could prove them wrong. That isn't the behavior of someone who is certain of their posistion.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Man caused Global warming is a political ploy to get the US population to pressure their elected officials to sign on and ratify Kyoto, once that's done wealth redistribution can begin, Our economy will stall and third world counties will be allowed to develop; For some reason a minority feels the majority will be better off in a socialist world.

I've been following this for 4 almost 5 yrs now and here are the problems I find with the man made Global warming scenario

There is 1200 grant dependent scientist pushing Man Made cause; there is 10-15,000 scientist world wide that refute the science behind that claim.

Out of the 38% increase in CO2 levels in the last 200 yrs most all that occurred prior to the industrial revolution

Grant Dependant scientists have only look into human involvement ( there's a political reason for that ), while a majority outside the grant structure have and are still looking into other causes for the increase, the latest I read just two day ago was the thawing of permafrost, this is/was inevitable, since the last ice age we have been cycling towards a warming trend ( Natural ) as we warm more permafrost thaws, as it thaws this releases both Methane and CO2, both become part of the greenhouse canopy and methane eventually become CO2. This thawing of the permafrost has created its own cycle, the more it thaws, the more it releases, the more it warms, the more it thaws and this is not man made or made caused, it's the natural cycle.

Other areas of interest is Volcanic and subterranean thermal activity; there is no less than 20 active volcanoes on any given day around the world, some very big eruption have occurred in the last 200 yrs, some in the last 50, Hawaii has been going non-stop for the last 25-30 yrs, all this putting (among other things) CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientists in Sweden are also looking into subterranean thermal activities under the polar areas as a possible reason for the deglacicerization.

The list of possibilities goes on and on, too many to list and far too many to consider man made global warming non-problematic. 


Bottom line is however, the climate is going to change with or without us


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I seem to keep getting placed in the Green Peace camp... unfairly so.

Here are three different view points:

1) There is not such thing as man-caused global warming: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

2) Middle of the road. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

3) We are all going to die so buy some sun screen. http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

I have not read them all in detail, but seem to like the Nasa prospective the best.


----------



## equitiman (Jul 1, 2004)

I have a few observations about everything I have read. Sailingdog is absolutely right that everything in the U.S. is disposable. I live in Germany and of all the waste I produce over 90% of it is recycled. Every week my average household trash is less than 1/2 of a small plastic bag....there are simply not many things that you can't recycle here. If you need plastic cups, dishes, and other disposable items you have to look hard for them (they can be found...but not in every store...and I've never been to a party, barbeque or anything else where they have been used). I think to a certain extent Americans have a bad reputation for not recycling and only deserve part of the blame. The difference is here it is so easy to recycle since they have large recycling bins on every city corner and in every small town. It is so easy that you have no excuse not to recycle. In the U.S., at least based on my experience, you had to be really zealous if you wanted to be a true "recycler". If the facilities were there, I think many more Americans would recycle.

But what I really wanted to say is to the people who cry "alarmist", or even those that don't, miss the bigger picture when the topic of global warming comes up. Whether or not somone agrees with the global warming, few people can argue that we are overexploiting the world's resources through deforestation, unsustainable fishing practices, etc and destroying the environment in the process. I think global warming can serve as the catalyst to wake people up to these issues and to the need to change our lifestyle. If we institute changes in our world to address the global warming threat and then the whole global warming thing doesn't pan out, I don't think many people will look back and think "aww gee that was a big waste".


----------



## Melrna (Apr 6, 2004)

I am also not a Phd in the climate but I can tell you my observations of flying the world for 20 years. Ice caps this year in the Arctic are NOT there right now. Very scary! Last year there was very little ice pack flow. This year it will be non-existent. Ross shelve in the Antarctica slipping into the sea. Easily seen from the air. Glaciers in Alaska disappearing at an alarming rate. Each time I see them from the air they are getting smaller. I have seen the Brazilian rainforest burn and the effects that is now creating down in the southern Hemisphere weather. Less clouds and rain. When I fly down in South America I see the ground on almost every flight vs rarely seeing it. Acid rain eat up the forest in Northern USA and Canada. This is very easily seen from 35,000 feet. Weird weather patterns where ever I fly. Great Britain with little or no rain. They are in drought conditions and talking about water rationing. East coast of the USA with little or no snow this year. Midwest with worse weather than the East coast. These are just my observations every week when I fly around the world. 

Melissa 
S/V Freedom


----------



## equitiman (Jul 1, 2004)

Heh...I'm suprised there is such a debate over this...I thought all sailors were environmentalists....


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

equitiman said:


> But what I really wanted to say is to the people who cry "alarmist", or even those that don't, miss the bigger picture when the topic of global warming comes up. Whether or not somone agrees with the global warming, few people can argue that we are overexploiting the world's resources through deforestation, unsustainable fishing practices, etc and destroying the environment in the process. I think global warming can serve as the catalyst to wake people up to these issues and to the need to change our lifestyle. If we institute changes in our world to address the global warming threat and then the whole global warming thing doesn't pan out, I don't think many people will look back and think "aww gee that was a big waste".


To some extent, you have a point. And if that was what all the frenzy was about, it would be a very valid point. But, that is not the approach being used. Instead it's an "all or nothing" scenerio, devoid of any hint of education on a personal level that would eventually bring about the end you state. And, it is on an indivual level that change truely occurs. People will always resist coercion and bullying as a method of teaching. Add in the very real political aspects of the whole thing and you'll alienate even more people.

You don't change lifestyles by fiat or laws, nor persuade with a whip or club. And until there is an honest and open debate on the subject, that is all that is going to be done. As the SSCA says..."leave a clean wake". If everyone did that, this discussion would be moot.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

equitiman said:


> Heh...I'm suprised there is such a debate over this...I thought all sailors were environmentalists....


Is someone necessarily anti-enviorment simply because they disagree with the proposition? No. But that is how they are portrayed.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Be careful throwing the environmentalist lable around, it's not the same movement as it was in the late 60's early 70's, environmentalist now are agenda driven and it's not always a move to protect the species or environment, more often than not it's a move for political power and/or personal gain.

I consider myself environmentally friendly, but in this day and age, I wouldn't want to be considered or labled a environmentalist


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Poopdeck,

I will not rebute your claim that there can be environmentalists that have a hidden agenda... but I find it unlikely that 1200 scientists are organizing their research to validate their funding. I also doubt there are 10-15000 qualified scientists in climatology. I can see 10-15000 politicians and lobby groups that might claim to be experts. 

The scientists I know (and I know a WHOLE LOTTTT!!!) are very, very conservative. There is nothing more embarassing and detrimental to a career than having a publication proven wrong. Does that mean no one has done it? No. But to insinuate that 1200 scientists, 1200 qualified phd scientists, are cooking the data to come up with a conclusion based on their funding is crazy. Funding is important in research... but wealth is not important to most scientists. 99% get their Ph.D. becuase they are passionate about what they do. If they wanted to make a lot of money, they would have pursued other careers.

I am NOT a PhD climatologist, but I can speak with some authority on that particulair subject. With some exceptions, anybody that is worth a crud will not publish anything they do not believe in, and believe to be correct.


----------



## equitiman (Jul 1, 2004)

PBzeer said:


> Is someone necessarily anti-enviorment simply because they disagree with the proposition? No. But that is how they are portrayed.


Okay you are right...sorry about that. I guess I don't want to be called unpatriotic just because I don't support the war.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

And just to add fuel to the fire... (Oh, PB will be all over this!!!)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

No CD, they aren't "cooking" the data, just using it selectively. And if you don't think there are scientist that will "validate their funding" how do you account for how anyone that works for some industry automatically has their findings questioned? Does being paid by some university or the government automatically make someone more "pure"? Does being "poor" make someone more noble and trustworthy? Of course not.

But, people are affected by their beliefs, it's human nature. And, if one is inclined to believe that man is a blight upon the earth, that is the direction their thought processes will lead them. They don't have to conciously do it. And may be totally unware that their biases are entering into it. But all people have biases, and they do affect our thinking and outlook on things. Some will admit that, and leave the door open to persuasion. Other's slam the door shut and say I'm right, you're wrong.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I remember in elementary school the weekly blast from the practice airraid horns. We were told to get under the desks or if we were outside get under the hedges. I am still resentful at what I look back on as the big people (the adults) taking a piece of my childhood away. I the 80's there was a guy saying the Japanese had pretty much already bought the U.S. from exports and t-bills and our economy would collapse within a year. Now the sky is falling again and I have to ask if once again some entity is not trying to take away what happiness and peace of mind I still have left. Be careful how much of yourself you give to Governments and Chicken Little types that have no conscience or soul in taking tangible and intangible things away from you.
pigslo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PB,

I knew it!! Bush has caused the deficit, terrorism, Osama Bin Laden and now he has singlehandedly caused Global Warming. Obviously there is no end to his reign of terror.

(Sorry, PB, the timing of that story was just too much to resist!!)


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CD said:


> (Oh, PB will be all over this!!!)


I'll only say this....if Bush said the sun rises in the East, there would be a Dem response on why it doesn't.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Well said Pigslo !


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Pig,

1) The bombs could have gone off... but Lord knows your desk would not have done any good. Is it a fair statement to say that our complete and total fear of nuclear weapons saved the world from another world war?

2) The Japanese do own the US. I send my check to Toyota every month.

3) How many recessions have we had now? THe economy did collapse.

Now the sky is falling again and I have to ask if once again some entity is not trying to take away what happiness and peace of mind I still have left. Be careful how much of yourself you give to Governments and Chicken Little types that have no conscience or soul in taking tangible and intangible things away from you.

I like that, pigslo. Nice write up. But don't blame the scientists... blame the media... and blame Cruising Dad for starting this thread in the first place.


----------



## equitiman (Jul 1, 2004)

Well in my mind the debate is already settled...for simplifications sake let's keep it simple and assume there are two scenarios, global warming is real, severe and caused primarily by human activity...or global warming is a scam.

If it is a scam then fine...some of us suffer and think the world is going to end and actually in the end nothing happens.

If it is real, then we're already doomed and everything the scientists say will come true.

I'm not trying to be apathetic, but rather as much as I like to hail myself as an environmentalist and would be willing to take on many of the changes the scientists say we must make, I think there is NO chance that the politicians and business leaders of the world will ever be able to muster enough of a collective effort to make any meaningful difference. Whoever mentioned earlier that change will only come through the people is dead-on in my opinion...and unfortunately I think the populace as a whole is not far-sighted enough to make meaningful changes in a timely enough manner to avoid the "doomsday scenario*"

*assuming the doomsday scenario is correct (before someone comes and jumps on my back)


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

Not intended to place blame as much as point out that it happens. There are "takers" all around you be they media, government, or do gooders with guilt complexes out to salve their own conscience by making *you* behave the way *they* think *you* should. I am sick and tired of it and I don't invest emotionally in the "end of civilization as we know it' of the week club.
.....
Yes those bombs were real but children did not need to carry that fear at the expense of their childhood. Always examine the agenda of those that seek to have you change your behavior. 
pigslo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

John,

on a serious note..even selective cooking of the data is such a no-no in science I cannot tell you. DOes it happen? Sure... but not like you would think. No one wants to lose their funding in this publish or perish world, but I sincerely doubt that we would have this many scientists spouting off the perils of climate change if there was not some level of validity in it. 

I somehow find myself consitently having to defend them like I know anything about climate change. I have already said that I am pretty close to the middle of the fence... but lean more toward climate change as a real issue that will face our generation and the generations to come. I trust a scientist that most likely has nothing to gain by publishing his data and theories than I do some UN Report that has to be agreed upon by countries that would just assume there is no such thing as global warming (namely, oil rich countries and high-use countries). AND I SURE DONT TRUST LOBBY GROUPS, of either side. Still, ask yourself who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose from green house gases and their effects. Maybe there is our answer.

The comment about Kyoto being a political ploy to reduce America's supremacy... well, that seems hard for me to believe too. Ther sure a bunch of countries that would like to see us fail... but isn't it a treaty with a strong basis in science, and science even our own American Scientists have signed on to? Hasn't California even bucked the US on emissions (well, multiple times). That is not a George Bush or Republican slam... Arnold is a Republican.

I guess in all of this, I am very open to the other side and welcome the comments. It is a learning process and I like to see both sides. Still the question looms: what percentage has mankind REALLY made on the climate. Compared to ONE volcanic eruption, how much do we really put into the environment? That is the key. And is this just a normal cycle of the Earth, which has happened before without Human influence?

... still... I can tell you that I don't like the changes I see. I have dived over dead coral. I have weathered wicked storms. I have glanced over the horizon to the brown clouds that cirlce our cities. No way this can be good.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

Exactly, CD. How are you EVER going to know the truth so you can act on it either way. (RHETORICAL? NO RESPONSE NEEDED)
pigslo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Piggy,

I am going back to the 'don't wait to be saved....' thread to learn the Truth. Now leave me alone. I am still trying to find some more political jibberish on George Bush for PB. 

- CD

You know I am kidding PB!! Don't need you on me. Got that damned Portugese Man of War diving me crazy enough as it is.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

My take is that almost all scientists now believe the world is warming up. There is a debate on how much how fast. The fight goes on as to whether mankind is responsible, or is at least aiding the warming process.

Even if all the Kyoto agreements were accepted and followed by all nations, the warming would at best only be slowed down, a bit.

So hot places are going to get hotter, cold places will have less ice and places in the middle need more reservoirs. More heat means more energy in the atmosphere, so more wind, much more (buy smaller sails). More heat means more water vapour in the atmosphere, so more rain, someplaces (fit a wheelhouse). More clouds means more sunshine reflected but more heat held in, take your pick. Less ice in the sea, higher seas, (what happened to Archimedes principle?) more water in the atmosphere, lower seas.

Computer models are about as good at predicting weather reliably as they are at predicting the effects of global warming, so about ten days ahead. Change is the only constant.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

See CD, I never said there was NO validity to it, only that it's been put in a context of believe us only. And while Kyoto had scientific input, the output was totally political. Do you know what the vote was in the US Senate on Kyoto (during the Clinton administration btw)? 94-0 against it. Now why do you suppose that was?

I'll ignore the part about California. Using them to validate anything makes as much sense as having Cuba on the Human Rights Commision at the UN (which they are).

At least you try to keep an open mind about it. And that is what is missing in the whole debate.

Now then, at this moment, I could use some global warming so I could work on the boat instead of sitting here at the computer trying to stay warm.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Computer models are about as good at predicting weather reliably as they are at predicting the effects of global warming, so about ten days ahead. Change is the only constant.


Exactly. To bad it isn't presented that way.


----------



## Brezzin (Dec 4, 2006)

I believe that most of the public has lost a fundamental trust in politics, the media, the science. Simply because we have been lied too all to often.

I remember a decade ago when we were being told that everyone would have AIDS by now. I’m told that the goose is endangered but I can’t walk in my yard due to goose crap. I’m told that the Northeast will be hammered with a hurricane in 2006. That there will be armies of homeless if Bush is elected and that Alex Baldwin will leave the USA. 
Wal-Mart enslaves their works while not paying for health insurance. That Al Gore is “Mr. Green” while driving he SUV’s to speaking engagements. That we should use renewable energy sources but don’t put windmills off of Nantucket. 

Please forgive me if I don’t get to excited about somebody new crying wolf.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

You're forgiven. <G> You make a very good point though.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Agree with you or dissagree, PB, I always enjoy the chats.

Just remember: I am right and you are wrong and the discussion is over (smile).

- CD


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CD said:


> Just remember: I am right and you are wrong and the discussion is over (smile).


And this from a Catalina owner.....go figure! <G>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I traded my Catalina in on a MacGregor. Better for the environment. Besides, I need to cover some of the political fallout from Denr.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

I'm quit sure I'm going to regret getting into this topic



Cruisingdad said:


> But I find it unlikely that 1200 scientists are organizing their research to validate their funding. I also doubt there are 10-15000 qualified scientists in climatology. I can see 10-15000 politicians and lobby groups that might claim to be experts.


There are roughly 2400 scientist on record that support man caused Global warming, roughly 600 are working the data, 600 will do the pier review, 500 will do a word by word edit for the release this week.

But you also must keep in mind that not all of these 2400 or even the 1200 have the credentials to be in this position of review

As far as the 10-15,000 qualified scientists there's a list of 17,000 + that went on record refuting the man made global warming claim, ( not all holding a degree & some of these names could possible be factious, hence the low numbers used )



 Cruisingdad said:


> But to insinuate that 1200 scientists, 1200 qualified phd scientists, are cooking the data to come up with a conclusion based on their funding is crazy.


Actually the insinuations comes from top experts in the field of climatology and Paleo climatology and oceanography, those outside the grant structure and non grant dependant,

People like:

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia

Professor Tim Patterson Carleton University paleoclimatologist

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki,

Funding is important in research, without it you're dead in the water, but you must look at were most of the funding is coming from, big money is coming from Major corporations like General Electric, Lehman Brothers Holdings, PG&E, Alcoa, Caterpillar, BP America, Duke Energy, DuPont and FPL Group, all have a financial gain in the game.

We all are passionate in what we do, that's why we do it, but that's not to say all will hold on to their passion when agenda meets livelihood

Hell Nancy Palosi held on to her passion for a transparent congress for all of 3 days before she secertly exempted American Somoa and the Delmonte Corp from the minimun wage increase, for simply being based in her district and their contributions to her political goals.

When money talks, ethics walks


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The polar bears may be one of the canaries of global warming. They are in danger of becoming extinct. In recent years, the lack of ice pack has led to many dying polar bears... the pack ice is an important part of their habitat, as it forms much of the hunting grounds for them. Another problem has been that the bears have been drowning, mainly due to the increased distances they've been having to swim to reach the ice pack.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Poopdeck,

I guess the key is WHO is actually qualified to make those decisions. It is really easy for some Yahoo to say he is a scientist because, after all, he did get a degree in Geology before he went on to be a car salesman. To be truly qualified, in my humble opinion, it needs to be your life and your passsion. That does not mean you have to have a Ph.D. in it... but almost all will. And just because you have a Ph.D. in it does not mean you are worth a crap in it. THere are good schools, and bad schools. (Interesting, though, most of the good schools are considered good because of strong publications). I honestly would be suprised if there were 1200 people on the entire planet qualified to direct in climatology. I just asked another scientist 5 minutes ago how many scisntist there were in our field and he said somwhere less than a thousand. Of those, maybe a couple of hundred that were good. That field is pharmaceuticals... but it a lot more popular than climatology and a lot more people in it. 

The scientists I know are good, solid people (albeit, many are very weird). They love to make more money, but it is so far from what drives them I cannot tell you.

Poopdeck, I am not qualified to debate climatology. My degrees are biology and chemistry and short of four-five months research in an envronmental lab on pig sh**, I have no envronmental experience. I can become educated, and probably will. I would just trust any scientist more than I would trust any politician or government industry.

I guess that is a sad state of affairs in our country, now isn't it?

- CD

PS - regarding your comment about , "I'm quite sure I am going to regret getting into this topic," - I hope you do not regret it from me. I am not aggresive and not close minded. It takes a WHOLE lot to get under my skin. I actually welcome the dabate with intelligent people... as long as no one gets mad on the other end of the aisle. 

I enjoy the coversation with you and others (whether we agree or not). We can all dissagree (if I am even dissagreeing with you) and still be friendly, I hope.


----------



## Kacper (Oct 24, 2006)

Hey guys,

I find it quite alarming that a lot of you who wrote in reply to this post haven't actually educated yourself about the ... "facts" which are causing those "politically supressed" scientists and "possibily a to contreversy with hidden agendas" people to speak up louder and louder risking their careers.

You can look most of these things up on the Internet. Some of the most alarming facts are also in the recent movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (yes I'm sure you can say this is all a political ploy too" )

And the most obvious facts you can observe on the weather channel.

1. Pieces of antarctica are melting at an exponentional rate every year. With pieces as big as Rhoad Island falling off in just a period of less than a week.

2. The level of CO2 in our thin atmosphere is higher than it has ever been on the planet for a period over 500,000 years. There has been continuous testing in the ice layers of the Arctic and Antarctic to give evidence for this.

3. The temperature IS rising every year higher and higher and higher. Last summer I experience the hottest summer in BC.

4. There are stronger and stronger storms and hurricaines happening all over the world. 

We get almost no hurricaines on the West coast. This winter we had 3 near hurricaines which caused massive flooding and power outages at continous 100 knot winds. 

Call it a weather "cycle" or "political engeneering", but something is seriously ****ed with the planet... and, it's only getting worse.

Also...

To date, no one has actually scientifically proven that global warming is NOT happening. Not one report.

All the "counter global warming" rumours,... are actually just that. Rumours. Go check it out.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

OHHHH My!!!! Jaysus, Mary, and Joseph, the Saints and Our Lady Of Fatima!!!!!!!! (All together at least 4 times)........

I lost track of time and space here....what was the subject again??? ahhh ok...football, no... I know how to reef in 13 kts and win races....right???


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giu,

I am suprised you are not a Global Warming Fan. I was under the impression from some English guys I met that all of Europe was finally united... all thanks to Global Warming.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Hey if it makes my boat move faster....I am.....


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Kacper said:


> To date, no one has actually scientifically proven that global warming is NOT happening. Not one report.


You can't disprove an intangible. Nor prove it. And THAT, is the whole point of the discussion.

I would humbly suggest you read the history of Greenland.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Sorry, John, have to throw this one out:

Or go read the histroy of Rapa Nui... (Easter Island)

- CD

PS DONT GET MAD AT ME JOHN!!!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Thanks for making my point CD. <G>


----------



## Kacper (Oct 24, 2006)




----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Uhh, John... you ever read the history of that island??? It is the finest example of humans destroying the evironment (which caused their own extinction) that I know of.

I know you are very pro-environment John. Just tossed that one out there. You may not believe in global warming, but I know how you feel about the evironment.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

CD, I read the book, and even watched a movie they made, whose name now slips..they were doomed anyway...and so are we.....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Kacper,

That was hillarious! I am sure John will approve. I just hope you know what you are getting into.

- CD

John... I did not put it on there. I did not do it. Don't unload on me. Giu did it. I saw him sign in as Kacper.


----------



## Cruiserwannabe (Jan 28, 2006)

*vote*

CD FOR PRESIDENT VOTE HERE___________ alls I know is that usually by now I would be up to my ass in snow and I can see grass in my front yard??? whats up with that ?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Yes CD, I was aware of that. Until my first semester of college, the only thing I wanted to be was a history teacher. Only took half a semester to realize that wasn't going to work out.

You know though CD, what I really am is pro-respect. Because if everyone acted with respect, we'd have a much nicer world to live in.

I have a visceral distrust of "causes". I'm too much a student of human nature to believe there is anyone out there that is pure enough not to have some kind of agenda. Be it one I support or disagree with. I've seen the changes, not just to the earth, but to the people on it as well, and I can't find much to commend any of it. Add in what was said previously about how many times we've been lied to (and no Bush isn't the first...or last), and my distrust deepens with every new "cause".


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giu,

Just remember one thing: WHen the world is flooded, all you damned SUV driving, no global warming fanatics will wish you had a Catalina to live comfortably on. And there will be Cruising Dad... sailing right on by... waiving at you...


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CW - Anchorage, AK had record snowfall, what's up with that?

Give me a topic, and I'll find statistics and ancedotal evidence to support EITHER side. And THAT is the whole problem with the global warming thing.

CD - it said the video was unavailable.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

John,

You are going to make me get really serious again. Short of talking about cruising, it is quite out of my personality and shallow mind:

DONT LOSE YOUR FAITH IN PEOPLE OR THEIR CAUSES.

Short of the damned Portugese-Man-Of-War (love you GIU), there are some great ones out there, and still good causes. Whether the people that drive the causes have a hidden agenda or not... as long as YOU believe in what you are doing, then that is all that matters.

You are good people, John. For Global Warming, Against It, GB, or Save the Manatee club, believe in a cause and what you are doing is right. That is one of the things that make us greater than we really are.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

John,

George Bush shut the video down... does that tell you anything!


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

All that land I own 50 miles from the coast will go up ten fold with global warming as it will be waterfront. Can you hear George Strait singing "_Oceanfront Property in Arizona_"
pigslo


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

You know if you broil a Manatee it tastes alot like a cross between lobster and clams.
pigslo


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I can imagine that Dubya wishes he had that kind of power, lol.

Don't get me wrong though, it's not that I don't believe in things, or in people. My choices though are made by my own thinking, not someone else's. I have no need of anyone telling me what is right or wrong, but I do need to know all I can learn so that I can make an intelligent decision for myself.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

*Listen Shut Up All Of You!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It Snowed In Lisbon Yesterday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop It, Its Getting Colder Not Hotter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It Snowed In Lisbon Hhuuuuuuhhhuuuuuuuuuuhhuuu

don't believe??? have a Freakin look!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

http://newsfromrussia.com/portugal/2006/01/30/72028.html


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

My mother called me IT WAS SNOWING!!!!!!!!!!!


NOW HOW F**********UP IS THAT????????????????    

My boat was not made for that...does it damage the boat????


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Chill out Giu (pun intended)


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Saw the video CD and I find it to be a reflection of how things are done today. Rather than debate a topic, ridcule your opponent.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

CD-
You mean normal climate variations, like 1816 "The year without summer" in New England? Or, vaguely around 1100AD when the Greenland colonies failed and the UK experienced massive crop failures, also because there was no "summer" ?

I have no doubt that global warming exists, and that it might be dangerous. I just wish the pols would stop squawking and fund some research, because we're also apparently some 10,000 years overdue for an ice age. Which means global warming MIGHT kill us all. Or, save our butts.

Decisions, decisions, huh?<G>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giu,

Snow is very detrimental on boats. It has sunk more of them than I can tell you. It is like a water hose falling from the sky. Hope you screwed your anchor roller down well.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hello,

Can't you be on my side? Just this one time??? No one wants to be on my side. It is very depressing. Not even Giu, A EUROPEAN of French descent!!

Fine. Go drive your suv's. Hope you got a big, fat boat to live on when the world goes under water - or as Bill Cosby would say: <God> Noah, How long can you tread water?!!!

(Oh, that guy is so funny)


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Errmmmmm.....CD? Thought you were being open-minded? You don't have a side.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hello,
> 
> Can't you be on my side? Just this one time??? No one wants to be on my side. It is very depressing. Not even Giu, A EUROPEAN of French descent!!
> 
> ...


I am on your side, when it snows in Lisbon, I am on your side....

I am not, however of French descendency....you...you....British descendent


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

My son the genius piglet will solve the global warming debacle. All you guys that believe in global warming can send me money to fund his college at Harvard where the mother pig wants him to go. I have been doing the math and 4 years at Harvard is about 44 feet in boat dollars.
pigslo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PB,

Quit using my words against me. I don't have a side, I am open minded, that is how I feel, I am sticking to it, and don't try to change my mind because I will stand firmly on my position.

At least Giu is backing my side... whichever that is. Now that is a true friend. That is the bar-fight kinda friend. Thanks Giu.

- CD

PS Giu - Didn't you get my package? You see my last name... that's not British decent. I will give you one good guess...


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> You see my last name... that's not British decent. I will give you one good guess...


I know...you called me French, I called you British.... 

Touché???


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Fair enough. I am not really French anyways... I am ********. I bet you have to look that one up in your English Slang Dictionary.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Sorry pigslo, he can't go to Harvard. Being a piglet he might upset some stray muslim student.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Fair enough. I am not really French anyways... I am ********. I bet you have to look that one up in your English Slang Dictionary.


From Wikipedia:

"*******, or ****-ass, is an epithet used in reference to a person of Cajun ethnicity.

Although some Cajuns use the word in regard to themselves, other Cajuns view the term as an ethnic slur against the Cajun people, especially when used by non-Cajuns.

Socioeconomic factors appear to influence how Cajuns are likely to view the term: working-class Cajuns tend to regard the word "*******" as a badge of ethnic pride; whereas middle- and upper-class Cajuns are more likely to regard the term as insulting or degrading, even when used by fellow Cajuns in reference to themselves.

Despite an effort by Cajun activists to stamp out the term, it can be found on T-shirts, hats, and bumperstickers throughout Acadiana, the 22-parish Cajun homeland in south Louisiana."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*******

PS Giulietta is for sale now that I can't use her....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

You got it!!! Gotta love the internet.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PS Don't sell Giulietta. Just get a really big bilge pump!!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I ate craw fish once....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I love Cajun food... but am 200 years removed. I am no more cajun or French than Portugese! I am actually a member of the SAR - Sons of the American Revolution. SO, other than likeing cajun food, I am not really cajun. Family moved there in the early 1800's to mid 1800s. Had a plantation. House is still standing in New Iberia, believe it or not... but you don't want to go there after dark.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> House is still standing in New Iberia, believe it or not... but you don't want to go there after dark.


Why?? is that the time you come out???


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I caught Michael Crichton on C-Span the other day discussing this topic. What is known is that the world is warming, approximately one degree in the last one hundred years. It is also known that the world goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Those cycles vary in length and degree and their cause is little understood. This concludes the discussion of what is known.


Now for the politics.
Post-modern man is apparently so arrogant and self-absorbed that whatever is happening in the world must have it's root cause in man. His cognitive dissonance on subjects such as these force him to think that we must keep things just as they are now, as if something greater-maybe nature, or dare we say, a creator-might have a different plan in mind for the earth. In my opinion, many people with the old blame America first attitude find it emotionally easy to transform that sentiment into blame man first, when discussing global issues. I could be wrong on this, but when I meet them they all seem to be the same folks.

Poopdeckpappy and pigslo are on the right track with this topic. Qui bono? Who benefits? Kyoto was certainly a not so subtle attempt at hamstringing the US economy while allowing the Chinese and others to develop any old way they wanted. Has anyone followed up on what the signatories to Kyoto have been doing since they signed? They have done little or nothing. They can do little, because to do anything significant would be to put their national economies in the dumpster.
In the facts department, otherwise known as damn lies-the ice caps are shrinking. They are also growing. They are calving but they are growing in height due to increased snow fall. So they are getting smaller and taller.

The US is probably the world's largest polluter while maintaining the cleanest environment. When the rest of the world decides to get busy about actually producing something in quanity and with efficiency we may be able to compare their pollution output to ours. Anyone who has seen India's industry or the steel mills of Korea will be thankful they live in the US. We are trying to compare the country with some of the strictest pollution requirements in the world to countries with little or no requirements. If you are convinced of the moral decadence of the US you will have little trouble with the implementation of Kyoto. If you were actually awake in econ 101 you may vaguely recall that only successful industries and economies can withstand stifling regulation. We're not even sure that the lead we took out of gasoline was worth the increased NOX emissions we got, yet we did it 30 years ago and the rest of the world followed because they wanted to sell their cars here.


The great tragedy is that we CANNOT have a reasoned debate on the issue because the political process practised by the enviros allows only one mode; crisis. In crisis mode everything must be done immediately-"the whole point is we don't have time to wait". I used to employ such tactics, to greater or lesser results, with my nubile young female companions. And whether the science is understood or not becomes irrelevant, after all careers are on the line and there are fortunes to be made. Just as with my female paramours, when someone says, "we need to talk", the whole event/crisis fizzles. Good decisions are seldom made in the midst of panic. But the "movement" politicians, and you know who you are, must have panic or the whole thing will fade away to scholarly scientific journals and where's the funding and publicity in that? Maybe we should do just that, table the issue for a decade, let science keep working on it, and we'll see where things stand in 2017. If one side is right, we'll either know a lot more and see if a solution is necessary or find there is no human problem. If the other side is right, we're probably already doomed no matter what we do over the next ten years.

Gotta go-my teletype is clacking away-probably my acid rain or nuclear winter update coming in. I wish I'd had some DDT, ever since contracting malaria I've found it hard to focus on these weighty issues.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sailaway...have you read Crichton's "State of Fear". It is really well done and there are citations for all of his anti-political-science-correctness stances. Really interesting reading the appendix as much as the novel! 
My own view is...we are warming...nature is big...man is small...buy up inshore land now and will your grandkids waterfront property! <g>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Giulietta said:


> I ate craw fish once....


But did you suck the heads?

I'm not quite a ****-ass. I'm from about 80 miles too far north. But I married one. Most of her family speaks Cajun French, and her grandfather reverted back to just French in his last years.

Charlie


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

One large volcanic eruption...much larger than anything in human history...would release more co2, sulfuric acid, silica dust, and other greehouse gases into the atmosphere than mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Some volcanoes, which have erupted in a violent explosive manner (vs plume) have filled the atmosphere with so much ash that the sun was blocked out for hundreds of years. For the first half of the planets 4.6 billion years the it was a barren wastland unsuitable for life. The CO2 content of the earth's atmosphere has been up to 8 times higher than present in the past. Meteors have hit the planet so hard they punctured the crust and released mantle material and killed 95% of all living things. Our fear should be for our own lives, man is at the mercy of mother nature. Anything burned for fuel should be produced from plant material because it absorbs all of the co2, that is released when burning, when it grows. Soybeans can power any diesel motor. It's for the kids, not us!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Excellent post sailaway, as the politics involved in such "movements" are always more intricate than the actual science. If more people would wake up to the emotional manipulation employed, then perhaps a sense of reason and proportion could be brought to the issue.


----------



## equitiman (Jul 1, 2004)

I find it odd that Americans are more skeptical about global warming than the rest of the world. Is this because we are brighter than everyone else and able to see through the political and scientific manipulation of the debate? Or are we simply in denial because we produce 1/4 of the world's greenhouse gasses and to acknowledge the issue and the need to take action would be inconvenient? Are we victims of successful White House and industry campaigns to downplay the threat? Someone please explain this to me?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070129/us_nm/globalwarming_survey_dc_4


----------



## ccam (Dec 17, 2006)

Global warming -
Republicans in the Whitehouse will tell you it's not happening, Democrates (not in the Whitehouse) will tell you it is. More CO2 = more plantlife = more Oxygen = Less CO2. Go figure


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

equitiman - Perhaps the answers lies more simply in the fact that America will be far more adversely impacted by the proposed "remedies" than anyone else? Remedies that may or may not have any real effect on a problem that no one can state conclusively exists?

How many "cures" has science come up with that turn out to be worse than the "disease"? And if everyone else in the world is smarter and more cognizant than the US, why do we have to prop them up all the time? No matter what the "scare de jour" is, it's always the same cast of characters supporting it. And I'm sure that the course of action they espouse, which is always detrimental to the US, is purely coincidental.....right?


----------



## IslandRaider (Oct 6, 2006)

Watched an interesting documentary not to long ago hosted by Tom Brokof??
on the effects of the whole global warming thing, and Having lived on an Island all my life and been involved with water sports over the last 40 years I can safley say that there are a lot of areas I can take a boat today that I could not 15-20 years ago. So I do beleve the tides of time are taking their effect, so bought a bigger boat, When all is said and done lets have a big raft up, BBQ an party the night away, and watch the sun rise in the morning in the way it only happens at sea.


----------



## gunkholemarine (Jul 12, 2005)

*Non-Fossil Fuel Boat*

On global warming, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. With that in mind, if anyone is interested in a non-fossil fuel boat, I'm going to sell one made out of a Seaward 26RK. Energy provided from the prop, wind generator, and solar.

Kevin Herrema
Gunkhole Marine


----------



## equitiman (Jul 1, 2004)

PBzeer

I partially agree with what you are saying. I do agree that the U.S. has the most to lose in the global warming debate and that there must be a strong correlation between that fact and the number of skeptics. I don't buy into the conspiracy however that politicians of other developed nations are out there intentionally trying to sink the U.S. The world economy is closely tied to the U.S. economy and if the U.S. economy were to significantly falter then there would be repercussions for all developed nations. Therefore, I don't think Germany, France, the UK, Japan, etc. has anything to gain by trying to impose emission caps that will hurt the U.S. economy. True the U.S. has the most to lose, but so do the other countries, or at least they certainly don't face an opportunity to gain anything.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

What good is money when were all dead? The issue of money in our society is what causes people to delude themselves about the environment. Look on Yahoo today and you will finally see the report that states that Bush's henchmen have been suppressing info and lying about reports by his own scientists (like we didn't already know). They were prevented form even mentioning the word "gobal warming" or going public with their data. The thing that I don't get is how everyone feels they have the knowledge to debate this issue. Everyone is like "well when i was a kid there was more smog"....or.." i just don't know if i really believe Global Warming is real "
Are YOU guys scientists...have you ever done extensive research on an ice core sample or seen isotope data which records past temps and gas levels in the atmoshpere. How would you feel if someone, not in your field of work, came and told you that they didn't agree with your work or they didn't believe you and all of your work was wrong, even after 30 years!
If you don't beleive that global warming is occuring you are WRONG. It is not an issue to be debated. Thousands of scientists, who have devoted their lives to the subject, have all came to the same conclusion and the only people who do not agree work for bush or don't know what their talking about. 
It is only about 20 miles straght up to the first atmoshperic boundry....20 miles...how long do you think it will take to alter this tiny ring of gas to the point where we can't breath? Co2 levels are the highest since the first hominid species roamed the earth. For a large part of the Earth's history we would not have been able to survive because of atmospheric gas levels. 
The thing that everyone is missing is that this is about human existence and the survival of our granchildren..IT'S ABOUT OUR KIDS. Nothing we do to the Earth can be worse than what has already happened. But it will not take long for us to make it unsuitable for our own lives! 
This is not about a "tree hugging love of the environment", or a way for the evil democrats to block the good deeds of the repubies. This is about the survival of our species. 
Maybe this will be easier to understand, remember the discussion about the use of dry ice on a boat....what happens if you don't vent the cooler properly? You DIE from CO2 poisining. What happens if you run your car in a closed garage....you die from CO (carbon monoxide)poisining. What will happen if we fill the air we breath with these gases??????? All global warming is going to do is kill us off and let the plants flourish. I't is not about saving all of the cute little animals and creatures of the Earth. It is about self survival. So if you are in denial now just wait.........I told you so! 
Oh yeah, if you took the history of the earth and put it into a 1 year cycle....humans evolved six minutes before midnight on new years eve!!!!!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

equitiman - the point you overlook is that they aren't really concerned about what effect it will have on themselves. Their economies are stagnant, if not faltering, and they want to "level" the playing field. They can't rise to the level of the US, so the next best thing is to bring the US down to their level. Throughout history this is the story that repeats itself over and over. It used to be done by going to war, now, it's done through political manuvering.

I'm not saying it's some kind of conspriacy, nor even that it is intentional. That may or may not be the case. One thing I can say though is that politicans, where ever they may be, rarely look at the long term, *unintended,* consequenses of their actions. You will find very, very few politicans anywhere on this planet who have any "higher" agenda than their continued place in power.

There is no "debate" about it. Global warming proponents, as they do with all their causes, frame it so that disagreement marks you as "insensitive", a "bigot", "greedy", etc. or whatever term most suits their purpose. And who wants to be on the "wrong" side? All you have to do is read the reports in the media. The proponents are always cast as brave, courageous people standing up to the "powers" that be. While those who would disagree are cast as crackpots, or shills. So how can you have an honest debate?

Any time someone avoids the substance of their position, the facts, if you will, I become supicious. Not only of the validity of their position, but of their motivation in espousing it.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

southerncross...While I am not a scientist I have tried to keep up with the debate and Crichton's book cites a lot of Scientific Journal published work to make its' points. I've seen scientists in my lifetime mostly agree on a lot of things that never came true. I also think there is a lot we don't know about nature and climate change particularly the extent of man's impact and just how much anything would change if man disappeared today. As someone else said, just one good volcano can change a lot more than man. There may be warming and if 98% of it is caused by sun and 1% caused by man and 1% caused by sheep and cows...should we kill all the sheep and cows to reduced non-natural causes by 50%?? On the other hand...if 50% is caused by the sun and 50% by man and we cut our pollution in half...then all we do is postpone the agony a bit. If it is 100% caused by man....then we can do something about it but I've not seen convincing evidence on this. 
I always remember in the last gas crisis (1974) there was general agreement by scientists that known oil reserves would be depleted by 1994 and how we greedy Americans had better change our lifestyles and prepare for that day. Today there are more known reserves than there were in 1974. So much for trusting scientists. Not saying they are wrong...just think we all need to be skeptical before ruining the world economy. By all means...lets find alternative energy sources...like nuclear plants and ethanol and wind and solar...if nothing else, that will take our fate away from the middle east and we can let them fight it out with each other in the sand. But lets not go crazy on this until the facts are a lot clearer. I've done reading on both sides of the argument...Have you read Chrichton and his "facts"?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

southerncross - they were wrong about global cooling, why should we accept they're right now? Why shouldn't anyone be skeptical? As I said previously, how many cures have they come up with that proved to be worse than the disease?


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

Just one more problem to let our kids worry about. All countries can point their collective fingers and be the problem. Round table you know. 

Now, citrus products in CA and FL are freezing as we speak. However, we have to believe that there is global warming because Al Gore says so. He must be smart......he invented the Internet you know!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Cruisingdad said:


> I do have to say that I find it interesting that the UN report is made by scientists, then it has to be reviewed by EVERY member states POLITICIANS to decide what is actually presented. What the hell does a politican know about it? And if it is not true, why would the VAST, VAST majority of all scientists speak out about it with such a fervor?


Well to answer your question it's actually quite easy. My uncle is a scientist for a prestigious instution of higher learning here in the US. He admits to spending about 30% of his time writing grants for FEDERAL grant money to study the effects of global warming. Although his writings state fact they also admitedly omit facts that are arguably more rational.

The whole global warming issue is real (we are still warming up naturally from the last ice age) but the extent to which we have accelerated or decellerated the warming is the issue. The vast, vast majority of scientists write their research to favor the position of the requested grant money for their institution (billions of dollars worth). The vast, vast majority of "scientists" arguing in favor of global warming derive their income directly from the government like my uncle. The minority scientists claiming we as humans have a very small impact, =/- .2% either way, work mostly in private industry. I chalenge any of you to actually follow the cookie trail on the vast majority of scientists who are pro-global warming.

The whole thing is about MONEY period. Environmental taxes will soon dwarf social security taxes that is the plan and has been for some time.

My unlce used to work for Dupont in Deleware before retiring to work as a university research scientist. He was one of the original crew that helped develop r134a refrigerant. He was also one of the crew that helped lobby the US government to ban another one of their own products r12. This self imposed ban, by DuPont was never about the environment but rather about money. It was set up to look like the goivernment actually doing something about the environment, when in-fact, it was the other way around and big business was wagging the dog.

The patent on r12 was expriring and DuPont had invented, purely by chance, a more environmentally friendly compound that would achieve the same cooling effect. In order to have no competition DuPont came up with an environmental spin and had r12 banned ensuring their domination in the refrigerant world. The argument was that r12 gives of cfc's or when drilled down to a laymans terms ozone eating chlorine. Take a guess at what the largest producer of chlorine gasses is? The ocean! How DuPont got away with this scam is entirely humorous but it makes them Billions and the government takes credit for "saving the world".

Yes my uncle does research in favor of global warming but at thanksgiving he's the first to brag about what a scam it is and how it's all about money just like when he was at DuPont. He actually thought working for a University would be more ethical but he rates it as at least as bad as DuPont or even worse in some cases. He has had research edited if it gave any doubt to global warming or any phrasing that could lead to doubt..

Our human impact on the environment has about a 1% net effect and not the caatastrophic impact proposed by the government. This according to my hypocrit uncle....


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

One of the most interesting things about this thread is it shows the natural sense of skepticism that most sailors have. Anchor A can "prove" theirs holds the best, but not many will rush out and buy it. Ropemaker B can "prove" their rope is better than anything else available, but not many are going to replace all their lines.

In a world of catch phrases, mottos, and sound bites, skepticism is a healthy thing.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I read back through this and have enjoyed the responses.

Like you, PB, I have found it interesting that almost all (or all) of the GW skeptics are pretty skeptical about anything science or government related. Makes you wonder if that is a sign of the times?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

All I know is that it snowed in Lisbon....that's not good.....Golbal warming or global cooling....

I was told that the drain holes on the deck plug, and the boat floods, I'm far away, how much snow is it needed for that??


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

The global temp of the planet goes up and down like a heartbeat. Ice ages occur on a regular cyclical basis, as does everything in the natural world. At times it has been much much warmer than it is now, yet global cooling has killed off many species including the dinosaurs. Our understanding of the planet's systems is still very minimal. 
Before most ice ages there is a 500-1000yr warming trend and we are due for one now. 
The sun heats the earth, not people. CO2 acts like a magnifying glass in the atmopshere, this point can be easily proven. We add CO2, so it gets hotter. It is a very basic concept. How could anyone disagree? 
There is more heavy crude oil trapped in the Earth's crust than we have ever used...mostly (90%) in Venezuala!
MICHAEL CHRITON WAS A LAWYER NOT A SCIENTIST!!!!!!!!!
NOTHING we do to the environment will hurt it more than us. The planet has seen much worse.
Try this one on for size. Humans, and everything we do, are part of evolution. All of our factories, cars and powerplants are part of evolution. We are AS MUCH a part of mother nature as anything else! We are controlled by mother nature and we would not exist without her. All we are going to do is accelerate our own demise by altering the state of the atmosphere too rapidly. The planet will grow back as it has done many times before. Even a nuclear war would not be as bad as one large meteor.
So then, it comes down to the issue of OUR KIDS. Do you care about your kids? Is it more important to provide them with flatscreens, xboxes and cars, or a solid understanding of the world they live in. Do we need more and more stuff. Or are we all to lazy to admit that we are the problem? 
This is not a debate about the economy, I can't even imagine what would get people to lump the two together. All of these storms, droughts and floods will destroy the world economy, not a debate over global warming. How will protecting the environment hurt the economy...that is a scare tactic to instill skepticism.
Here is the bottom line. Humans, by all scientific descriptions, are a virus. We take everything from the environment around us and put nothing good back (except poop). All of the political debates about global warming are a moot point. Politicians are not scientists and vice versa. We are told what needs to be told to us, by our government, so we will keep producing stuff, so people will buy more and the economy will advance. WHAT is more important to us...money, houses, cars..or the future generations of our species. I say.... to each his own. Free will decide that for each of us. But at the very least we should be honest about what we do. We all know the exauhst from our cars is bad, if not then go inhale it and see what happens. It's just that some of us don't care, some don't want to admit it and others get depressed about it every day. We are part of nature. We are part of evolution. The dinosaurs lived for ~260 million years...humans, about 35,000 years. Do we care about future generations, do we learn from the past..NOT IN THE USA! That is the message we send the world!
p.s. I am much better with science than grammar...sorry...Preston


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Preston...I know Chrichton is a lawyer. His book State of Fear is a novel. BUT...He is a very bright guy and does meticulous research and he has an entire appendix citing papers and speeches BY scientists on this issue. I don't even claim he is right...but I do think he presents a perspective you don't get from the media or environmental groups and in forming your own opinions it is often useful to look carefully at all sides of an issue.
*UPDATE*
Here's a speech by Chrichton made at the California Institute of Technology in 2003. Take a few minutes to read it and see if you don't feel a little more skeptical about the current "consensus" than you do now. There's more on his website and more academically rigourous discourse in his book. 
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


----------



## CDRA (Feb 5, 2006)

Some countries are taking climate change seriously. Australia which did not sign Kyoto is facing a grim future.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6315885.stm


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Dang! Just when I was plannin' to live forever ...


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Thank you Preston, for so aptly illustrating one of my points. I'm skeptical, so, ergo, I don't care about children. You might want to do some research on the economic consequense of the US unilaterally, and yes, it will be unilateral, implementing the proposed standards, and what effect that will have on the children.

I commend your idealism. Just as skepticism, it is a healthy thing. Reality though, tempers both of those things. Unless though, you have done away with everything in your life that contributes to what they say are the causes of global warming, your idealism is a bit shallow. I think Ted Kennedy illustrates it best. When faced with the possibility of having alternative energy solutions placed 10 miles offshore of where he sometimes stays, he said no, it might spoil his view.

As I said, I do commend your sense of idealism and believe you are sincere in what you believe, BUT.....don't try to make out that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't care about children, or anything else. You have every right to your opinion, based on whatever sources you choose and the conclusions they lead you to. But I have the same right, and should be afforded the same respect as you expect for your opinion.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

Cam,
I am not saying that M.Chrichton isn't bright, at least he knows where to put his commas and periods (unlike me  . I just don't feel that it is fair for everyone from every field to give an opinion on the topic when they haven't even studied what it is they're talking about. I mean, it's not like scientists start questioning a lawyers interpretation of the law. Or would you want a ski instructor telling a welder how to build the bridge you drive to work on. Politicians, lawyers, lobbyists... they are all trained in thier fields. They use data they can find to support their causes. I just don't see how there is any other side of the global warming issue than the basic facts, based on long hard work put forth by people like us in a financially unrewarding career (scientific research) who are just trying to find the truth. What financial gains or losses would be made by anyone if we all admitted that we are rapidly altering the state of the air we breath?


----------



## equitiman (Jul 1, 2004)

Hey I'm back...what did I miss?

Oh yes...well I feel as though PBzeer is right and Southerncross is right. PBzeer is completely right that it isn't fair to say "you don't care about kids because you don't believe in global warming" but I think it is unfair to say that Southerncross is a bit shallow unless he has done away with everything in his life that contributes to global warming. I think that in order to be a true activist you have to come to terms with one thing...no matter what you do you will be a hypocrite to some extent (well maybe Mother Theresa wasn't a hypocrite...but I didn't know her personally). I'll use myself as an example so as to not offend anyone. I don't eat meat because I don't agree with how animals are raised for human consumption. But I wear leather shoes and a leather belt to work. Therefore I will forever be just some stupid hypocrite who thinks he is all high and mighty and compassionate while the rest of the world is cruel and immoral (a bit of sarcasm here). But that isn't the point, in today's modern society it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to live strictly to most any set of ideals, whether these are catholic, greenpeace, PETA, or Al Gore ideals. But that doesn't mean that by halfway reaching those ideals you can't make a difference. If everyone were to eat less meat that would make a big difference, even if everyone didn't stop eating meat completely.

I hope I got my point across. Just had to stand up for Southerncross a little bit because no matter what you believe it is always respectable when someone is passionate about there beliefs (although I believe PBzeer did mention this), even if they don't live them 100%.

Bob


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

John,
It is not my opinion, any more than my stating that the sun rises and sets every day. I have seen the data, talked with many different professors and scientists from around the world. There is no debate about the fact that we are altering the atmospheric balance of gases. It is a fact that can not be argued against. My opinion though is that mankind is truly wonderful and in the end we will learn from our mistakes. As far as skeptic, idealist, repuby, democrat...it doesn't mean a thing to me. I am a man. I am no better than anything else on this planet. I have eyes and a brain and I say what I see. I don't feel what I say is any more important than anything else ever spoken. I do not judge anyone. Scientific data has nothing to do with opinions or rights, just the truth. I do not have a sense of idealism. I am using my computer...I drive my car(gas, although soo to be soybean oil)....i pollute and eat and drink and poop like everyone else. I just admit that what I am doing is wrong, thats all. Seriously though, what do you do for work. I'm sure you take pride in yourself, in what you do. How would you feel if everyone started arguing with you...the mailman, the bank teller, your friends, the plummer, people on the news.....telling you you were wrong. That even though they had no idea what they were talking about (they don't do your job), even though you spent all that time learing and working, they didn't agree with you and you were wrong. How would you feel. That is why scientists sometimes get defensive. There is no pot of gold for any scientist who can prove that global warming is occuring! The only financial gains that are to be made are these: profits aquired by large corporations who dominate our society and rule our government and lives!


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

I live my life by the words of the Bob Marley song (his first) Judge Not. I highly recommend hearing it at least once. Thanks Bob  I wholeheartedly agree!


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Val,
> 
> I have not lived abroad but my views differ a bit. I did a lot of travelling and deep woods backpacking (until sailing) and met soooo many super people. Whether deserved or underserved, it REALLY REALLY REALLY bothers me that America has developed this negative perception in the world. How can it not bother anyone?


It bothers me, as well, because America was once a model of good or at least just governance.

America started with more promise and more realizable idealism than perhaps any other country (OK, apart from that slavery stuff...), and whether through neglect or self-importance or just disinterest in the political process, a lot of that seems to have been slipping away since the end of the Second World War. Commie-hunting, race riots, Vietnam, Watergate, Contragate, various proxy and direct wars, and now the country with so many constitutional protections of its own citizens is allowing an imperial Presidency, torture camps, illegal kidnappings and a new Vietnam made of sand.

Now, it's a nation of trivial pursuits and mindless entertainments, or so it seems via your acquiescent media, so reminiscent of Putin's trained poodles.

I hate to say it, but we are still considering sailing thousands of miles in order to avoid American waters, because your self-granted laws of search and seizure (under the dubious and mindless rubric of "homeland security") are essentially sanctioned piracy. It's like your president decides which international laws he can disregard the second "the terrorists" (aka "the boogeymen") are mentioned.

It goes way beyond the fact I like Cuban rum and my freedom of movement in international waters and more to the heart of the level your democracy and your reputation as a country has sunk. To the credit of many, many individual Americans of my friendship and acquaintance are both aware and distressed at the developments of the last ten years or so. But you won't see a self-critique of the Union on the nightly news.

It's enough to make a man go sailing. As Ben Franklin said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." And although Junius was speaking of England, his words apply today: "I believe there is yet a spirit of resistance in this country, which will not submit to be oppressed; but I am sure there is a fund of good sense in this country, which cannot be deceived."

/soapbox rant


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

Please help; 
large population of caring smart people being held hostage by walmart and bush.....unable to make own decisions...president has broken over 700 constitutional laws and has decided upon dictatorship ("im the decision maker!")...........need help asap....... People of the USA


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I don't seek to argue, nor belittle anyone (well, maybe Surf), but I go back to one of the things I've already said. Science has been wrong before about global cooling, why are they right now? What makes their data that "proves" warming, any more valid than that that "proved" cooling?

One other point. Scientists are no more or less human than anyone else. To say that they are dispassionate on this or any other subject is not possible. They are not paragons, simply because they chose to be a scientist. In science, something is seen to be, then a theory is formulated to answer why it is, then, depending on the viewpoint of the scientist involved, they try to prove or disprove the theory. If a scientist believes that mankind is the cause of a man-made global warming, they are going to try to prove that is true, not that it isn't. That is simple human nature.

So, once again, I ask the simple question.....they were wrong before, what makes them right this time? As yet, no one has answered it, beyond saying it's because they say they are right this time.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Well, that's very interesting indeed.

6.5 BILLION consumers and crappers daily making millions more CHILDREN consumers and crappers. Perhaps the scientific Jethros are working on the wrong set of sums. 

Oh, pardon Bob's ignorance, everybody's got a right ... right?

But, but they're sooooo cute when they're little!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Southerncross...
*"I just don't see how there is any other side of the global warming issue than the basic facts, based on long hard work put forth by people like us in a financially unrewarding career (scientific research)"

*That's your problem...you just don't see the other side. There IS disagreement by scientists on the facts. Chrichton has simply assembled these disagreements AND CITED THEM...so that we get ALL the scientific opinion to look at. Remember...scientific consensus often simply reflects the politics within the scientific community at the time. It is the skeptical scientists whe are ridiculed who sometimes get it right. As a scientist you owe it to yourself to get all the facts from other scientists before you tell the rest of us how to "weld". When the facts are in dispute by scientists that means the science is uncertain. No one is arguing about E-mc2 or whether germs cause disease these days. No one argues that smoking contributes to lung cancer risk these days either. On the other hand... second hand smoke and global warming still gets a lot of debate on the facts. To my mind...that's enough for me to remain skeptical.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Nothing like a rational discussion of issues, unsullied by rhetoric and distortions.

Val - if you want to have an understanding of why the US is where it is now, read Advise and Consent by Allen Drury. It's prescient fiction written in the 60's.

Preston - I could have respect for your beliefs until that last, TOTALLY gratitious post the belies everything you said previously.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

So you think it is respectable for any belief as long as it is impassioned. So you think Hitler's beliefs are respectable? He was pretty passionate. 
pigslo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Pig,

That is a bit unfair... to compare Hitler to passionate... 

As PB would say, that is like Cuba being on the UN Human Rights Committee..


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Dang, y'all be throwin' authors at each other like they was custard pies!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I obviously stated that wrong pigslo. I have respect for his right to his belief, not the belief itself necessarily. Civil discourse requires a respect for the other person's right to have an opinion. It does not require respect for the opinion. When though, a person departs from the field of civil discourse, then they forfeit the right of respect period.

Hope that states it more clearly.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

CAM,
What other side can there be than the fact that pumping exhasut fumes into the air is bad. I mean, go try to breath it. It is poison. How can you argue the fact. You can't say car exhuast is good for us if it kills us can you? There is no other side to the situation....we pollute. As far as what will happen, warming...cooling...we will have to see. Changing the balance of gases in the atmoshpere has unknown results. Humans can not breath air with more than 4-5% CO2 in it. The levels are rising quickly...now higher than anytime when humans lived. This we know for a fact. We don't know what it will do. Some people think that too much melting ice will de salinate some parts of the ocean, thus slowing down the thermocline circulation which will reduce the transport of heat to the poles...thus cooling the northern and southern hemispheres. That would still devastate the worlds economy. We don't know what will happen in the future...only what has happened in the past. There have been a lot of times when humans couldn't have existed here.
Tell me another side to the story Cam, please. What is it? See you think i am narrow minded but I have yet to see any info that proves polluting is good. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, i just don't see how anyone but the people who sell oil can deny that pollution has a negative effect on the atmosphere.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

John, 
You don't beleive in the good of mankind? You don't think that there are a lot of caring people in this country....how did that negate anything I said. What is you opinion on the matter...other than telling people why they are wrong. Pleae tell me..thou judge of us all


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Let me see if I can simplify this even further. NO ONE has said that pollution doesn't have a negative effect. What has been said IS, to WHAT DEGREE should something be done about it. Unfortunately, you can't see another side, because you aren't open to there being one.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Southerncross-
Car exhaust is a bad example. Actually, these days? Sometimes it is cleaner, with lower CO and CO2 content, than the air going INTO the engines.

And that pretty much sums up the whole global warming argument. Everyone has felt one piece of the elephant, but NO ONE can be bothered with finding out what the whole animal is. Aside from a few professional climatologists and geologists, who can't get enough funding to buy new shoelaces.

That's a real good way to run a planet. (Not.)


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Preston - I don't engage in James Carville forms of debate. Once again, you have ascribed to me a position and opinion I did not voice. It isn't worth my time or effort to refute it.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Southern...you obviously don't want to read the link I posted and so must be a "true believer" determined to deny any other facts. You won't convince me...I won't convince you. So I'm done trying.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> My mother called me IT WAS SNOWING!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> NOW HOW F**********UP IS THAT????????????????
> 
> My boat was not made for that...does it damage the boat????


All you guys realize that global warming doesn't mean the globe gets warmer, right?

It means the net heat energy available in the atmosphere to create weather..._any weather_...increases. This leads to more instability, less predictability and the great chance of weather "freaks", such as Lisbon snows and British droughts.

There certainly seems to be plenty of wind about. Pressure gradients make wind. Heat differences create pressure gradients. And so on.

Winter arrived here only in the last 2 weeks. It is finally typical January cold and wind here, but there was a lot of fluky warmth (I had fresh grass growing in Toronto on New Years' Day...I wore shorts on my bike ride...).

What we may lose...and probably not in a gentle progression, but via stops and starts..is the sense of "normal" climatology. This will make it difficult to plan crops if the same area is soaked one year and baked the next (see Australia).

Perhaps my motorsailer isn't undercanvassed after all.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

Ha,
I was just messin with ya'll trying to give them damn environmentalists a bad name. I hope i didn't piss ya off  I gotta run and get a breath of fresh exahust! Who's James Carville? What link?


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> One of the most interesting things about this thread is it shows the natural sense of skepticism that most sailors have.


Perhaps we can all agree on that. It's the entire basis for looking up from a GPS screen.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I wonder if Global Warming doesn't come from this sudden "no panties" celebrity thing???

Sure gives a lot of "unfiltered" gas......

What's with that Jessica Simpson girl that keeps showing on my TV here, saying stupid things on a commercial?? Is she really "that" dumb???


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> Val - if you want to have an understanding of why the US is where it is now, read Advise and Consent by Allen Drury. It's prescient fiction written in the 60's


I'll look it up, and thanks, but I was a precocious reader and have been reading the papers since the '60s (the decent papers, anyway). The difference between now and then is not so much the villainy of politicians, but that they no longer have the decency to look guilty when they're caught. Which is rarer now than it used to be, as well.

Some of them are positively PROUD of their frequently dubious, if not completely criminal, actions. Such is the mind-warping power of ideology, the tinker-toy replacement for critical thought.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> I wonder if Global Warming doesn't come from this sudden "no panties" celebrity thing???
> 
> Sure gives a lot of "unfiltered" gas......
> 
> What's with that Jessica Simpson girl that keeps showing on my TV here, saying stupid things on a commercial?? Is she really "that" dumb???


Despite the fishy smell, she is no sailor. I believe she cannot distinguish a chicken from a tuna, but I don't follow these sort of trivialities closely.

I am pretty sure she has no position on global warming other than to turn the air conditioning on a little higher.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Val - it's all a part of the de-stigmatizing bad behavior (make that behaviour since you're in Canada <G>). Once you take away the stigma from an action, it becomes more prevelant, because there is no longer any judgement of that action. I think it's called become more sophisticated <G>.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Two hours ago I was thinking about complimenting all you guys for carrying on such a restrained, civil discourse on such an emotional topic. What the hell happened during the last two hours?  I think somebody needs a nap!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Well, it is a very emotional subject and many views are very polarized. The issue that no one can seem to get through their heads is that *I, Cruising Dad, am right and they are wrong*. Now you want to know which side I believe in... nope. Not telling ya...

- CD

Nope, quit, still not telling ya...


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Ya can't fool me CD, I know you're a member of that vast crawfish conspiracy!

The pity is, it shouldn't be an emotional topic.


----------



## canoeman256 (Aug 30, 2006)

Interesting debate. Notable lack of conclusion, however. At the risk of being fried in globally heated oil I'll pose the following: Ever since Adam and Eve were invited out of the Garden, the earth has been on a collision course with death. It was first reported in Genesis. Sort of gives a new (old) slant to global warming, doesn't it?


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

For evidence of why we must end global warming please go to you tube and type in 'murphy-go big' or 'the next chapter'. It will end the debate


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

canoeman256 said:


> Interesting debate. Notable lack of conclusion, however. At the risk of being fried in globally heated oil I'll pose the following: Ever since Adam and Eve were invited out of the Garden, the earth has been on a collision course with death. It was first reported in Genesis. Sort of gives a new (old) slant to global warming, doesn't it?


Yeah, I tell ya, Adam Gore and Eve Pelosi sure have been pushing this man made global warming skit for a long time haven't they ??


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

youTube, now there's a fount of scientific wisdom and knowledge. But, you must be right, 'cause Pink says it's so. And a singer like that should know. (what kind of name is Pink for an adult?) (and no, don't even think about going there Giu)


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Giu, do not attempt to remove the snow from your boat. Snow is extremely dangerous and handling it requires years of training and experience, if it is to be handled safely. Book me round trip on the first flight out from JFK and I'll show you how to deal with it, or at least secure the vessel in your absence. You're just going to have to be patient and pray, because with no more Concorde flights, it's gonna take time to get over there.

This is going to be especially difficult, because our usual snow-handling hand tools are no longer allowed on aircraft, they're way too dangerous under the new regulations. Just goes to show you, this is a matter best left to trained professionals, who really understand a snow job.

(CD, you think he gets that last one?<G>)


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Depends on his grasp of the venacular hello.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Hey Ho! How about this for a theory? As soon as the US figures out that the Chinese (and Indians) will strip it of everything, but that they have one weakness, it is that they will pollute even more than the US, before they are done. So if you want to slow them down economically, play the global warming card. Oops! the US can't do that until it cleans up its act too.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hello,

I get dibs on the anchor roller.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Idiens,

So are you really from Brussels?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> Idiens,
> 
> So are you really from Brussels?


Yup Daddy, that's where I live.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens, you forgot one thing in your theory. Neither China nor India care what the rest of the world think.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

SO there is not this massive movement against the bad americans that are screwing up the world with global warming?? 

Those damned Brits lied to me. I am sure that is the first time that has happened.

- CD

In all seriousness, how is GW (not GB) viewed in Belgium? What about America? Be honest, I will keep PB off of you.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Idiens, you forgot one thing in your theory. Neither China nor India care what the rest of the world think.


No, No! It's America that doesn't care what other countries think. China is out winning hearts and minds in Africa at the moment - handing out aid without US style strings attached. India does care about what the world thinks, just look at its advertising on CNN - do you see the US advertising for tourism States side anymore? Cuba does more. No. - Uncle Sam just wants to know what its visitors ate before they left, what their credit card numbers are, and what their bio degradable data is.
(end of mini rant).


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Uh huh......and just who is it China is being so cozy with....eh? And just what kind of aid are they handing out? Hummmm? <G>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Idieans,

Well, I think that about sums it up. Idieans, from now on, don't hold back Man. Just say what you mean. Feel it. Let it out. Don't be politically correct. And when someone from America asks you how you feel about America, man, just let it all spill out.

- CD

So - where the hell was it exactly that people started feeling so ****ty about this country??!!!!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PB - be nice. I told him I would keep you off (smile). Now, where is Cam and hello? They are quite politically correct about these things.

You know, in all honesty, I don't care whether it is deserved or not deserved - there sure is a lot of negativity against America right now in the world. Too bad because I don't think it is reciprocal.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Probably about the time the John Kerry types starting telling everybody how terrible we are. But, not to worry, the European Socialists have said all will be better now that Dems run the Congress. Cause they will listen to others about what we should and shouldn't do. <G>


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> In all seriousness, how is GW (not GB) viewed in Belgium? What about America? Be honest, I will keep PB off of you.


My view is that most Europeans are very fond of Americans but very dissappointed with America. Of course, it's tough being the only super-power. A bit like a elefant herding mice: the mice fear being trodden on and the elefant fears mice running up its trunk (on the inside).

My impression is that Europe has accepted that GW is happening, that mankind is not helping, that politicians need to DO SOMETHING! (sorry) and Kyoto at least shows willing. Looking at the way that the carbon trading is going, I doubt if it will do any good, or any harm.

We get lectured a lot about reducing our carbon footprints. This is done, I understand, by standing up, as most peoples feet are smaller than their... seating arrangements. Tomorrow, important people are talking in France about GW. Hence, to show solidarity, Belgiums are encouraged to switch off all lights between 19:55 and 20:00 on 1st February. Impressive eh? That'll show 'em, if they can see anything with the lights off.

As people, we want to do the right things too, but not if it is inconvenient. VW and Opel (GM) both stopped producing their super economic eco-friendly less than 120 g/km poluting mini cars, nobody was buying them. Toyota sell more Prius hybrids in Califonia than they do in the whole of Europe. Mind you, Mercedes sells more cars in Califonia than in Germany, so I am not sure about the significance of either statistic.

The European Commission just gave way to the motor lobby. They wanted new European cars to be less poluting than Japanese ones. DaimlerChrysler and BMW did not approve, how can their giant SUVs possibly be so green? Nobody would buy them.

(not so mini-rant)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Nice write-up Idiens.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Uh huh......and just who is it China is being so cozy with....eh? And just what kind of aid are they handing out? Hummmm? <G>


China has been handing out cash and medicines, building schools and hospitals all over Africa for years now. They buy a lot of raw materials too. Very quiet about it though. I am not sure they will see a return on investment though.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Right, the Democrats will save us. Remind me again, who were the folks that ran both Congress and the White House for 40 years before that ersatz Texan got in? The ones who keep saying "That other guy is evil, we have no platform but voting for us is a better idea." (Literally--you can't make that stuff up!)

Personally, I'm gonna do all I can to melt the icecaps BOTH in one real big hurry, on the chance that it can drown all the CongressCritters at once while they're in DC at the same time. That's gotta be worth a whole lot of collateral damage.<G>


----------



## Brezzin (Dec 4, 2006)

Three headlines today in the underwater times

www.underwatertimes.com

Report: Global Warming Could Lead Great Barrier Reef to be 'Functionally Extinct' within Decades

Biologist: Great Barrier Reef May Benefit from Global Warming

Report: Barrier Reef Could Face Extinction in Less than 20 Years

I'm confused


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

*Additional rants*



Cruisingdad said:


> Idieans,
> 
> So - where the hell was it exactly that people started feeling so ****ty about this country??!!!!


I can remember people debating whether the US would attack Afghanistan after 911. Most thought: no, a western democracy does not invade other countries, unless attacked by that country, or to stop genecide. They thought the US would do what Bill did, send in a pile of cruise missiles at a million a pop. Surprise!

Well we thought, maybe it was justified, the Taliban were a rotten lot, and Bin Laden was suppose to be in there somewhere.

Then came Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with Bin Laden had no weapons of mass distruction, had no intention, or serious capability, of attacking "the West" (except maybe Israel). But did have a loud mouthed dictator, and oil.

Then came camp delta, then camp x-ray, let's rename it again, so people forget, camp G-Bay (e-bay with barbed wire). Most people feel something about injusticé. (We know that the inmates know something that we don't know. We know we don't know what they don't know, so we will keep them locked up until they tell us nothing we do know).

Regretting asking yet?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> Personally, I'm gonna do all I can to melt the icecaps BOTH in one real big hurry, on the chance that it can drown all the CongressCritters at once while they're in DC at the same time. That's gotta be worth a whole lot of collateral damage.<G>


I hope you are not going to do that before the next presidential errection. I am looking forward to the fight between Hilary and Condi. I would vote for Condi, cos you get two for the price of one, and anyway she plays better piano.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

don't get me started on that incompetent boob... 
Mr. "Inventor of the Internet" AlGore and is equally moronic co-horts...
We're sending a new general over to Iraq, this guy was affirmed 81-0 in the senate, good man, we're right behind him. Know what he supports? troop build-ups. Hmmm, thats funny, I thought the congress doesn't like troop build ups. They say they don't want to fund troop buildups. If thats the case, why send the guy over with your blessings?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

A few small points.....it was a loud mouth - genocidal - dictator. A fact that few dispute. And we have seen no benefit here of all that oil.

But, the real thing I would like to know is where is the world-wide outrage over the constant and unrelenting slaughter of innocent civilans by these "insurgents"? That isn't the act of an insurgent, it's the act of a terrorist. Where is the outrage at the beheadings and torture of Americans? The mutilations? That hasn't happened to anyone we've captured.

One can argue that invading Iraq was wrong, but no one can claim that any country shows more restraint in hostile situations than the US. If one of our people do something wrong over there, they get pilloried. Yet, civilians can be blown up, tortured, and maimed by the "rebels" and they erect momuments.

I could go on and on, but I think that illustrates the point sufficently.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Condi simply isn't executive material, she has no imagination or charm. She's been used to do a job and as a loyal servant no doubt will be pensioned off someplace harmless, maybe as an ambassador to Canada if they'll have her.<G>

Hillary...is a Rhodes Scholar and outright dangerous. I'm not sure what her game is but suspect she could be the reason for another Republican president. As popular as she may be, she's also someone that many voters will vote AGAINST no matter who the other option is.

I'd have very mixed feelings if she became President. On the one hand, I'd be overjoyed that two-faced scheming powerhungry carpetbagging ***** was out of my state. I'm convinced she literally extorted getting Moynihan's office as payment for keeping her mouth shut during Monicagate, and that she put the hit out on Buddy. On the other hand...I'd have serious thoughts about emmigrating if they couldn't find another peanutfarmer, b-grade actor, or wandering village idiot to fill the job before her.

I need to start taking notes, there are some real gemstones being spoken this time around. From Hillary this week, she admitted that she DID vote for the Iraqi invasion (it's still not a war, legally) but that she was wrong to do so. And that the current policies are all wrong. Of course, she won't utter a word about what *else* should be done, or if she'd do anything differently from what is being done now. No, that would require making policy, rather than saying "Vote against that bad man". And her busom buddy Charles "Chuckles" Schummer...at least he had the foolishness to say in print that their party lost the last time around because they had nothing to say, no platform to run on. Gee...No platform two years ago, no platform six years ago, no platform now with another election on the way. And they wonder, why they can't get out the vote.

I'd vote for a good old fashioned Mafia Don before Hillary. At least the mob has goals and ethics!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Actually, it was Slick Willy that was the Rhodes scholar (as if that has much value in this day and age).


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Paul, it's called triangulation. It involves a total lack of principles other than hoping to ensure one's re-election.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

PB, I think they were *both* Rhodes Scholars.

I know he got the Democratic endorsement because he found the backdoor to unlimiting campaign contributions (after there were limits placed on business contributions to individual candidates, he pioneered the donation to "National Committees" which had no limits, neatly sidestepping the laws and opening the coffers) and I strongly suspect she was the one with the real brains who pitched the "let's offer them national health insurance, we'll never have to deliver on it we can blame Congress for killing it".

After all, she's the one that 2? 3? years after Whitewater came up and said "Gee, I found this box of relevant papers, we must have stuck it under the bed in the Lincoln bedroom years ago".

I wouldn't invite either one of them over to dinner without chaining down the dishes AND silverware. And then I'd still inventory it all before allowing them to leave.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Idiens,

I don't regret at all. 

I love my country and will stand out on a small limb here and say that there is no one more passionate about her than I am. But how can you debtae what you have done right or wrong if you refuse to listen to the other side? Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevent. I can tell you that there is a right way (your way) to express your frustrations, and a wrong way (a jerk from Canada I had the displeasure of dealing with) to do it.

THere are a lot of Americans who feel that it is our way or the highway. They feel that if you don't like the way we do our business, tough. Then, there are those who will listen. I am not a pacifist, by any means. But, I am willing to listen and try and understand.

However, I will ask the qestions that you can ponder a moment: What IF there had been WMD in Iraq? Would it have been justified? What IF Al Qaeda had been heavily enthroned there? Would it have been justified? You may say no now... but think about how you felt when you saw those planes fly into our towers. Now pretend for a moment that you were American when it happend. Perhaps we went to far, perhaps not far enough. Perhaps the world is safer now, perhaps it is more dangerous. However, from the information the average American was being fed (truthful or not), we did what seemed right at the time. Hindsight is 20-20. If GB had this hindsight now, I guarantee you we would not be in Iraq. History will not be kind to that administration. However, we are there - much to the regret of most Americans ( I think the latest pole is 67%). We do support our troops 100%. They are there, regardless of how it started or under what pretense, doing what they have to do to make the best of things for a people that do not love them and would just assume kill them as help them. Please dont think for a second our troops are anything but the most honorable men and women in the world. They are.

So, are we in a mess? Yes. Is it of our own creation? Well, maybe, maybe not. The biggest error we made in Iraq, my humble opinion, is being arrogant enough to think we could fix something that time and thousands of years have never been able to fix. Whether ****e, Shia, Sunni, Jew, CHristian... those people have been fighting and killing each other for so long it is incredible. How were we going to go in there and waive our flag (even removing one of the worlds worst leaders who killed and raped his own people) and think we would be welcomed?? Just gave them another target and something else to hate. And I have no doubt that much of that hatred is being fed to them from the outside by lies from Syria and Iran. You think they aren't involved in that??? You are crazy!! Fan the flames there to take the heat off their own countries and their own fallacies. So what started out, to Americans, as a way to save our country, turned into a gigantic mess that will likely get worse before it gets better. But if we leave, not only will we have lost all we have fought for, we will abandon a people (whether they care for us or not) to their own demise. 

I for one feel horribly sorry for the people of Iraq. But it is unfair to think the US is solely to blame... or even a large percentage of the blame. Things weren't just peachy under Hussein and his linchmen either... and the generations of hatred and animosity they share for their kinsmen has been stirred up from the outside, not within... and surely not from the US. And do not believe for one second that (with the exception of a few outside instances) the men and women in uniform over there have anything but the best of intentions. They are true to their colors, and are nothing but honorable, and I thank every one of them for being there and doing what most American could not stomach. What I would like is for every politician that decides to send his country to war to send one of his children to the batteline. Can you imagine our reservation before going into other countries?

And imagine too, for a second, and be honest: What if those planes had hit your towers and killed thousands of your people and shattered thousands more lives? If you say that should not make a difference, you are not being honest to yourself. Was what we did justified? Probably not with what we know now. What if Hussein had a nuclear weapon, gave it to AL Qaeda, who blew up Washington or Tel Aviv? Woudl invading Iraq have been justified? Well, yes. But we did not know... and I do not buy the rumos probably stirred up more from democrats than outside, that ANY president would make up a bunch of lies just to justify invading another country. I don't believe that. I think we had a massive intelligence failure. I don't think Hussein himself knew what he had.

Just remember the hysteria surrounding 911 before you judege us too hard. And also remember not to confuse a country and its people with the policies some politicians may instill. 

Now, are you sorry you asked?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

And you told me to go easy. <G>


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Sorry Hellosailor, only Bill was a Rhodes scholar. Hillary graduated with honors from Wellesley with a BA Political Science. She has a Yale law degree. Condi Rice is a Phi Beta Kappa in Political Science from the University of Denver and holds a PhD from the same school. Both ladies have numerous honorary degrees. Condi's career has been academia, holding the Provost office at Stanford University before her current gig. Hillary has been in politics since her Wellesley days and has also practiced law in Arkansas.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I was not trying to be mean or insulting and am, like in all things in my life, trying to keep a balance. I regret that our reputation in the world is dirt low. THere are some jerks here, but in general, this country carees as much for those outside of it as it does for those inside. 

And I will tell you right now that if France, or Belgium, or any of our harshest critics were somehow invaded or attacked, you would have Americans lined up to go help them out and surrender their lives. They always have.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

There is one collary of the US presence in Iraq that gets overlooked. Namely, as long as the terrorists there believe they can win politically, there won't be any attacks on American soil. To do so would make it 90% in favor of the war.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CD - There would be no France or Belgium as we know them without the shedding of American blood.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

CD-
"If GB had this hindsight now, I guarantee you we would not be in Iraq."
So, you think he was trying to do the right thing...and it was just a massive conspiracy all around him, that fed him not only incorrect but falsified information?
I'm not sure of Dubyah's agenda, but I am uncomfortably remind of Dick Nixon, insisting to the last that he was an honest man and the problem was just that all those evil people had invaded his clique and done all those wrongs.

WRT our biggest mistake in the mideast, I hold that one against the damn "Nyook-lee-air" engineering peanut farmer. If he'd followed popular opinion and nuked Baghdad, the rest of the mullahs would have found someone else to play with and we'd have no terrorist problem. In that part of the world, whoever kicks your ass highest into orbit, is the only one you respect. It's their football, one must play by their rules. We'll never win anything, until we understand which rules we have to play by.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Okay, one last post on this for me, then I'm done with it. One thing that is certain is that it will remain unresolved, so it's time to move on.

I have never understood this fascination with world opinion that so many here think is so important. And I think the best example of that is when Regan went to Berlin and said...."Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The world was aghast, it's the end of the world they said, yet, because of that and the actions that were taken to make it happen, millions of people are free to make their own choices to an extent they could only dream about before then.

America has never sought to conquor, nor to place any other country under it's power. We have never gone in, under force of arms and stayed. When we have defeated those who would try to enslave us, we hold out a hand to help them make a better life.

Are we perfect? No. Do we make mistakes? Yes. But our efforts have always been towards improvement, not self gain. When help is needed, the first place the world turns is to the US, yet when was the last time you heard anyone say thank you for all we've done?

I for one, judge a man by his actions, not his words, nor his country, or even his family.

That's my rant, and the end of my participation.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

We're always "there". 
Whether its flood, earthquake, pestulence, fire or Tsunami... We're there, we're the first off the boat. 
Got a tin-horn despot? 
We're there. 
When the world cries "Somebody needs to do something" guess who shows up. 
We do. 
When some meglomanic decides to rattle a sabre across a border, who shows up. 
We do.

Why? 'cuz its our job. Its what we do. People around the world depend on us. Some of those same people take our help, our aid, and our money, then spit in our face.

Do we stop giving them aid? No, we turn the other cheek and write another check.

We send boys and girls into tragic civil war zones and some don't come home. 
Why?
'Cuz its what we do. 
This America is not a bad place. Sure, somethings suck big. Healthcare, Immigration, Taxes, all huge messes.

But they are our messes, and if it was such a bad place to be, how come millions each year want to come here. By hook or by crook, this is still the land of plenty, this is where the world wants to be. Here, not Mexico, Germany, the UK, Sweden, or the Bahamas(for the life of me I don't understand that one, "Hey Mon, sign me up, eh?")

We have people that camp out in front of the whitehouse yelling "you suck" every day. Try that in Saudi Arabia.

We have people on TV calling for the Presidents head, try that in Venseula, or Iran.

We're seen as bullies, war-mongering God-less people and our government is seen as a bunch of incompetant twits with their hand out. (ok, I'll go with ya on that one.) 
But who was it that said we get the government that we deserve?

I come from a point a view just slightly to the right of rush limbaugh. LOL.
When I was in college, I supported Carter... yea, I was a yellow dog, bleeding heart liberal. My Father let me rant, he listened closely, but never tried to disuade me from my views.

I changed. When I told him that I was coming over to the "dark side" he said, "I too used to be a Democrat, I loved FDR and Harry... Then I got a job"

The UN? what a joke, its been "taken over" by countries with the gross national product the same as a county in Idaho.

I lost a nephew in Iraq on Thanksgiving day a year ago.
Should he have been there? I don't know, he was a 12 year vet, so he know what he was getting into. The point is, he went. It was his job, his duty. He did what was asked of him. He could have said no after his first tour, but he went back, because he said, "some good was coming of it." Now, he's in a hole in the ground in Arlington.

His father served in the USAF during the Vietnam war.

My Uncle served with the Flying Tigers in China, he was lost there in 1949, so this isn't new to my family.

Also what is not new to my family is the sense of duty, honor, and commitment.

What chaps my ass to no end is the people that sit in the chair, hop on the tube and criticize what others are doing... In this way I'm a lot like Col. Nathan R. Jessep.

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post."

rant over, I need a nap. 

In 1973, Gordon Sinclair did this "thing"... We'd do well to remember it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/sinclair.asp


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Paul, it might have been Jefferson (it was certainly ONE of that mob of rabblerousers<G>) who actually said "the people will get the government they deserve" and sometimes I REALLY wonder how that was said, because it can be taken several ways.

Remember that these were elitists who didn't trust the people to run the country. They were sure that women, Indians, slaves, and the trash [sic] who weren't land-owners absolutely should not be allowed to run things, much less to vote.

I suspect they would be terribly unhappy with the way this nation has changed, from a Republic into one nation ruled by the iron fist of Washington. Their first step would be to restart the fine tradition of running scoundrels out of town on a split rail after tarring and feathering them, and you can be Real Damn Sure they wouldn't allow any government agency to provide subsidized medical care for those folks, either.

When folks complain about the state of politicians and politics...well, I suspect Jefferson would turn around and say "And you, good sirs, have gotten exactly the government you deserved."

Oh to have been a fly on the wall to hear exactly HOW that comment was said.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

With voting rates in national elections running less than 30% of the eligible voters, and Congress's current move to provide illegals with social security, (notice I said illegal, not "undocumented workers") its going to get worse before it gets better. Indeed, good sirs, we do get the gov't we deserve. 

We've had our rough patches before. The teapot dome scandal, depression, FDR's "new deal", the horrible way we treated women before the right to vote and the shame of slavery and the almost 100 years it took to get "equal rights under the law", in word if not in practice... Watergate, gas rationing, Whitewater, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is". man, we should be on the road to ruination. 

But we're not. In spite of our our efforts, we're plugging along. Our economy is strong, the unemplyment rate is it best its been in decades. 

We're going to be ok.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

well said cp...


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Without the dreaded French there could quite possibly not be a USA. If you don't know what I mean then read up on the French involvement in the American War of Independence. 

England and her Commonwealth allies were fighting WWI from 1914. The USA didn't show up until August 1917. What impact the US had is a matter hotly debated by historians even today. It must however be noted that if the world had got the US instead of the French version of the peace treaty it is quite possible WWII would never have happened.

England and her allies were fighting Nazi Germany from 1939. The US didn't join in until after Pearl Harbour in 1942. 

Yes in both cases the US was giving moral and logistical support to the Brits but that came at a heavy price when the debt was called in post 1945. Yes, Nazi Germany would have won the European section of WWII without the magnificent contribution made by your gallant men and women who gave their lives in the tens of thousands and yes Australia would be a Japanese colony if the Pacific had been lost which it would have been without your involvement. 

Don't dump on me for saying all that but to suggest that the US jumps every time France is in trouble is somewhat shy of the truth and they were there when you needed them even if it was in the 18th century.

yeah yeah, I know G, "lighten up TD".    

ps - SD, per capita the worst offenders when it comes to carbon emissions are apparently Australia and Canada. The US is overall the worst but China is coming up fast and India is beginning to make an impact. The US total comes close to , if not exceeding, the total for the rest of the world.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

*Sensitivities*

Wow! One rant deserves another!

I think one needs to differentiate the shades of gray. It is not true, at all, that the whole world hates the USA. Even France is one of the US's biggest friends and admirers. But if they dare disagree..... its Freedom Fries again.

I think most Europeans admire the way the Americans honour their soldiers. It is not usual in Europe. That may be because soldiers are trained killers, or should that be: "trained to kill". And killing is not normally regarded as a virtuous activity of itself. Reaping death and distruction is the business we civilians send our soldiers to do, even though our soldiers prefer defensive roles. Soldiers are however, not much good at making peace, honestly try though they might. Peace takes a lot of political compromise, a good police force and system of justice.

Hence I think the US attacked Iraq without any idea of what would happen after it won. Worse, it still does not understand that what is happening in Iraq cannot be solved by more soldiers, or even by America, NATO, anyone, accept the people who live there. It is the principle of: "God gave man free will" - I bet He is not happy with what they did with it. Peace will only come to Iraq when the foreign troops have all gone. How can an occupied country be at peace? Would the US ever be at peace if the Chinese, Russians, choose your enemy, Canadians, invaded?

Snag is for the US, and the rest of us, whether the future Iraqi government is democratic, dictatorship, feudal, or religious extremist, its people will not love America. They didn't under Saddam, and they don't now.

It's like poking a stick in a hornets nest, killing the queen and telling the remaining hornets how great it would be if they divided up into republicans and liberals and had two houses of debate and a directly elected president. Sorry, US (and UK) my bet is you have traded a nasty dictator (with no association to world terrorism) for an Islamic government of some unfriendly form.

This is not 20/20 hindsight, the UN and many friendly countries shouted warnings at the time. The UN never approved the attack. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets objecting before the first attacks occured. Iraq produced a 7000 page document for the UN trying desparately to prove that they have no WMD left (a document that the US snatched and sanitised before other UN members ever saw it). That document was more accurate than Blair's dodgy dossier.

On oil, why did the US instruct the US oil companies, rebuilding the Iraqi oil system, not to put meters on the delivery system? Do you know any other oil rich state that does not know how much oil it is producing and who is getting it?

All of this has nothing to do with the fact that western countries much prefer having the US be the world's super-power than any other one. But please America, ask questions first and shoot afterwards (if really necessary).

How about Iran? It is the next in GWB's cross hairs. It's in breach of it's committment under the NAPT. But so is the USA.

Rant termination procedures executed....


----------



## equitiman (Jul 1, 2004)

Ummm....yeah....so about that Global warming....


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

*Back to pollution*



equitiman said:


> Ummm....yeah....so about that Global warming....


Yup! Sometimes threads creep, other times they leap. Back on focus:-

I think the US needs to direct more than a little of its attention to leading the reduction of pollution, instead of arguing about its after effects.

Now, I am not in favour of reduced consumerism, because that is a wealth generator. So how to consume more and pollute less? Electrons are very recyclable, and nuclear power stations don't generate green-house gases. So run everything on nuclear powered electricity.

Use the electricity to generate hydrogen from water and use hydrogen to power those things that can't easily use electricity (aircraft). As hydrogen, even liquified, is low density, SUVs have to get much bigger, ... sexy. Hydrogen also powers fuel cells, so the SUVs still only need electric propulsion, and no NOX due to high combustion temperatures.

If anyone has the technology, its the US, or was that Canada?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Idiens...
I think it is fair to say that the French did what was in their self interest in 1776 and we did what was in ours in WWI and II ...and I appreciate your balanced view. 
For all the criticism of GWB and Americas actions in Iraq/Iran etc.,.. It seems to me that sometimes force or the very credible threat of force is necessary in the face of what I would call evil men and governments. One of my pet peeves about Europe, (yes I generalize), has been the failure to confront evil and a passion to negotiate and negotiate and expect diplomacy to solve almost every problem....especially when action would hurt their economic interests. The most recent examples of this are Bosnia (why was that OUR problem??) and Darfur (a disgrace). Knowing that the US will step in at some point and spend its $$ and troops to do the dirty work allows Europe to stand back and criticize safely and spend their money on domestic social programs.
This is not to say ANYTHING about the current Iraq situation or defend the mistakes that have been made...just an observation about Europe's approach to things...and to remember all the people who have died while diplomats talked and resolved nothing. 
I believe that Europe is more at risk from evil today in the form of Muslim extremism than the USA is. With double digit Muslim populations AND recent surveys showing high percentages of radical leanings within those poulations AND societies that treat ethnic Arabs/Turks etc. as second class citizens fanning the flames of hate...Europe is at grave risk. The recent plots in Britain, the riots in France, the cartoon scandal in Denmark are just the tip of the iceberg. 
That's why it puzzles me when Europe is unwilling to be firmer with rougue dictators and states and seems more concerned with "human rights violations in Guantanamo" than beheadings in Iraq and what is being said in mosques in Europe. They seem not to realize that it is in their own self interest and I hope that they don't have to watch their own 9/11 on TV before they get the message. 
End of rant.
************
Idiens..I am with you on the nuclear thing...reducing pollution is a good thing when done with an eye towards the economic costs and anything to make us less dependent on middle east or venezuelan oil is even more important over the near term. Unfortunately, environmentalists in this country will never allow nuclear power to be used in this manner so politically it is an impossibility here.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cam-

While Saddam Hussein may have been an evil dictator, he was far less of a threat and provided the area far more stability than what the actions of GWB and Dick Cheney's little invasion have provided. I don't think that Saddam would have killed as many Iraqis as have died, even if he lived to be 100. Furthermore, the actions of GWB, an unprovoked attack upon a sovereign nation and occupying said nation, when all reasons for the attack were falsified, has lost the US the moral high ground in the War on Terror. Whatever you may say about Hussein, he was not a Muslim fundamentalist and did not allow fundamentalism to get a solid foothold in Iraq... which has now become a breeding ground for fundamentalist terrorists. Americans are far less safe today, especially as they travel abroad, than they were prior to Bush taking office. His stupidity on the RFID-equipped passports makes it even easier to target Americans abroad now too.

Nuclear power could be a very clean and economical source of power in this country, but the government seems to be resistant to following up on methods that would hurt the oil industry... and given GWB's background in that same industry, it isn't much of a surprise. Solar and wind power could also do much to alleviate our dependence on fossil fuels. A pebble-bed reactor can be designed to prevent "China Syndrome" type disasters. 

The auto industry had a chance at low-emissions and high-fuel efficiency vehicles over 30 years ago... but decided that it wasn't in their interests at the time. Apparently, it still isn't in their interests... I know as I have worked with some of the technology that Detroit has rejected... Japan has seen the patents, which are over 25 years old, and no-longer protected and used parts of them to kick the daylights out of Detroit. Ford and GM seem to be following in the footsteps of Chrysler and American Motors...


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Cam - With you there on ex Yugoslavia. A European problem that was only solved by American leadership and muscle. I think Europe is fairly ashamed of that episode. 

Darfuur we should all be ashamed of, but that pretty well applies to most of Africa. Snag is, barging in and trying to separate the combatants is not always wise or successful. There is a long term issue too. The African Union really has to step-up here, but they could use some help from behind. It is good to see them in action in Somalia, though I am never sure which side is right.

To me, we will not get security until the Arab-Israeli and more specifically the Israeli-Palestinian problem is solved. I believe that to be at the heart of the hatred of America and the west in general. Frankly, only America can solve that one, and I fear that means giving a lot less support to Israel.

Why do we in Europe worry about Guantanamo Bay!? Because its American! You guys don't do things like that! We expect a fair degree of barbarity and injustice in other less civilised countries, like France, but when the paragon of human rights abandons them, its shocking. 

I don't think G-bay or patriots acts or Blairs equivalent reductions in human rights will improve the situation. It creates injustice and injustice is fueling terrorism. More injustice, more terrorism, it's that simple. 

We need to think first, not what turns young islamists into suicide bombers, but what would turn us into suicide bombers. It's hatred fired by injustice. We get hurt when we are insulted, especially when the insult is unjustified. We get violent when other means of getting justice are unavailable. The suicidal touch comes when frustration at our own impotency becomes unbearable. Plus the Irish logic: "The worst insult you can pay your enemy is to die on his doorstep".

Back on the envionment: The way to defeat the environmentalists' objections to nuclear energy is to accept that fossil fuel burning is responsible for global warming, and has to be stopped. I have never understood why they object, other than timidity. We dig this stuff out of the ground. It's been there 4-6 billion years, was created in a very natural super-nova anything up to 16 billion years ago. We spend an awful lot of effort separating it from the dirt, stuff it in a safe place, extract about 3% of the energy from it and then put it back in the ground. I am never sure why we don't return it to the same hole we found it in - if it was safe there, ever since we discovered what it was, why it it not safe there now?

Happy ranting


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Dawg... Let's see...we supported the shah of Iran who was another brutal dictator and were roundly criticized for that. Iran is a much better place today without him right? So we take out Saddam because he "had weapons of mass destruction and repeatedly violated the UN inspections required after HIS invasion of Kuwait" and get criticized for that too. In my opinion GWB acted on what he thought was good intelligence and with good cause and after that tried to re-justify the invasion on a different basis after no WMD's were found. Furthermore he failed to heed advice about what the difficulties would be if we stayed in Iraq after "victory" and screwed that up pretty good by listening to the neo-cons in his advisor group. Based on the information he and we had at the time of the invasion, I think it was justified and I do think it is a good thing that Sadaam is gone and got what he so richly reserved...but I am no Bush apologist. 20/20 hindsight is wonderful but you need to act in the face of a threat that seems real. 
I fail to see the logic in your argument which seems to be that Sadaam would not have killed as many Kurds and Shiia as have died there since we invaded. Let's remember that WE are not really doing much killing there. They are killing each other as they have forever. As far as a breeding ground for Muslim extremists...right...if we had just stayed out of Iraq, they would have been happy and peaceful and said their prayers 5 x a day and left us alone. Dream on. 
Then you go on to say that BUSH is responsible for not expanding Nuclear power in this country because he favors big oil?? What a crock. Exactly how many new plants were started under Carter and Clinton?? How about the one in Shoreham Long Island that was completed and never opened due to the environmentalist concern. The moment you bring the subject up they bring out the big guns and frighten everyoe with re-plays of Chernoble and 3 mile island. Big nuclear power is big business and campaign contributions and since repubs favor big business they would be all in favor of that. Indeed, if they announced a plan to build 20 more nuke plants the Dems would be screaming about the unholy alliance with big business on the front page of the NYTimes the next morning. Nukes are a great idea...but impossible due to the environmental lobby which last time I looked was not funded by big oil. 
Your comments on the auto industry cannot be refuted OR verified since they are so vague...but last time I looked they were in the business of making cars that people wanted to buy and given their financial results, would jump on anything that held the promise of better sales and profits...if only to enhance their golden parachutes! After the gas crisis 30 years ago, Americans switched to smaller, more fuel efficient cars for a while then went back to mini-vans and SUV's when gas prices came back down. The auto industry produced what they wanted. I don't see anything radical coming out of Toyota or Daimler Benz either so is it a worldwide conspiracy to withold this technology or is it something that only American manufacturers know about? While the Prius is interesting...it isn't some big breakthrough and Toyotas success is due more to quality and safety and listening better to consumers than innovation


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

I am never sure why we don't return it to the same hole we found it in - if it was safe there, ever since we discovered what it was, why it it not safe there now?

Idiens Sounds good to me, as long as that hole is somewhere else, Belgium perhaps?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam-
"How about the one in Shoreham Long Island that was completed and never opened due to the environmentalist concern. " The miracle of Shoreham is how LILCO managed to get it fully built and partially operational without ever getting certification to open it. They defied every regulating body from the start and even Jimmy The Greek would never have given them even odds of being allowed to start it up.
Shoreham would have been more problematic than Indian Point (up on the Hudson) is being. One "incident" at Shoreham would have required evacuating about 7 million people within a 50 mile radius, with all the evacuation routes crossing neatly within some 12 miles of the plant, effectively trapping 2 million people east of it with no evacuation route at all.
And somewhere over 20 million people would have been within a one-hour evacuation area, with essentially no means to evacuate. If you recall the highway logjams during the Katrina and Wilma evacuations, now consider how it would look with 10x more people on roughly the same number of roads. That's why any nuclear plant in the Great New York Metropolitan Area (as it is called) is simply a bad bad idea that never will happen. Yes, Shoreham would have been *inside* the metropolitan NYC area, and Wall Street would be in the evacuation zone. (Would have made a much better target than the WTC.)

The French claim their nuclear technology allows 100% safe recycling and zero wastes. The US claims the French way is simply not possible here. And wherever reality lies (pun intended) no one in the nuclear indsutry here has ever had the suicidal impulse to publicly show a real balance sheet, which would include the costs of managing nuclear waste for 50,000 years. Ten time longer than all of recorded history to date. Nuclear power? Economical? Apparently only in France, where they probably are selling the waste products to the economical and friendly Iranians. Hmmmm....I wonder if that one will come back to bite them any harder than Algeria already has.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh LORD, OH LORD, OH LORD:

Chirac just came out and said that it would NOT be very dangerous if Iran got nuclear weapons!! What the - [email protected]

Isn't this the same country that has repeatedly called for the total destruction of Israel? That houses radical Muslim groups? 

He said that if Iran used them against Israel, they would be immediately 'razed'. What the hell is that? A UN resolution where France actually signs on!

Excuse me for a moment as a throw up all over the place. I don't give a damned if you hate the US or not (in Eurpoe)... you think it is a good idea for that country to have Nukes you are absolutely smoking something. So let me ask you this: Since this country obviously has no problem sending in coverts for a tit-for-tat killing: Why not accidently let a radical group steal one of your nukes and take it to Tel Aviv? Or Washington? Or London? You think Paris is beyond a little heat flash! Sydney?

That F'ing guy has absolutely lost his freaking mind. Excuse me as I almost NEVER go this ballistic. But H-oly' ****! If you honestly think that that screwed up nation will be able to hold on to their nukes or will restrain using them, you have absolutely lost your freaking mind!!

- CD

PS - let's not even bring up the fact that Iran keeps saying it is NOT developing nukes... just peaceful energy. Yep. If you believe that, here's your sign.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

*H'Oly Crap!*

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/01/chirac.reversal.ap/index.html

Read this BS. I am with GIU now.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

CHirac, let me pose this question to you:

HOW MUCH FREAKING BLACK-BLOOD MONEY DO YOU NEED TO GET INTO YOUR COUNTRY TO SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT KNOWING IRAN HAS A NUKE? 

To hell with that SOB. For you Europeans reading this, this is exactly the kind of CRAP that sets Americans on TILT!!


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

CD, Relax, you're gonna have a stroke and miss the whole end of the world scenario. We're gonna need a lot of clear minds to help pick up the pieces. Stick around, ok?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"We have the means -- several countries have the means to destroy a bomb." Sounds like Chirac has been getting into the cheap absinthe too often. And not deeply enough.

His remark about Iran being razed may not be entirely off target, in some circles it has long been believed that Israel has had nuclear capabilities since the late 60's and that Jimmy Carter only put pressure on the Egyptians to stop their (successful) attack because he got a phone call saying "You know what happens if they push us into the sea."

Unfortunately the crazies in Iraq don't care about that, suicide is a good thing from their point of view, as long as it brings martyrdom.

CD, don't confuse Chirac with being French. He's a Parisian, isn't he? To a Parisian, there are Parisians and then there is everyone else, including all those poor bumbling bastards who feel being French is in any way good enough to equate with being Parisian. Bit of an attitude shift that happens near the city line, to the detriment of the rest of France.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cockeyed,

I think I better just quit reading the news anymore. I have gotten to where I won't watch any news on the television. 

- CD

SOB. I realize all he cares about is his own country and his own little bit of money, no matter how it gets there, but GEEZUS! Don't you know Iran is printing that crap in every newpaper they have (well, and Israel too). Don't you know that set Israel on tilt.

Let me tell you what I would do right now if I was in a leadership position in Israel. I would be fueling up my fighters and bombers ready to go to war. Israel will NEVER allow them to have a nuke. I wouldn't either. If Mexico called for the destruction of the US and were building Nukes, we would be fueling up our bombers right now. So would England. So would Belgium. So would Aussie. SO would....


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Someone's gonna pop one, y'all know that's true. Gonna be REAL interesting fer sure.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

*Nuclear power older than fossil fuels*



cockeyedbob said:


> Idiens Sounds good to me, as long as that hole is somewhere else, Belgium perhaps?


I not sure if Belgium has either uranium mines or nuclear power. I think neither.

The Swiss invented a clever twin power wall socket: carbon burning electricity came out of one and nuclear power electricity out of the other. So the greens could choose. They sold quiet well until the greens discovered the nuclear power was cheaper.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Idiens,

Just thought they'd like a BIG hole, ya know, a tourist thing. Chuckle


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cockeyed,

It won't be one... it won't be ONE! If Iran even pretended to try and drop one Israel would have to beat them to the punch. And let me tell you something, drop one, drop 20, you are going to catch hell no matter what. Might as well wipe their ass off the map. I can hear the argument, "well, they DID start it, you know."

You think that 'Razed' Nuclear fallout stops at the Iranian border? BS. All of Europe would be covered. At let me ask you another question, when the bombs drop over there, Chirac, where are you going to get your black blood then? Who is going to buy your military surplus then? 

Yeah. At least his true feelings came out. I would have tried and retracted it too. Absolutely incredible. Close-minded jerk. Oh, and by the Chirac, the troop build-up Germany is doing is just for show. Hitler would NEVER invade France. And Japan did give us the medals of freedom to show their solidarity with us, what 2 days before Pearl Harbor. Whatever.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

CD
The arabs say, Every sheep hangs by his own leg. How true. Better to die fighting than whimpering.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Hellosailor...you just helped illustrate my point about nukes not having a chance to succeed here. I agree with you about what happened in Shoreham. Point is that EXACTLY the same arguments will be advanced for ANY nuke plant ANYWHERE and that makes it impossible to buil them here as I told Idiens. Environmentalists won't trade one evil for another. 

CD...time for Freedom Fries again?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

So interesting you would use an Arab quote. I could give you one in Revelations that might be pretty fitting if they get a Nuke.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cam,

Yep. Freedom Fries. How that kind of crap does not set off even Europeans is beyond me.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

In any event they'll have to change the pumps ... regular or plutonium enriched ... I'll need a nuc warning sign on me auspooffen ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

You know, in all honesty, that retard is making decision his country will follow. I know many of you hate GB, and Lord knows he has had his screw-ups, but Chirac is absurd. He obviously is not taking anything Iran does seriously as long as they are buying his **** and he is buying theirs. I don't think he can see past his next election. And people call George Bush bad...


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I read an article yesterday about humans inability to assess risk and I think in a general sense it applies to this disscussion. Here are a few facts to chew over and see what you can extract.
1,000 more people died in the month after Sept 11th due to increased automobile travel that is believed to have been increased from increased fear of flying.
600 people die a year just falling out of bed.
Your risk of being sick from contaminants in fish is greater than your risk of heart disease if you don't eat fish.
Statistically 1 person per year dies from "marine animal attack"
400,000 people die from smoking cigarettes although heart disease kills more than that.
My obscure point is that we make our dailey decisions of what behavior to engage in or not engage in piss poor way. 
Ex: If global warming is real than alot more people will die from it than nuclear power plants.
EX: 3,000 people died in one day from terrorists in New York but several million have died since from a substance that we could stop alot easier than the effort and cost to stop terrorists.
Ex: Statistically you have a greater chance of dieing while falling out of bed than terrorists.
So why is it all upside down....................................................................................................................
Follow the money in every case.
Pigslo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

So, Idiens, how would Belgium feel about that? Iran with a few nukes that France is certain they would not use. TDW, Australia, you think they would be ok as long as Chirac gave you his guarantee that Iran won't dare drop it on Israel. The nukes are just for show. You know, to repel the Zionist attacks. 

I absolutely cannot believe I read that. Yeah, Chirac, I think that might be a small shift in policy.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

*Settle down CD*

I was going to stay out of this, but I'm worried about CD. Chill out dude, if Iran lobs a nuke, the UN will pass a resolution. You know, like the ones they did about Iraq, and another like the one they passed about Iranian nukes already. Won't save one single life, but it will make them feel good, and we all know, it's feeling good about yourself that counts now days.

You have to remember, by our foolishly invading Iraq, we cut off their Food for Oil Scam....errrrr, I mean humanatrian relief, so they have to get their bucks somehow.

And don't be worried about the fact that Muslim extremists aren't afraid to die. The fact that they believe anyone who doesn't believe as they do should die is surely just talk, right? Or that they will oblierate Israel, you don't really think they mean that do you?

So be cool CD. The UN will save us all. If you don't believe that, ask anyone outside of the US.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

OK...here's another topic for this "interesting" thread....CEO pay!

 In 1965, U.S. CEOs at major companies made 24 times a worker's pay-by 2004, CEOs earned 431 times the pay of an average worker.








...back up to around 500 times avg. earnings more recently.

Does executive pay need governmental regulation?? I say YES. For me, the question is how to do it. Don't tell me to tax 'em higher 'cause the government doesn't need the $$...the workers do.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Pig ...

Just numbers ... Now, let's all get our heads back into the sand. Hey, who's that up there a foolin' with me butt?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cam,

Well, there is a subject I actually know quite a bit about.

I am not going to say that they deserve that much, but a good CEO can make or break a company. I will tell you something else: those guys have NO life, they are constantly on a plane, they are constantly making critical decisions, no matter what happens or how far down the line, they are constantly the one that gets blamed, and let me tell you the one thing closest to my heart:

THEY HAVE NO FAMILY.

They may have kids, but no family. They won't know them. For me personally, I would not have their job. No amount of money you could pay me. Nothing is worth my wife and kids and watching them grow up. 

I will also say that the ones I have met are honestly good people... or good at pretending anyways.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Aw Dad, But we were playin' nice ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cockeyed,

That is now the second time since I have been on sailnet that I absolutely lost it. Verry sorry. I am back on the planet now. I realized it is not too early to start drinking. 5:00 somewhere.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Oh sure Cam.....let's have Teddy Kennedy deciding how much somebody should earn.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> CHirac, let me pose this question to you:
> 
> HOW MUCH FREAKING BLACK-BLOOD MONEY DO YOU NEED TO GET INTO YOUR COUNTRY TO SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT KNOWING IRAN HAS A NUKE?
> 
> To hell with that SOB. For you Europeans reading this, this is exactly the kind of CRAP that sets Americans on TILT!!


There you go, tilting at windmills again! I will not apologise for Chirac (the idiot). But one Frenchman is not enough reason to nuke Iran, or France.

I suppose the point, which he was so badly trying to make, was that deterrence worked for USA vs. Russia. It is working so far between India and Pakaistan. North Korea has China breathing down its neck and the world's most nuclear armed pacific fleet in its face. Even the British and French leave each other alone these days. So people see that deterrence has worked in the past.

With Iran having Russian nukes to the north, Pakistan and Indian to the east, Israeli nukes to the west and Americans in Gulf to the south. None of them friendly towards Iran. What would Iranians feel about needing a bit of deterrence? Iran's got oil too, unlike North Korea.

What would America do if it were surrounded by unfriendly nuclear powers? Give up its weapons? I think not. Even if it did sign the non-proliferaton treaty, saying it would. So I can see Iran's desire to protect itself, especially as it is next on GWB's hit list.

Why is America worried about Iran? Why would Iran be worried about America? Who is most likely to strike first?

When you find yourself in a hole, the best thing to do first, is to stop digging....


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Wow! With that kind of dough I could buy lotsa families!!! I be smilin', see?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

By all means Idiens, let them have nukes. Don't let the fact that they WILL blow another country off the map influence you in the least. Russia is helping them, and Pakistan and India aren't going to invade them. Israel has had reason to use nukes, and hasn't. And the US hasn't used them since WWII. But go ahead, give them nukes. After all, they are just peace-loving people who only want to get along with the rest of the world. They aren't aiding and abetting any of the terrorist activity in the Middle East at all, are they?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> So, Idiens, how would Belgium feel about that? Iran with a few nukes that France is certain they would not use.


Pretty uncomfortable feeling. But so far only one country has used nuclear weapons. So I do understand how other countries feel when seriously theatened by that country.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Ideiens,

First of all, let me apologize for going tilt. I lost all of my civility there for a brief moment.

Now, I can honestly say, I dissagree with almost everything you said... the exception being the Chirac part.

You cannot compare Russia and the US nuke stance as a deterrent. First of all, you have two superpowers not bent on world destruction and suicide as a means for a bunch of virgins in bed with them in heaven.

Second, what makes you think those nukes are staying in Iran?

Third, let's not bring up the fact that their president elect has outqwardly been calling for the complete destruction of Israel and to be, as he said, "Completely wiped off the map." Sounds like a nuke to me.

Fourth, Israel could have nuked Iran a long time ago. So could the US. We don't. They have restraint. I see no such tactics out of that country. They have a very large population of young men that are out of work. Their economy sucks. They have a secret regime of "muslim oversight" that runs around with people that speak out dissapearing. Now: Tell me, does that sound a little farmiliar?? Germany? That is too coincidental for me. Imagine Hitler, 1939, with a nuke. GEEZUS that one scares the crap out of me.

Fifth, Iran is not this nice little peaceful neighbor that would never do any harm to any other country. Just innocently being razed by the mean guy in Washington. If the crosshairs of Iran were on Belgium, what would you say? Now you say, well, they are not on the US either. You want to bet? Go ask the dead troops in Iraq. And we do have an alliance with Israel. That alliance has probably stopped more wars than I can count. You say it starts them, I say it stops them. We do keep Israel in check. SO what would we do? Drop our support there? If we do, you would see a war pushed out of control in minutes.  And it would not stop at those borders.

6th, Your argument about nuclear weapons keeping people from going to war is terrible. Yes, they have probably kept the world out of WWIII with the US and Russia too concerned about the outcome of Nuclear Fallout... you think Iran could give a crap. And using that same argument: Why not give every country on the planet a nuke? You think all wars will suddenly stop then? Nope. You will be living on the moon cuz there ain't no earth left.

I don't want to go to war with Iran. Why would we? We cannot even handle Iraq. But you mark my words: there will be NO nuke in Iran. Israel will never allow it. I wouldn't either. Neither would Belgium if you were in their shoes.

In fact, I think they have shown incredible restraint. And you can probably thank the US for that.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh CRAP! That argument about the US using Nukes is terrible. THat was 1945. We did not know the outcome of those bloody bombs!! Want proof? Go look at the pictures of our troops post 1945 walking through recent fallout in bomb tests. Many of them are dead now.

The US is NOT going to use Nukes against anyone. You honestly think that! No way. The president that authorized that would be driven out of town on a rail. 

For God's sakes, Idiens, comparing the US using nukes to Iran not using them is insane! 

But I will tell you... the day will come . Cockeyed is right. Sooner or later somone will light one off and the reprocussions will be horrid. That is what it takes for people to learn. I just hope I can somehow keep my family safe.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

You go CD!!!

Last time Bob was in Belgium he noticed they all spoke French. Could be a, comment dit-on ... en francais, puppet state? Sorry Ideiens, me ******* is showin'. I be smilin', see?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh, and another thing, The Bombs in Japan.

There is no way to go back in histroy, but the Japanes were going to put up a brutal battle to sve their country with NO SURRENDER.

I hate that we used it. I was not even alive and most are not when it was popped. We we have used it knowing what we know today? Maybe not. But it is also possible that those bombs, as horrible as their outcome, might have just saved more lives than they took... and I am not talking US lives. 

I think it is abhorent to use any weapon on civilians, for any cause. Don't you? How do you feel about using civilians as targets to win a war? No way, I assume, since you brought up the bomb on Japan. 

Now, how does Iran feel? They are doing it right now. Now give them a nuke.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> By all means Idiens, let them have nukes. Don't let the fact that they WILL blow another country off the map influence you in the least. Russia is helping them, and Pakistan and India aren't going to invade them. Israel has had reason to use nukes, and hasn't. And the US hasn't used them since WWII. But go ahead, give them nukes. After all, they are just peace-loving people who only want to get along with the rest of the world. They aren't aiding and abetting any of the terrorist activity in the Middle East at all, are they?


I'm not sure how you draw those conclusions. I would not let Iran have nukes. Iran probably will not attack another country with them, if they ever get them. Russia is not helping them, on the contrary Russia has a similar problem in Checnia, as America has in Iraq, so you don't hear Putin cheering Iran on. Pakistan and India are both concerned about Iran, its a lot nearer to them.

Sunni's and Shia's have been fighting about who was Mohamed's heir long before Iraq was invented (by the British). A lot of the troubles in Iraq, and Iran's involvement now, are part of that struggle. The fighting in Iraq won't stop, whether the US stays or goes, because of that battle.

Why is Iran shooting its mouth off about getting nuclear weapons? - Because GWB is preparing to attack it. Why is it helping it's religous brothers in Iraq? Partly to keep the US forces tied down and delay the attack.

2 cents more...


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

cockeyedbob said:


> Last time Bob was in Belgium he noticed they all spoke French. Could be a, comment dit-on ... en francais, puppet state? Sorry Ideiens, me ******* is showin'. I be smilin', see?


Not all. About half the Belgiums speak Dutch (Flemish) instead. One country of 10 million (less than New York) with three governments to pay for.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

All except the part about them not using nukes, I agree with. I agree totally with. I think a deep, close look at your own statements is more a reason to keep them from getting nclear weapons than anything I can say.

And remember, using a nuclear weapon does not mean launching it from your country. There is more than one way. Kinda like, "Oh, no... we accidently lost a nuke. Just don't know where it is. Sorry guys." Or "No Israel. Sorry your country is toast. But no, that is not our nuke. Ask Chirac. We told him so. Now, how would you like us to drop oil prices .25 to show how sorry we are about the hundreds of thousands of deap people in Israel? What CHirac? You think .30 should cover it. Ok."


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Idiens,

I agree. They've been after each others goat for 1500 years, Allah be praised! BUT, US shoot first? Naw, yer wrong there. As a nation, we've always been known for our ability to respond, not initiate.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> Oh, and another thing, The Bombs in Japan.


Sure if Japan had had nuclear weapons, they would have used them on the US too. - Then in WWII.

But since then leaders know they work. The great thing about nuclear weapons is that they follow leaders around. No longer can forces be sent "to teach them a lesson". When the opposition has nuclear weapons, leaders find negotiations more attractive than war. They are back on the front line.

So is it any wonder that after seeing Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the south swatted like flies by the US, that Iranians feel a little in the need for a deterrence.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cockeyed/Idiens,

Yep. That was our mistake going in. You cannot erase thousands of years of hatred and revenge and bloodshed with an AMerican flag. (Whereas the French are very good at it, ie Haiti, Africa, etc, etc).

Imagine the rifts that are being created now. The tit-for-tat. How does Iran and Syria not think this will come back and bite them? It will. The only way to stop that is to set up such a totalitarian regime that you hate and fear the dictator/murderer more than you hate your neighbor that killed your kids. Now ask yourself: How bad does that dictator have to be? That is why we are losing. We are trying to set up something good for them and their people. Civility cannot oppress brazen antipathy and generations of animocity - especially when stirred from the outside.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Idiens,

Of course they want them. Wanting nukes in not restricted to Iran. But I cannot imagine such a brutal regime owning the worlds most dangerous weapons. And don't think they will show restraint using them or distributing them as Russia and the US and others have.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

When you put your head into the mortar, it's useless to dread the sound of the pestle. 
Peace, my brothers! If Allah wills it ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Idiens et all,

I have meant no offense to you or anyone*, and hope you have not taken it as such.

- CD

* Disclaimer - CHirac can kiss my butt.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

CD
Iran, to me, is behaving like a rat in a corner. It will say or do anything not to be the next in line for USAF attention but it has come to the conclusion that it's probably too late. The US won't even talk to it anymore. so it may as well say to the media anything it likes, and the message is defiance.

It's going to be years before it has one bomb, which it will have to test to see if it got it right. It would be a different country by then but it won't get the chance. Bush is playing the WMD card again.

I don't think the US is holding Israel back. I think Israel is pushing the US forwards.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> Idiens et all,
> 
> I have meant no offense to you or anyone*, and hope you have not taken it as such.
> 
> ...


And none taken CD.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> Idiens, And don't think they will show restraint using them or distributing them as Russia and the US and others have.


Well Israel got theirs from the US and the rockets from France...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Oh man, did this topic ever take a turn, I guess to stay on both topics at the same time, we can agree to say that Iran with a nuke gives a whole new meaning to global warming...........I guess


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Meanwhile...back on the CEO thing...
CD and PB/john...*"Oh sure Cam.....let's have Teddy Kennedy deciding how much somebody should earn."

*I happen to have quite a bit of experience in Sr. Management at an F500 company and dealings with the CEO's & senior staff of others. (Note: not at the "annual report" level...just below so I don't have a big stash somewhere though probably would by now if I hadn't thought family and sailing were more important!) So you might find it odd to find someone like me struggling with whether "Ted Kennedy" should be helping structure executive pay. 
My natural instinct is to reject any government interference in such matters for I am no socialist and don't think anyone *deserves* any of my $$ that they didn't earn. But I am concerned about our society and I have seen what is happening in cozy boardrooms and on senior management compensation committees where other CEO's get to vote each other salary and perk increases that are shall we say grander in scale than those workers who are told that "business was tough last year" or "business will be tough next year" when annual raise time comes around. 
What disturbs me is what these execs do to their workforce to achieve the earnings gains that line their pockets over the short term...and the increasing impact on our society of those changes. Why do CEO's in Europe and Japan manage to serve their shareholders on far less multiples of average workers salaries. What is the impact politically on a democracy when income disparities begin to resemble Brazil? 
Since corporate boards have shown no ability or desire to restrain this fleecing I think it is time for a change that only government can mandate. Maybe we need an income cap or multiple of the minimum wage that can't be exceeded. I don't know, but my guess is the American corporation would survive and CEO's would still be content to work hard just like their brethren around the world do. And maybe...just maybe some of the bucs saved could be used for better pensions or health care or salaries for those without corner offices.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens......when a country says it will blow another off the earth, and they are seeking the means to do so, and claim that that country has no right to exist......YES, I believe they are serious. 

How you can claim that Iran is in the crosshairs with such certainty, to explain their NEED for nukes, means you must have access to top secret data that hasn't been leaked to the New York Times yet.

And need I remind you of the events of this past year, when after giving back land to Lebanon and the Palestines in the name of peace, Israel was attacked by those very same people from the lands they returned. And what did the world do.....condemed Israel.

So let's not talk about Iran's need for security. It's hogwash and the same rationalization that has been used throughout history, and always, as a precursor to war.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Cam, once you let that camel get his nose under the door, you aren't going to get him out. Because, I guarntee you, it won't stop with CEO's. If you want to make a Liberal drool, if you want to see Hillary have a big O, just bring up regulating pay. Just have a towel handy.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I hate the French......anyway...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cam,

I can see it right now... the message from the CEO of Sailnet: Cam!!! Cam!!! Emergency!!! Get that damned Cruisingdad off of Iran before everyone abandons the board!!!

HAHA! Just kidding.

Well, let's see. I agree with you, for the most part - but like global warming, probabyl not a damned thing we can do about it. I place those people in their jobs!!

Here is a nice little story for ya: How about spending billions of dollars to buy one then two very nice and successful companies all for the rights of one drug: Lipitor. Pfizer bought two companies for that drug and wiped out the entire organizations. 10,000 people are getting laid off right now... not to mention the thousads beforehand. Destroyed two companies and I don't know how many lives and families for one blockbuster drug and some billions of dollars. Read the story. I know it first had. I worked for Warner Lambert, Parke Davis, and Pharmacia-Upjohn. In the next 12-24 months, you will have 10,000 more people on the street. But for those of you that might just be working for Pfizer in some way, shape, form, or fashion, better not count your blessings too quick. It won't stop there. Hard times ahead for big corps. You have screwed the people over so long they have had it with your crap and in the end, there is NOOOO loyalty to what once were nice promising companies.

Ouch. ANother rant. Just have a lot of good friends that do not know what they are going to do. Moved to Ann Arbor and moved their families under the thinly veilied pretense of a future that was nothing but a lie. All for the sake of a buck taht went no further than the shareholders, board, CEO, and immediate officers. That is your corporate America. And I have, unfortunately, had more to do with it that I can stomach.

You will see the middle class dissapear until our economy resembles that of Rome before the fall. Our massive national debt, abhorent political climate, and inability to settle our workforce in all classes will be a cross our children will be forced to bear.

Now Cam et all, have you seen me on this much of a rant in a while???? WHere is my Valium?? Kris!!! My valium, hurry... Cam is about to sensor me!!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

John...yeah that worries me too. But if you agree with the concern and the implications what would you do? To my mind "trusting the market" hasn't worked.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Cockeyed has a couple of boats and another on the ways ... all regulate his income quite nicely thank you!

Now, if y'all got any spare change ....


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Is CEO pay any more out of line than what pro athletes and entertainers make? In no way do I think it's "fair", but life isn't fair. And once you start regulating, there's no stopping it. That's one of the reasons things are the way they are now.

Just for an absurd example.....it has now been determined that because of TitleIX (the one about having equal mens and womens sports) that they must also have equal cheerleaders, and one California (where else would you expect) school is going so far as to say they have to have equal enthusiasm. 

No, for all the. what you would call, inequality in pay, that is a slippery slope we should stay well away from. It's a Pandora's box that is best left shut tightly.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

It is Pandoras box and probably a natural progression in a country. Sensorship always leads to trouble. Does not mean we have to like it or agree with it though. Now leave me alone, I am counting my stock options...


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

OH NO, PB's called forth the dreaded school board ... don't get me started, hold me back coach, hoooooold me back! I ain't be smilin'.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PB
Our wise modrator is leading us elsewhere. I will leave it with my belief that most Iranians are not as nutty as their current leaders and luckily the half-life of an Iranian leader is not dissimilar to that of a US president. There is hope.

Regarding CEO obscene kick-backs, the worst are in the banking industry. Those guys don't produce anything, they just rip it off the top. Profits belong to them, losses to their customers.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Regarding CEO obscene kick-backs, the worst are in the banking industry. Those guys don't produce anything, they just rip it off the top. Profits belong to them, losses to their customers.[/QUOTE]

Right you are!

The mate's granny recalls her pop saying, Right now, there's a saloon on every corner. That's ok. You'll live to see a gas station on every corner, and that will be ok. When you see a bank on every corner, well, that will mark the beginning of the end.

Look at that! Their puttin' an ATM out by the mailbox!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

We survied the "Robber Barons" (ever stroll through the mansions they left behind when you're sailing the East Coast?) and we will survive the current "inequality". For pity's sake, is Tom Cruise worth $50 million to star in a movie?

While I may feel the pay is excessive, the last thing I want is anymore government in the lives of anybody.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/01/23/the_greed_fallacy


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Cockeyed sets the scene ...

Marco Polo and the Emperor of China ...

Emperor holds up fancy piece of paper and sez ...

Marco, do you know what this is?

Marco replys, No.

Emperor responds, They call it money ... I can see nothing but trouble coming from this.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Cruise deserves every cent of the 50 million. Ya think those teeth come cheap?


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

Let's see now....$50 million. That's 10 million for each foot of height. Not bad. 
pigslo


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Or, check out John (Two Americas) Edwards' new digs and how much that cost.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

So has this become the new Fight CLub Thread?? I was beginning to wonder.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Don't know CD, I was talking about global warming till it got sidetracked on the most evil man in the world, GB, who has caused pestilence, famine, drought, and killed off the dinosaurs. Friend at the marina that gives me rides had an accident in her car....yep, you guessed it, GB caused it.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PB, you are trying to stoke those flames again... while I, I have been nothing but a calm voice of reason in a discussion where I have to keep re-explaining to everyone why they are all wrong and I am all right.

When are you guys going to get it through your head, anyway. I will change my name from CD to BF (Blind Faith). Just remember, blind faith will never lead you wrong!!!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

John:
*Is CEO pay any more out of line than what pro athletes and entertainers make?

*Eddie Murphy doesn't lay off 10,000 people to make his nut. Shaq dunks basketballs not pension plans. That's the difference. And that's why it matters what they make and how they make it. 
As an aside... I've known quite a number of public company CEO's...some closely most just in a business environment. Most are nice, bright people personally. A good number were self-important a**es ....
I'd say that the skills and abilities needed to play in the NBA are far *rarer* than the talent,skills and personal attributes needed to run a big company.

Carl Icahn (billionaire) is on CNBC RIGHT NOW...arguing FOR controls on CEO pay and saying something must be done!


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

heard a guy today saying he has done research for 3 years trying to find out just what the total amount of co is in the atmosphere vs the amount we are creating. He could not find any consensus on those amounts, the various ESTIMATES varied widely.
The computer models were back tested by Dr. William Grey, one of the planets leading climatologists. He showed that the models used by the alarmists show we should already be 2 degrees higher today than we actually are.
In the 10th through 13th centuries we were much warmer than we are today. That's not that long ago. Greenland was green and now it has hundreds of feet of ice. How did that happen? 

Jack Chiraq and Kofie Anan have both been quoted as saying the kyoto accords were written specifically to slow down the US economy. There are absolutely no restraints on the worlds second highest poluter, China.
60 prominent scientists from Canada wrote a letter to their gov't telling them to reconsider the kyoto accords as they offer no meaningful benefits but will bring harm to the Canadian economy.
There are penty of young scientists who have stated it's like a McCarthy witch hunt against any scientist who wants to offer any anti-global warming study.

When you see the weather channel BS asking the meteorological society to de-certify any meteorologist who doesn't agree with man-made global warming; you should ask why are they afraid of a dissenting opinion? The Catholic church tried to get Galeleo branded a heretic. Sounds familiar.
When one side gets so fervent, then it's time to ask questions.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I started reading this thread to try and catch-up... I could only stomach it to page 5. "The sky is falling, The sky is falling......" 

Gave me a headache.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh, good, off of Iran and nuclear weapons back to a non-heated topic (no pun intended).


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

CD- Just hoping to throw some fuel on the fire while trying to decide if I want to jump in on this one!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Cam - looks like you have friends in high places
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/bush.economy.ap/index.html


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

For those who worry about CO2, I would suggest you never mow your lawn again. If you do some research on the amount of CO2 released simply by mowing your yard, I'm sure you won't mind not mowing anymore. <G>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Come on aboard T34. Plent of room for a civil debate.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> For those who worry about CO2, I would suggest you never mow your lawn again. If you do some research on the amount of CO2 released simply by mowing your yard, I'm sure you won't mind not mowing anymore. <G>


There are soooo many issues that are over looked by the "Sky is Falling" crowd.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

T - did you mean overlooked......or "inconvienent"?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

And so it begins, again... should I stay or should I go... nah. My blood pressure is just now coming back down. I think go. Good night, gents.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

PB- I've got 1 suggestion as to what Mr. Gore can do with his "Inconvienent Spoof"


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

CD- That's why I generally don't like to mix my politics and sailing.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Word out of Paris this afternoon is they have agreed to use certain terminologies when linking man kind to increases in CO2 and man made global warming ( this is no joke )

They have agreed to use " Likely ", " Most Likely " and " More likely than not " when linking humans to global warming................. Don't ya just love their rock solid beliefs. 10 yrs with billions spent and the best they can come up with is likelyhoods.............LMFAO


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Where is the other end of the scale??? They're missing the other part that starts with "Not a F -ing Chance in Hell".


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Alright, this is will turm a few stomachs and please, I am not responsilbe for your reactions, so don't be emailing invoices for new keyboards or monitors, I already have to replace mine

here goes

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249299,00.html


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I think this little tid bit in the 3rd paragraph sums it up pretty well.

"_Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen *of the Socialist Left Party* to nominate Gore..."_


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Al's thinkin', Hmmmm, this finger smells like poop. Chuckle


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

_"Norwegian lawmakers are among the thousands of people and groups with rights to nominate Nobel candidates. "_

I may nominate myself next year.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

cockeyedbob said:


> Al's thinkin', Hmmmm, this finger smells like poop. Chuckle


Thanks, I laugh so hard my secretary now knows I'm dicking around instead of returning phone calls


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Kracatoa's explosion cooled the earth well into the 20th century, so naturally, we're gonna warm up some as those effects have diminished....slightly more potent than my mower. Besides, a volcanic explosion is a sudden and dramatic change, where the burning of fossil fuels is a gradual steady release, allowing for generations of adaptation. So, we tippy-toe around things and a volcano or asteroid wrecks our day anyway. We should do the best we can (like with catalytic converters and smokestack scrubbers) and enjoy life while we can. Something major happens, and we won't have time to adapt.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Good morning, its all over the news, global warming is up, 90% certainty mankind is guilty, the US the worst this year, soon to be overtaken by China. So soon the greens will be trying to hold back the Chinese, instead of the US, economy. India wants the statistic on a per individual basis, which makes an Indian half as polluting as a Chinaman. The UK is very proud of itself: it adopted all the new carbon trading rules ahead of everyone else and is well on the way to proving that they make no difference.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Idiens said:


> Good morning, its all over the news, global warming is up, 90%... QUOTE]
> 
> Thank God. It is 3 deg. F this morning. I really hope it hurries.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Welp, it's all over. I read the climate report and we are toast. Now that global warming has been established, everyone better get something they can reasonbly live on in comfort and scrap all those so-called performance cruisers. Better go buy you a Catalina (my boat is now appreciating!! ).

- CD

PS Giu, in the sake of international friendship and goodwill, I will give you $50 bucks for your boat... but only if the anchor roller is still attached. I think this is more than a fair amount given the snow damage it has taken.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

GWB, Global Warming Bush. If only we had noticed the connection before the elections. Not to worry, Al's got his finger in the problem!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

_"...scrap all those so-called performance cruisers. Better go buy you a Catalina..."_

Finally you admit that performance and Catalina don't belong in the same sentence!!!!!!!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

*Another viewpoint*

Not to get this started again, but it seems there are some in the scientific community who not only don't buy the global warming hype as presented, but actual have other reasons for the changes we see. Seemed like it would be a good read for those with an open mind on the subject.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> PS Giu, in the sake of international friendship and goodwill, I will give you $50 bucks for your boat... but only if the anchor roller is still attached. I think this is more than a fair amount given the snow damage it has taken.


Hey...the way the US Dollar is falling, better make it $500.000 

Look...you get 2 anchor rollers for the price of one!!!! how about that??? 

T..."Finally you admit that performance and Catalina don't belong in the same sentence!!!!!!!   "....that my friend is really really "TOUCHÉ"!!!!!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Giu - too bad you had to be off in the Virgins, you could have made an ice sculpture for a figurehead.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> Giu - too bad you had to be off in the Virgins, you could have made an ice sculpture for a figurehead.


  John...I can make one with sand now......


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

But no boat <G>


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> But no boat <G>


you*+$&#"*?+**;"!#$$%%$$)(($$&%$"##$"


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Now that is what you call an Inconvienent Truth <G>


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

hehehehe absolutely.....man do I miss her.....I really do....

I saw a guy sailing off yesterday......with motor....


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I figure a global ban on all non-essential automobile and commercial aviation traffic should make a big dent in CO2 emissions real fast. No more hopping a quick flight to visit grandparents who retired 2000 miles away, if they want to leave, they're gone. Might force a return to local concepts and families. Wanna move to the suburbs, abandon the city but commute two hours each way every day? Good, build a rail line, you won't be allowed to drive anymore.

Some crazy California legislator is about to take a real step too, by pushing a ban on residential use of incandescent light bulbs. If it passes, they'll be illegal to buy/sell/use in households in CA by 2012, forcing Californians to save 80% of their home lighting power consumption.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

But, but......they'll still be mowing grass. Do you realize how much CO2 that puts in the air? (Said somewhat tongue in cheek, but none-the-less it is a major cause of CO2 release)

And then you have the problem of how will the Algores get to their speaking engagements? Dog cart? Rickashaws? How will all the protesters get to their protests? Solar powered airplanes?

And why have trains? Why not horse drawn wagons? Get back to the simple things, ya know? Like caves, and nuts and berries.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

PB,
There is a solar plane circling the globe right now. The funny thing is that alternative energy is on the cutting edge of technology and someday people will joke about how outdated and foolish burning fossil fuels was! Your thinking is all backwards and you need to catch up with the times. Why do you get so mad at people who care about the environment...are you a closet environmentalist?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Who's mad at anybody? Not moi. Because I disagree, that mean's I'm suppose to be angry? Ipso facto?

Is it me telling people they are backwards and don't know what they are talking about? I don't think so. Am I obligated to believe everything anybody says? I don't think so. Have I done anything more than point out that I don't buy the methodology of those who proclaim man is destroying the world? I don't think so.

I wonder if you bothered to read the link I posted earlier? Probably not, as it questions the validity of the current "viewpoint". And points out, quite well, one of the reasons I am skeptical of the current consensus.

The eco-crowd can not entertain any cause other than man as being harmful to the enviorment. Otherwise, they have nothing to rail against. If, and that is only if, the scientist in the article is correct, that means that all this hysteria is simply that, hysteria. I don't know that he is right, any more than I accept that the global warming crowd is right. I, for one, don't think there is enough data to properly assess the situation, outside of circumstancial data.

The eco-lobby refuses to accept that there can (note, I said can, not is) be any other "culprit" than man for current climatic conditions. Yet, no one can state conclusively, that current conditions are other than what they should be, BECAUSE, there isn't any real way to know......only guess.

Does that mean I think pollution is good? No. Should we take steps, reasonable steps, to curtail it? Yes. What I don't accept though, is some "Global Commission" telling me how to live my life. Especially one that will not impose the same conditions on everyone. I always mistrust anyone or any group who will not be impacted by the things they propose.

But mad? Odd and quirky perhaps, but I'm not mad at anybody. It's too pointless.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Some crazy California legislator is about to take a real step too, by pushing a ban on residential use of incandescent light bulbs. If it passes, they'll be illegal to buy/sell/use in households in CA by 2012, forcing Californians to save 80% of their home lighting power consumption.


YOu know that just means they will install 4 florecent lights to do the same job as 1 incandescent.

You've got to love the ego of people who think that because the climate is getting warmer and they are there to witness it, they MUST be the cause. Get a grip, you're not that important.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

John-
I'm not sure but IIRC California banned two-stroke lawnmowers long ago and they've had serious talks about what's left. Personally, I think if the idle rich need to continue growing crops that can't be eaten (grass) in order to demonstrate their wealth (which is how lawns got started at English manor houses) then they should be required to hire scads of oriental gardeners, each equipped with a tiny sharp scissor to manicure the lawn own blade at a time. Now, THAT really demonstrates how rich you are. Kinda pointless to slum around with any other way to cut the lawn, isn't it? Posers!

Robert-
They'd have to buy more lamp fixtures to do that.<G> The first time I had housemates exposed to my overhead florescent lights for any period of time, when they went back into the hallway they asked "how comes the lights are so yellow and dim?" not realizing, that's just how tungsten bulbs ARE. But like any other domestic animal, people just get upset if you change their feed on them. I say, let 'em keep buying tungsten bulbs, but add a $5/bulb energy tax to them. If folks need that conspicuous consumption...give it to them. And let them pay for the damage control at the same time.
(I'm not totally against tungsten bulbs, in some uses they make sense and save money. Some, not most.)


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

hello - ut oh.....you tripped up there, showing your lack of proper sensitivity for people of oriental extraction by using a base stereotype. Tsk, tsk. Your reverence for diversity and cultural sensitivity is obviously lacking and you'll need further indoctrination.....errrrr......training.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

Sorry PB, wrong word i guess. But if you can't trust a scientist then who can you trust  The guy who wrote that article looks younger than me. He needs a few more years of research under his belt before I'll listen. It would help though, if you at least opened your mind to the FACTS about the human impact on the environment, not just opinions. If you were to say, take a course in geology, ecology or environmental science, you might learn a little more about the topic. This my or may not influence your opinion. But to discredit all of the hard work of 90% of the non governmental scientists around the world seems a bit foolish. 

It's not about taking away your rights, it about you having a better life. It's about forcing large corporations to clean up their acts. If bio-diesel costs way less to produce than regular diesel, lubricates the engine better is 80-90% cleaner, can be used as heating oil and can be grown in your backyard, why not use it? If it were at the pump we all would be. It's not there because of Exxon Mobil and Shell and Wallmart and all of the political lobbyists. They would have to sell it for 30-40 cents at most. There is simply no reason not to do it. The only people who benefit from not changing are the ones making all of the money now! Wouldn't your life be better if you could fill your boat's tank for 40$ instead of 110? 
Changes like this will only better your life. The environmental benefits will happen without you ever having to do anything and it will be cheaper. The only reason we are trapped burning fossil fuels is because the large oil companies have so much $ invested in their mining/drilling rigs and the deposits themselves. They would go under if all of that lost it's value so they fight with money to keep it this way. They receive SO MUCH money for drilling research from the government. They make SO MUCH money it's ridiculous, and they do it at the detriment of us all. 
It's not about environmentalists/ nonenvironmentalists. It's the people vs. the large corporations. We all keep struggling through life while they rape us of our freedom and rights. They keep blasting us with media and advertising and we keep buying and polluting. The international community is not trying to hamper our lives, just police our out of control corporations. We have to make a change to BETTER our lives and reduce our mindless destruction of the environment...for our and our children's sake! 
This country was founded on religious freedom, independence and democracy. Somewhere along the line it (along with our freedom) was taken over by large corporations. We must take it back! Self sufficiency is the way to do that, and bio-diesel, solar wind power are ways to begin the process. Technology and science will only better our lives.
......Just a small example....the Flouride that the government was requiring towns (many still do) to put in their water for so long....is made from toxic waste. It is the by-product of a chemical process and they found way to sell it to use and have the government require us to drink it! How is THAT freedom?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

John, if I'd suggested "********" or illegals do the gardening in CA, that would be politically incorrect and arguably insensitive. But I suggested Oriental gardeners because the art of bonsai is of course an Oriental art, and clipping the lawn one blade at a time would require these same highly refined skills.

I think anyone who can qualify for an H1B visa as a "lawn manicure microspecialist" should be able to compete for the job, regardless of whether they come from a land or culture where grass or bonsai ever have been grown. I'm an equal-opportunity dinosaur, and I lump illegal Mexicans, Dominicans, South Asians, and folks invading my homeland from Kansas and New Jersey _all _in the same boat. After Labor Day, they're all supposed to GO HOME and GET OFF MY ISLAND FOR THE WINTER. No matter what color they are or language they speak, they're foreigners and tourists and tourist season ended on Labor Day.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

sc- do you actually read what I write, or just a few words and than assume the rest. NEVER have I said that man doesn't have an impact on the enviorment. So please stop using that. My concern is with how much of an impact, how best, if it should be, mitigated, and what are the ramifications of different "solutions".

The Global Warming Report stated....... man is "very likely" the cause of changes in our climate, ie: so called global warming. (No that is not an exact quote, other than the very likely). If this 90% of the worlds *non-government* scientists are so certain of this, there would be no need to say very likely. If I am to trust non-government scientists as being somehow more honest than other scientists, what is my reason for doing this? Or are only the scientists who support the current global warming theories.....and yes, they ARE only theories...the only honest scientists and all others are lying?

Now then, one thing you can clear up for me, if you would. How large or in what business does a corparation have to be before it becomes evil? Before it only has it's own, and shareholders interests, at heart? Before it exists, to make a profit? What shall we do with these evil corparations? Nationalize them, turn them over to the "people". Have the Government run them? You know, kinda like they do the Post Office? And which of our rights have these evil corparations taken away from us?

And, by what right does the "international community" police anything in this country?

I've been reading this same stuff since the mid 60's. But, perhaps I'm not yet old enough to have an opinion, like that scientist you dismiss so easily because he's too young.

No one disputes that Mankind has an impact on the planet. What is in question, is to what extent is that impact and what can be done to lessen it, in a reasonable manner. I am not unaware of man's impact, nor am I blind to it....BUT....what I do know is that there is a limit to how much can be done without handing over a worse life to our children than what we have. AND, I also know that the "experts" don't know where that line is.

So don't tell me I'm not open to the facts. I'm quite aware of the fact that there are MANY things that affect our enviorment, and to do something about it, starts with individual effort. If I were to use your reasoning, then everybody would have to be for sending more troops to Iraq, because most of the military leadership says we should. (And now, that isn't to start something else, or even to argue who in the military does or doesn't support it. It's merely a current illustration.) So once again, don't try to say I have no grounds for disagreement with "the scientists".


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

One other question for you Preston. Do you understand why I am replying to you at all?


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

SC- I have a better question. Do you actually believe half the "stuff" you write?
Perhaps you should should say, take a course in economics. If Bio-diesel or another product were the end all fuel sources the companies you accuse of "raping" us would be investing in them. By the way, they are all publicly traded companies so the only people missing out are the ones not smart enough to invest in them. If you want to take money and/or power away from those oil companies fine, stop buying from them. If there are truely enough people who believe as you do, they won't be in the oil business much longer, they'll be making bio-D.

_"This country was founded on religious freedom, independence and democracy. Somewhere along the line it (along with our freedom) was taken over by large corporations."_

No it wasn't, it was taken away by people who insisted they knew what was best for everyone else, and freely given by those who follow along like sheep.

How can you quote that this country was founded on religion, yet have no faith?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

SC-
"This country was founded on religious freedom," Nice story to teach in grade school. But in point, the Pilgrims were so eager to take advantage of their new religious freedom in the US, that they promptly threw out members who disagreed. Who then made new settlements in Connecticut, and then...threw out more dissidents who started new settlements in Rhode Island again.
Oh, and of course into the 1950's and early 1960's, you could still go to parts of Vermont and see rooming houses with "No Jews No *******" signs in the windows. 
Founded on religious freedom? Only if you count the freedom to throw out those who disagree and banish them to the unsettled places.

We're still a far from perfect place, arguably growing more divisive because each new group now tries to make someplace into the place they just left--rather than trying to learn YnGlitch and blend into the community around them. Making for a bigger problem for all sides.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Evidently, Global Warming has now come to Texas. This is what I found when checking the NOAA weather page this morning.

Houston / Ellington
Last Update on Feb 5, 6:50 am CST

Fog/Mist

140°F
(60°C)*Humidity*:4 %*Wind Speed*:Calm*Barometer*:30.44"*Dewpoint*:43°F (6°C)*Heat Index*:123°F (51°C)*Visibility*:3.00 mi 
Obviously a typo, but certainly eye-catching <G>


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

I used to belive in Global Warming until this past week.
Temp this morning at 0600: -9F. Im too cold to believe in Global Warming.

( I know it is a very serious problem and that we have to look not at a single day's temperature but we have to look at the average daily temperature, but right now... It's too darn cold. )


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Interestingly, when I moved to Anchorage, AK in Feb of '77, the average temp for the month was 8 degrees F. For Fort Wayne,IN (where I moved from) it was 7 degrees F. What does this prove? Nothing really. <G>

tjk - sorry about your Bears, but you should have remembered you are in Indiana. It was the Colts time.


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

I thought I had forgotten about that silly game last night, Thanks for reminding me PB. Yes obviously it was Payton Time, and obviously our quarter back showed the whole world why he drives all us Bears Fans to drinking.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

tjk- Don't worry, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile. Go Bears!!

It was -13 F at my house this morning. Come on global warming.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

TJK.

Deeply sorry for your team loss...better chance next time...

I saw pieces of that game, but got bored with all ther interuptions and commercials...I really tried to understand it...its a good colorfull show though..but still doesn't make my understanding grounds...

They installed 2 flat secreens here at the Hotel and everyone was watching it at the bar...us included (well for some part) then we left...

Some of the local people here were too drunk to explain it to me...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Global Warming:

The truth of the matter is, you are going to believe what you want to believe. I think both sides have compelling arguments. Respect the others opinion, becuase you sure as hell aren't going to change it on sailnet!!

As far as the Reasonably certain, or 90% jazz, don't let that phase you. If any of you have had biology or chemistry, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of everything is theories, not facts/proofs. Theories drive most of what we do today. It is very difficult to prove something beyond ANY doubt in sicence, even on relatively simple subjects. Global warming is not simple. For those of you that would be waiting around to believe in GW until it is all facts, well, the world could burn down around you and they still could not prove it. This is not me taking a GW stance or against it... just merely a chemist/biologist telling you reality of that field. There is SOOOO much biology and chemistry in GW science, I cannot imagine they are any different.

For those of you that do not believe in GW, I can understand why. For those of you that do, I can understand why. SouthernCross and others, I appreciated your viewpoint, PB, Hello, and others, the same. 

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Although... to mention a previous argument I had earlier in this thread, the more you can do to get off of imported oil products, the safer the world will be and the better for your country.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

PB-Sorry if you feel I misquoted you. 
Governmental scientists are widely known for being forced to produce results that conform to the politicians' political goals.
Any large corporation that causes harm to the public or the environment is one i consider bad. They would be dealt with properly by our government if it were not for lobbyists filling their wallets!
When an American company moves outside our borders and begins destroying the environment and other economies for its own good, it most definately SHOULD be policed by an international community. Especially if our own governmnet won't do it!
I don't see how curbing pollution and helping the environment will leave a worse life for our children?
You don't seem very open to the facts if 90% of the world's scientists conclude that global warming is real and you won't believe them.
I'm sure the only reason you bother is because you are bored, like me, and want to go sailing ...oh yeah, i think the war in Iraq is utter nonsense, it's all about the oil!

T34C, I have a master's degree in geology and I buy and sell stocks (including XOM..i can stick it to them by shorting it  ) almost everyday, does that count? If you look at any insider trading info you will see that the people who run the companies make WAY more than we do trading them. They trade hundreds of thousands of shares, we're stuck with a few and half the time they lie and we get screwed! What you might not understand is the principle of overhead. Large oil companies have so much money tied up in the mining equipment and oil reserves that they would be out of bussiness if a fuel came along cheaper than gas...so they fight it by lobbying the government, who continues to support them. They can't just switch to biodiesel, even though it is better. They have set themselves up with all of the equipment etc... based on projected earnings/sales decades in the future, their bussiness plans can not really be altered. We pay the price instead........................P


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Although... to mention a previous argument I had earlier in this thread, the more you can do to get off of imported oil products, the safer the world will be and the better for your country.


And invading and occupying an oil-rich Islamic country doesn't count as a way to increase domestic oil production capacity.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

CD

GW, fact or fiction, might be an inducement to stop crapping in our nest.

CB


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

So where next? Iran? GB says no, but I would not be suprised. I also read the other day that Hugo Chavez has re-laid claims on Guyana and their oil reserves. You think that could be why he is buying the arms? Wonder how the US would respond to that one??

But hey, "It would not be that big of a deal if Iran got a nuclear weapon." (Chirac, Friday). Nah. I think we should arm Venezuela too. CHirac gave us his guarantee Armagedon (sp? HAHA) would not use them and Castro could give us the same for Chavez. 

Three days later and I am STILL steaming over that one.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Preston, Preston, Preston........it would help immensely if you would actually read what I say. I DID NOT say curbing pollution and/or helping the enviorment would leave a worse world for "the children". What I DID say, is that if it is done in a manner that merely reflects the hysteria surrounding GW, it quite possibly could.

Man has been having an impact on the enviorment since his inception. It is impossible for it to be otherwise, but nature is a far greater force than mankind. You postulate, that man, and only man, is responsible for the current climatic conditions. For, when presented with research that proposes another possiblity, you reject it because the scientist is too young. At what age does a scientist become eligible to know what he is talking about?

You continue to try to frame this in a way that says I don't believe in global warming, as if only someone without a cogent thought in their head could be against it being real, when that is not the issue. The issue is HOW much of an impact does man have, and to WHAT degree it should, or even needs to be, reduced.

To this point, all I've read from you is the same mantra that I've been hearing since I was old enough to avail myself of my cognitive ablities.

Now, where did I say that American companies should not be policed OUTSIDE of the US? I didn't. I said by what right do they police anything HERE. Big difference there.

And lastly, how many of your 90% of the worlds scientists said global cooling was on it's way not too long ago? A question you still haven't answered. I'll repeat, they were wrong then, why should I blindly believe them now?


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

SC- _T34C, I have a master's degree in geology and I buy and sell stocks (including XOM..i can stick it to them by shorting it ) almost everyday, does that count?_ 
Frankly, NO. My 6 yr. old can trade too. I don't think anyone is disputing global warming. What is in dispute is if it is man made, a trend, a cycle, etc... There are way too many factors that are left out of most of the various theories. The single biggest contributing factor to our climate and our existance (following God, which I'm not going into right now) is the sun. Why do the majority of scientist not look at solar activity and solar flares when discussing global warming? Why don't they discuss the fact that maps exist that show Antartica without ice cover that were created 100's of years before we thought this possible. If you have a masters in geology could you please explain the geological data that shows shorelines were once miles further inland than they are now. Where did the water go? Maybe to the ice caps when the planet went through a cooling cycle?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

If I may say something here...in my line of work (yes I work sometimes), I am in contact with some of the largest US companies that are investing outside the US, and we're not talking MacDonalds, think BIGGER, ok?? MUUUUUCH BIGGER...in countries you wouldn't even dare to go, (thus my knowledge about starvation).

One thing I AM 100% SURE ABOUT (because I see it), ALL the US companies (my customers) are very very concerned with MAINTAINING their environmental policies outside the US, in countries where NOx and SOx are still not in their vocabulary, OK???

I'll give you examples of large US companies in Morocco, Tailand, Argentina, etc. where the environmental policies are inherited (right word???) from their US mother companies, competing for internal environmental prizes as if they operated in the US, when the countries they are in don't even care....the so called under development countries...

I know by fact that in the Power Business US companies are very very very concerned with environmental policies, more that anyone else, OK?? And so are we in Europe.

Please don't say that US companies don't care and need to be policed..they don't, please talk about what you know, NOT about what you think....

And don't even argue about this its what I do for a living to be able to afford the sailboat...there

And yes, Power plants refineries cars, and pupl and paper industries contribute to Global Warming, but so does the solar radiation, cow **** and your farts...they just haven't been able to (or decided which) find out what hurts most...the cow **** or Ravenswood Power plant in NY city.....

Ice ages happened way before we knew how to fire coal....


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

And here I thought you were off sailing a Catalina today Giu. <G>


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

All I can sail now is this laptop....but was invited to sail in a Pearson 38 that is moored off my Hotel...the guy knows me from here!!!!!!!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Even without the beard? <G>


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

What beard???? Are you on Global Warming or something???


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

The beard you had in that picture of you begging for money. I thought it was a remarkable resemblance. <G>


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Nooooooo....that wasn't me......he confused me with sailaway21....

but I got it starightened out....http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...b____for-sailors-99.html?highlight=fight+club

ehehehehehe


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

John, John, John, you were not very clear on that one. If you re-read your post there was nothing about GW...just that you didn't want the kids to have a worse life than we do. I agree with you that mother nature is far srtonger than man...if you have read any of my past posts on this thread you would see this! 
What I said was that the international community should have a right to police our out of control corporations...i never said within our own borders. 
As far as i know, global warming has been a concern since the 60's. The only global cooling scenario in recent years occured in the eastern Atlantic, possibly due to a shift in the thermocline circulation, but has long since reversed. 
All i was ever saying was that man has a bad effect on the environment. By all scientific classifications we are a virus! Nobody can say exactly what the outcome of our actions will be but for now it is obvious we are raising global temps with our activities. There is no reason for it when there are cheaper and much less harmful ways of producing power. Look up the 'Joe energy cell' for example, a motor powered by water! 
TC...Thats great! My friend started his son at the age of 5 and he is paying for part of his college education with the $ he made. . 
The sun is never overlooked as a source of global warming. It is the sun and greenhouse gases acting together that effect global temps. As i said before the planet has been much hotter in the past and co2 levels up to 8 times higher than now. Without the right amout of both the planet can either overheat or overcool. The tilt of the earth's axis also has a very large effect on overall temps and it has fluctuated dramatically over the Earth's history.
The reason we can find beaches at the top of mountains is due to tectonic uplift....or faulting. When continents collide they thrust upward creating mountain ranges. Material from lower elevations is transported to higher elevations, thus one may find sea beds ontop of a mountain. 

Ah..G,G,G If our power companies are so "very,very,very" concerned about the environment then why are they still burning fossil fuels when the technology exists to do otherwise for less money? What they are really concerned with is their "image" and their investments. You must know how much money they would loose if nobody needed oil anymore. All of their rigs, mines, trillions of dollars is invested. They may act like they care, but they are really out for the $. Kind of like G.E with the dancing jungle animals celebrating it's efficient diesel motors. They DO NOT CARE about the environment or they wouldn't be the LARGEST contributor to greenhouse gases on the planet! For years and years we have dealt with the results of our own pollution here in the US. Don't tell me that they care about the environment when you have't been here to see the devestation. What about Exxon Mobil spilling millions of gallons of oil into the ocean. What about three mile island, the fact that breat cancer rates are 50 times higher within a 50 mile radius of most nuke plants. Coal and oil are well know carcinogens and are burned into our breathing air everyday for no reason. 
Sorry G, to argue that us power companies are concerned about the environment goes against any kind of reason. You may see a difference between us and other countries who "don't care" but that is only because we have had to clean up our act or we would all be dead by now.

Again, without solar radiation the planet would freeze, farts don't cause cancer, ice ages are natural, burning coal is manmade and you are really really WRONG about power compaies caring about the environment.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

sc31-
"Kind of like G.E with the dancing jungle animals celebrating it's efficient diesel motors. " Oh, you mean the same GE that dumped PCBs into the Hudson River and left it still so toxic that decades later the fish still can't be eaten? And then said "Hey, whaddayaknow about that, sorry." and paid next to nothing for it?

Which is not to say they had an exclusive on brains, in the mid70's there was a transformer explosion in the Broome County (upstate NY) state office building and an argument over PCB contamination and cleanup. The Governor himself offered to _drink a glass of PCBs_ in order to show how safe they were. Terribly disappointing that he didn't.

I think if CEO's were required to roll in their own manure, they'd be a whole lot more careful about what they shat. (Some of them, anyway.<G>)


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

southerncross31 said:


> .
> 
> Ah..G,G,G If our power companies are so "very,very,very" concerned about the environment then why are they still burning fossil fuels when the technology exists to do otherwise for less money?
> 
> ...


*How do you know farts don't cause cancer????

Any way...so wrong you are....I just don't have the English to continue I might say something later, I really get tired writting, sorry *


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

SC31...is correct...you can't trust the government or industry. Here's another example:

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide: 
- is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain
- contributes to the "greenhouse effect. 
-contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape
-accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals
-may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used: 
-as an industrial solvent and coolant
-in nuclear power plants. 
- in the production of styrofoam. 
-as a fire retardant. 
-in many forms of cruel animal research. 
-in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical. 
-as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

I urge you to write your members of Congress and petition to have this substance banned. Given all the other choices we can certainly do without water!

<g>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

"All I can sail now is this laptop....but was invited to sail in a Pearson 38 that is moored off my Hotel...the guy knows me from here!!!!!!!"

Southern Cross... isn't that your Pearson? Hmm.. He does know you Giu. Good talking to you. Can I have your anchor roller when you are gone?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

By the way, Cam, I have all of those symptoms!! They are dormant until I start drinking alcohol. You think my rum has been polluted?? Obviously I cannot drink water anymore.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Cam - Perfect illustration by absurdity. I love it.

Now then Preston, perhaps you missed all this but.... http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
perhaps you forget the pictures on magazine covers from that time, or the dire predictions of a starving world. One of the more interesting "cures" was to melt the polar icecaps. Imagine that.

As a geologist, perhaps you can explain to me why in the 2001 report, there were 12 factors used in their "investigation" of global warming, while in the 2006 report there are only 9? And perhaps you could tell me how many of those factors have a negative effect on warming? Or why their "predictions" are less now than then, even though the world saving Kyoto Protocols have not been implemented?

Global Warming is a political phrase, and used to present a catastrophic scenerio if certain steps are not taken, so as to generate a sense of hysteria that will forego reasonable debate, or alternatives, if such are indeed needed. While it may be obvious to you that man is the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing, I have yet to see conclusive evidence that this isn't a natural change. The climate is a dynamic force, not a static one, which means........it changes. I don't need a PhD in anything to understand that.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Wow Giu! That's a mighty efficient burner you got there! .-)


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

T34...your comment sounds like you took my post seriously..my post wasn't...did you read the last line carefully? <g>


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Sorry Cam, thought you were being serious until the last line. With some of the hairbrained stuff being written its tuff to tell sometimes. I deleted it on account of my own stupidity.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

That is perhaps the most unfortunate part of issues such as this....who do you trust. From the media, to the government. From industry to universities. None have proven unworthy of skepticism.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Always trust CD. You should know that PB. CD for president and the world will change.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CD.....sometimes I don't even trust myself <G>

One man (or woman) can't change the world, but if every ONE acted in good faith, the world would change.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hmm, Pb. Could I argue that Osama Bin Laden changed the world. Hitler? (Now I am sounding argumentative, aren't I!!!??) HAHA. Just harrasing you. Have a nice evening.

- CD


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Actually CD, it is a valid point. But they only changed it for a period of time and neither changed people, they only changed events. Peace and good will can only happen when people do unto other's as they would have done unto them. Trite some may say, but oh so true. It's one of the things I find attractive about cruising. It's much more common there, where everyone is working to the same end.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I am just posting this to make sure that PB cannot have the last word. Give up, PB?

- CD


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Of course not. In case you missed the previous link I posted, here's a similar one. Should make you think <G>
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

John,

I read it. Very good link. Little concerned that he is a paid employee of Exxon-Mobil and they paid for all of the research though. Probably just coincidence though. 

- CD

(Smile)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oops. Sorry John, had to post this just to make sure my thread won't die and that I have the last word because I am always right.

http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-not-really-science-people


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

And another...

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Obviously, this invalidates anything he says, whether it is accurate or not. Now if only he was younger, like that Israeli guy, then I'd have double reason not to listen.

But, let me query you this CD. Do you know of any scientist who disagrees with the current gw scenerio, that hasn't been written off as some kind of crackpot or denier?

Frankly, I don't know who's right, or wrong about it. I do know, it wasn't that long ago that global cooling was going to be the end of the world, and now the same people say global warming. Before that it was the population explosion, and insecticides, and ad nauseum. Seems as long as I can remember there's been a man-made threat to the survial of the planet, and the planet's still here.

I will make you one bet though. Once gw has run it's course, there WILL be a new threat, man-made, to the survial of the planet. Care to put your boat up against mine on that? <G>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

All this has to be looked at with a critical eye. The best analysis I have read is the fiction book by Michael Crichton named A STATE OF FEAR. No matter what your position, he gives the tools to examine GW for you to get some sort of balanced view.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

This one will run on a bit, as the current report only deals with the question of: - Is it warming? They have a couple more reports to release, on exciting topics like:- who dies first? and who benefits initially but loses later? 
Apparently 2500 scientists have contributed to the current consensus of:- it is most likely to get a bit warmer. That s a lot of salaries for such a contentious conclusion.
I still think we should stop messing up our children s world, whether it will be a warmer one or not.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Txs...that's absolutely right...AND he has some interesting speeches on the subject given to hostile audiences on his website. The guy has spunk!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - I wasn't aware that anyone advocated doing nothing about taking better care of the enviorment. Last I knew, it was an ongoing endeavour for the past 40 years or so.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Sorry PB,

Been out a bit. As far as the boat switching goes, you can have it right now. Problem is that the boat is free, but me, the wife, 2 kids, 2 dogs and more **** than you could stick in a 5000 sf house go with it. Think of it as the Brady Bunch in 40 feet!

Anyways, I have a few opinions on those articles & other thoughts:

1) I don't care if Dr. Ball was squeaky clean, the environmental groups would have found some dirt on him. (no pun intended). He was screwed from the beginning - but I bet he knew that. 

2) How much $$ is he getting to run around to all these meetings and give speeches that there is no GW? GW or not, the oil companies LOVE him.

3) Explain to me a good point that has been put out by the non-human influence GW: Is all the Co2 and everything humans have dumped in the atmosphere in the last 200 years even equal 1 volcanic eruption?? Isn't that what I read somewhere??? Then what are we even talking about this for!!!

4) If the models are correct, why hasn't the temperature followed the predictions? Is it really off, like they have said?

5) From my experience, scientists are like sailors: Ask four their opinions and you will get 5 different answers. How did they get that many scientists to agree on that if it is not right? What were the criteria in chosing the scientists? It is like I have said before: If there are 2000 people on this entire planet truly qualified to be experts on the environment, I would be shocked.

6) Who has the most to gain in money from GW or lack of? The scientists or the oil/gas companies and others? I like what someone said some TWENTY PAGES AGO about follow the money trail. Money and power. Follow it and you will find where the answers truly lie.

7) Hasn't the world been this warm before without human influence? What % have we REALLY contributed.

8) I weathered Charlie, Francis, Jean (sp), Ivan, and rode Gabrielle out on my boat. I just spent the dryest summer ever in Texas this summer and am now flooded with the higest flooding ever... all in 6 months. Serious weather extremes. Natural phenomenon? Hmm.

9) Many people have commented that they do not want to be "taken" by the scientists that cannot get it right and seem to have a problem getting it right. I agree. The track record is not really good. On the other side, I don't want to get taken by the other side (oil/gas or others that benefit $$), their track record ain't real good either.

So these questions sound conflicting... like who's side am I on? THat is my frustration is that both sides seem so dead set that they don't want to hear the others bring up conflicting facts (and I am not talking about you guys on Sailnet... I am talking about the "experts"). Does one conflicting fact mean that the other side is completely wrong??? Or is the environment like the human body, so complex that there are countless factors affecting the others.

I urge both sides to look at it constructively. As for me, I feel like that pilot that jumped in many pages ago: I am not an expert on the climate and cannot tell you if there really is GW, but I can sat that I have seen some really strange things. I will make every effort to educate myself and keep both sides as real possibilities.

And PB, yes: there will always be an end of the world dooms-day. Scary thing is, what if one of these days it really happens?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I won't try to answer the questions you raised, that is better done by your own investigation. What I will add is that man, simply by his existance has a negative effect on the enviorment, if, you accept that man is not a part of the enviorment. But, man is a part of the enviorment. And though that does not give license to abuse the planet, neither does it mean he has to subordinate himself either.

30 years ago, they talked about melting the polar icecaps, now they are worried that they are melting. I got a feeling that nature is going to do what ever it darn well pleases, no matter what man tries to do. They built a church in Florida to withstand 150 mph winds, so they get hit with 165 mph winds. The church is rubble and the wind still blows as it wants. 

As the SSCA says.....leave a clean wake. If everyone, every entity, did just that, things would be a whole lot better.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Absolutelty John!! Since you are not just going to sit back and accept that I am always right and to just have blind faith in me, I agree.

Until then, let's find something less confrontational to discuss: What is the best anchor??

HAHA!!

- CD

PS I did not write those questions for you to answer, they are the things that are bouncing around in my head to be answered by me.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Don't know 'bout the rest of y'all but Bob feels better already!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

If Ol' Bob feels better, things must be good <G>


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

CD- You had the best discussion yet, with no one else even contributing.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PB - I thought the reason you guys were all up-tight, about the US being blamed for most of the GW, was that no way were you going to accept any blame or do anything about it, except maybe burn more oil and subsidise your farmers for producing ethenol products.

That's in contrast to the attitude over here in Europe, where there is a general aceptance that pollution is a bad thing, Europe has a fat share, and a desire to do something about it abounds. That's not to say there isn't a big fight on, but the reasons are in the open. There is no pretence that the problem might not be there.

Today, the EC is supposed to publish its recommendation to the member states on mandating (instead of the current voluntary) reduction in automobile pollution from new vehicles. The EC is lobbied by the environmentalists to limit CO2 emmissions to 120 g/km - which is not that ambitious, as most small cars can achieve it. But the Big Car lobby is threatening the loss of 12 million jobs in Europe if they do. (Apparently the entire automotive industry only makes Big Cars). So it looks like the recommendation will be for 130 g/km, which small cars already achieve. Big Cars like that even less.

Anyway, by the time the Council and the Parliament are done, the mandated limit will be maybe 135 g/km. I think even giant SUVs can manage 145 g/km.

Snag is, when it actually comes to buying a new car, us consumers just want more of everything and emmissions minimisation is not on our personal agendas.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - for myself, and I think many others, it isn't a question of blame, but one of economic impact. The Kyoto Protocols will adversely affect the American economy, without conclusively solving the "problem". Add in the fact that there are other countries who will not implement the "cure" because of the effect it will have on their economy, and I think you have reasonable grounds for hesitation, and further study.

If one accepts that pollution is bad, which I think any intelligent person does, the question becomes what level of it is acceptable. Because you can not eliminate it entirely without going back to the Stone Age. And that I think is the main point of contention. Where is that line?

What needs, in my opinion, to be done, is to educate people to the problems posed by pollution, in such a way as to have them, of their own accord, alter their consumption habits. There are only two real ways to get people to change, either through education, or necessity. Unless, and until, people learn it is in their own best interest to leave a smaller footprint on the planet, then nothing will change. Until, or unless, it has to.

The problem there is, there is no "political hay" to be made from such an approach. A politican can sponsor a law that reduces vehicle emissions and say, "See what I did for the enviorment", but one who works at changing attitudes will have no such "trophy" to raise in the air. So instead of each country working to reduce pollution, not by mandate, but by education, they come up with things like the Kyoto Protocols. A trophy, rather than a real solution.

So while I am not totally convinced of how "dire" things are, I cerainly agree that something should be done to keep the planet in as good as shape as possible. What I have yet to see, is any evidence that anyone knows where the line should be drawn.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

> How did they get that many scientists to agree on that if it is not right?


CD, I can tell you how they got so many scientists to agree on the recent statement on GW. They conned the ones who were skeptical. If you want to create a consensus of opinions, you find one basic principle on which all or most people agree. Your common sense tells you that there had to be a large group of scientists (perhaps even the majority) who believed that there was only about a 50-50 chance that human activity was the cause of global warming. How could they persuade them to agree to the report? They'd ask, "If we put words in the report saying human activity is "more likely than not" a cause of GW, would you sign it?" The words "more likely than not" plainly mean that there's only a 51-49 percent chance that GW is caused by human activity. Those skeptical scientists could agree to that, because it would reflect the general opinion of most of them that human activity is just one of many possible causes of GW. So, many scientists signed the report based on that understanding.

When the report was released, the ideologues who are pushing the notion announced that certain of those terms should be defined in a certain way, and the way they defined them suggested that human activity was the likely or primary cause. In other words, by redefining the words that were used to persuade the scientists to sign the report, they skewed what the scientists meant to say when they agreed to sign the report. That means the report is not a serious scientific document - it's outright propaganda. Scientists don't make up new definitions of words to explain the meaning of their reports. Propagandists do that to skew their meanings.

I don't think people fully understand why it's so important that we get this right, from the standpoint of President Bush and others who are resisting the Kyoto Treaty. The US Supreme Court has long held that any treaty that is ratified by the United States is fully binding on the US, even if it would otherwise be regarded as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of US citizens. In other words, a treaty supercedes even the US Constitution. What that means is, once we ratify a treaty, we're stuck with it forever, even if it later turns out be based on bad science. If we don't get this right, we'll put ourselves at a significant disadvantage with respect to other nations, and there won't be anything we can do to remedy it. The GW ideologues, and many Europeans, think that's exactly what we should do.

As I remember it, the US embraced the idea of environmental protection long before the rest of the world. When we started mandating environmental devices on new cars, foreign automakers were forced to install the same devices if they wanted to sell their cars in the US. We mandated the installation of scrubbers, to clean toxic emissions from industrial smokestacks. We cleaned up our Great Lakes and our rivers and streams, and our abandoned factories and industrial dumpsites. We outlawed PCBs and DDT and eliminated lead from gasoline, and we regulated a long list of other toxic substances, and some other nations followed our lead. When it comes to environmental protection, we don't owe any apologies. Meanwhile, many undeveloped nations continue to dump their environmental waste into their lakes, rivers and streams, and they want to continue to export automobiles and other products to the US without even a momentary concern for the environment. I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't do more, but I certainly don't think we should allow ourselves to be stampeded or shamed into signing onto a foolish and unfair treaty that will bind us forever, no matter how baseless it might be.

I'm unalterably opposed to the Kyoto treaty, and fully support the President in his stance on it. If there's a scientific basis to the concern over GW (which I doubt at this point), then I would support the complete re-negotiation of a treaty upon fair and reasonable terms that require every nation to do it's part.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Sailormon,

Nice write-up. 

I am trying to keep the middle ground a bit, but I have to ask: How do you know they "conned" the scientists? The word in the media is that they conned them ok, into saying it was not as bad as the facts presented. I guess I was reading just the opposite. The guys I know would not be conned very easily... but they are chemists and biologists, not climatologists. 

As far as Kyoto and the US: I think we really should examine how much we do for the environment. I would probably lean to support your claim. I am curious if anyone knows what our pollution level is per capita? In other words, how much does each person really pollute? That is a bit more fair I think.

Also, I second the comments made before about the US need to do more recycling. Absolutely nothing wrond with that. When we lived in Richardson (a suburb of Dallas) I had to drive 20 minutes to recycle newspapers and plastic. I think things may have gotten better... but still!!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Very good write-up indeed Sailormon. You explained much more succiently than I, what I've been trying to say from the outset.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

> As I remember it, the US embraced the idea of environmental protection long before the rest of the world. When we started mandating environmental devices on new cars, foreign automakers were forced to install the same devices if they wanted to sell their cars in the US. We mandated the installation of scrubbers, to clean toxic emissions from industrial smokestacks. We cleaned up our Great Lakes and our rivers and streams, and our abandoned factories and industrial dumpsites. We outlawed PCBs and DDT and eliminated lead from gasoline, and we regulated a long list of other toxic substances, and some other nations followed our lead. When it comes to environmental protection, we don't owe any apologies. Meanwhile, many undeveloped nations continue to dump their environmental waste into their lakes, rivers and streams, and they want to continue to export automobiles and other products to the US without even a momentary concern for the environment. I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't do more, but I certainly don't think we should allow ourselves to be stampeded or shamed into signing onto a foolish and unfair treaty that will bind us forever, no matter how baseless it might be.


The government wanted clean air legislation, but the automotive industry waffled and lobbied and got a greatly weakened version of it passed... granted, having some legislation is better than nothing, but it could have been far more comprehensive. If you think we've cleaned up our rivers, streams, and industrial sites, you're obviously confused. There are still many rivers, including the one my boat is on, the Acushnet, where you aren't really supposed to swim in them or eat the fish or shellfish caught in them since the pollution levels are so high.

Economically speaking, environmental pollution is an externality to production. Unless laws and treaties are passed to deal with it, the chance of industry doing anything about it is pretty much zero. If we don't sign and pass the Kyoto treaty or something similar, soon the world will reach a cascade point, where the greenhouse gases are too plentiful and it will be too late to do anything about it. I think it is important that we take the lead in fighting global warming, as we are both a leading polluter, and also in many ways a world leader as the only remaining superpower.

If China, which is rapidly becoming industrialized and starting to develop an internal automotive infrastructure, starts to deal with cars the way we do, the amount of pollution that will result will dwarf the imagination. Even if their cars are ten times cleaner than ours, if they go to the two cars per family model that we have in the United States, it won't matter.

A good book to read, although it is fiction, is Whitley Strieber's "Nature's End". It takes place in a post-greenhouse gas runaway climate earth... and is very eye-opening.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

SD - it isn't that something shouldn't be done to protect the global enviorment, but that it be done outside of a political context, and Kyoto is blatantly political.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

PBzeer-

I know that the Kyoto Treaty is a politically controversial document. However, I don't see that there will be any real way to pass a global treaty on global warming that isn't, at least to some degree, politically controversial.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hmm, I thought you were pretty quiet throughout this process, SD. Probably took you a week just to read it all, huh!!

- CD


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

SD - why is it we need a global treaty? If the problem is so obvious, and world threatening, wouldn't every country volunterarily implement the necessary measures? Kyoto is nothing more than the same as a UN Resolution, a political statement that requires no sacrifice on those making it. It just "sounds" like they are doing something. Those who chose to obey it will, those that don't, won't. And there will be no penalty if they don't. So why should we obligate ourselves to it?


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

> How do you know they "conned" the scientists?


 During my career, I participated in many government "task forces" that were asked to form a consensus among people and groups with widely divergent interests, and I know how they form a consensus. When I read that the global warming report was accompanied by definitions of commonly used, well-understood, words and terms, I had to ask why would they give uncommon, skewed definitions to commonly understood terms? In a technical report, you might see fit to define obscure or highly technical words and phrases, but you certainly don't need to define "what the meaning of 'is' is." (You'll recall that when President Clinton quibbled with the meaning of the word "is," he was trying to make it sound like he was denying certain acts, when the truth was quite the contrary.) There's only one reason why you would give a special, unusual definition to a commonly understood word or phrase - because you want to skew the meaning in one direction. I wasn't personally present when the proposed report was presented to all the scientists and when they were asked to endorse it. But the people who did so are thoroughly committed ideologues and politicians, and they're sophisticated propagandists, and you shouldn't take what they say at face value. You should question their representations, their truthfulness and their motivations just as enthusiastically as you question those of your government officials. Do you really believe all government officials are liars and thieves, and all activists and ideologues are honorable and truthful?



> The word in the media is that they conned them ok, into saying it was not as bad as the facts presented.


 Do you really believe that the members of the media are all honorable and truthful? Let me tell you about the news media. The first rule taught to every journalism student is that "Good news is not news." That's why you don't see articles in the newspaper or on television reporting that "Your local water department has been doing a really good job." If, however, an employee has been caught embezzling money, or peeping into the ladies' restroom, that's big news.

I had a friend who was a newspaper reporter on the city beat, and he resigned his job, and stopped into my office to explain why he did it. He had been writing articles praising some city departments for some of their good work. The articles weren't being published, and he was getting pressure from his city editor to be critical of the city. He said he would do so as soon as some city official gave him a reason to criticize, but the City was doing a lot of good things at the moment, and they deserved a pat on the back. He was told to write critical articles or leave. He left. The city editor didn't care about the truth, and it didn't matter if the paper criticized and embarrassed a city employee who didn't deserve it. He demanded that the reporter either write critical articles or quit his job.

One newspaper reporter threatened to investigate me and write critical articles about me if I didn't give him an interview about a current issue. I told him I had no comment on the issue, and he could investigate me to his heart's content. (Actually, similar encounters and threats happened many times during my career.)

The plain truth is that, in most cities, it's very difficult for a reporter to find enough real news to meet a daily deadline and fill a newspaper every day, and, in order to make an interesting article out of a non-story, the reporter has to be "creative." You have to read between the lines. When they start playing with odd usages of language and interjecting their opinions rather than facts, you should have doubts about the story.

Why would the media report that somebody conned the people who wrote the report into saying it was not as bad as the facts presented? The answer is that, if people think the GW problem is not very serious, then they'll stop being worried about global warming. Once people conclude that the problem is not serious, the whole issue will become a non-story. The media won't be able to write any more scary stories about GW, because people won't believe them. NBC, ABC and CBS will have to find something else to talk about in their lead story every night. They'll have to find another cataclysm for us to worry about, like bird flu. The press always needs a supposed impending disaster to help them fill their newspapers every day, because there aren't enough real disasters to do the job.

I'll say again that I don't know with certainty whether GW is caused to any significant extent by human activity, but, if you want to find the truth in the news, you have to question the verity and motives of everyone involved in the process.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

Sailorman, check out 'Free Speech TV' or 'Democracy Now' for some good reporting. I know i said this before but for the real answer as to why we need to end global warming check out 'the next chapter' or 'murphy go big' on youtube! For all who love wind it will be an eye opening experience


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Check out the current post on the drudge report, i found it to have ain interesting point of view.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Sailormon! YESSS!! I Agree. Like I said before, follow the money trail. Question everyones motives. Isn't that the point? But from a purely outside point of view: Who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose? Hidden agendas abound.

Regarding the media, that is probably one of the areas where you will see me be pretty negative. I agree with you and find the media abhorent. Bad news sells. 

As far as government officials, I don't think they are all corrupt, etc. Wouldn't that be a pretty bleak view? In fact, I think many people are out there to do their best and really make a differnce. However, I also feel that the majority are nothing but the action-arm of PAC and special interest groups that sold out their ideals a long time ago to get re-elected one more time. 

It goes back to what I said before: The vast majority of the scientists I know (albeit, in a slightly different field) are honestly good people that could care less about money and power. They love the science. THere are exceptions to that rule, of course, but I am making a generality. Is the same true for Politicians and oil/gas and the automotive indistry and Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and OPEC......?? I don't know. I just don't really know that many. 

I am no expert on GW, period. Just making observations.

- CD


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Simply stated, if the science is so good, why is it that instead of refuting, with facts, or even reasoned debate, pro-warming advocates instead seek to discredit the person who disagree with them, rather than what they say?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

John-
"if the science is so good, why is it ... advocates instead seek to discredit the person "
Isn't that self-evident? Advocates are not scientists, they are people with agendas and ad-hominem attacks are commonly used because the hoi-polloi fall for them faster than they can digest those nasty boring scientific facts.

I'm convinced nothing much will be done about global warming--except by the folks smart enough to exploit the hell out of it and get rich--until all 'dem po folks start making nasty loud noises about being flooded out of their homes. Of course, with all that water around their ankles, they won't be able to light torches and burn down many castles, so they won't bother the rich folk much anyhow.

A sad state of affairs, but that's what it is. Or, maybe you think you can convince the US, China, India, Brazil..to shut down everything overnight? Each one's got a different reason, every one will say "No."

About the only real way you can help people, is to buy the new sea level maps, buy up cheap land now that will be coastal in 50 years, and then take on survivors from the life boats. (But remember, if they drove SUVs? You've got to throw them back.)


----------



## mattypatty (Jun 26, 2006)

I have done a considerable amount of my own research on global warming and I strongly suggest that every body who is at all interested in this subject to do the same.

I'll offer a couple of links to my blog where I lay out some of my findings with liberal amounts of something I call "analysis" (some might call it something else *wink*). I have found that it's a deep, deep issue and it goes so much farther than just the weather.

http://dogandponyshow.typepad.com/the_dog_and_pony_show/global_warming/index.html

The entries "Mat's Galaxy" and "Global Warming Frightshow" kind of sum up my ideas.

Great discussion.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Dang patty, you're more fun than phyllis godzilla!!!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Well, obviously after reading that, I am forced to put forth legislation (when I am elected President) that cows can no longer fart. Failure to abide by this rule will result in them being sent to the meat grinder.

Humans flatulence will be dealt with even more severly: A three hour, non stop, segment of Barry Manelow's greatest hits (was there one??). Mexican restaurants and beer will be illegal.

Obviously the cows will be getting off easier than the people, but since they cannot read, I felt their punishments should be thusly appropriate. And since I will wipe off all farting from the planet, cars will once again be responsible - so let's keep focused on eliminiating them.

- CD

PS Now who did the study measuring all cow farts and pig farts and added up the pollution??? So how do you do that exactly?? Some schmuck with a Ph.D. is setting there with a cleaned-out mayonaise jar on the wrong side of a steer waiting for the opportune moment to put the lid on it!! Please. Cow farts???? Hmph.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

cd ... Bob draws the line at old farts ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Bob,

That wasn't you on the wrong side of that steer, was it? That why you got the nickname Cockeyed??

HAHA!! Just kidding.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

CD-
"I am forced to put forth legislation...that cows can no longer fart. "

Didn't you hear about that? The Air Force has been conducting research into cow farts at Area51 for years now. Apparently, when you plug up the wrong end of a cow, the gas pressure just builds up to horribly explosive levels. Oh, you can laugh now, but that's exactly where all the "mutilated cow carcass found in Nevada desert!" stories have been coming from.

Boom! The cow blows up, the pieces come down in five or six different states, no one wants to argue with PETA so they all deny sticking the cork in the cow. (Don't worry, once you're elected, you'll get all sorts of information about this classified stuff.<weg>)


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

cd ... no worries mate ... gave up me pride long ago sos I could hang out wit loose wimmen ... whoopie!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Bob and Hello have a sense of humor. I think that is what this thread is missing!!!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

hello- it was basically a rhetorical question <G>. I know why they do, it's one of the first things I learned in debate.


----------



## mattypatty (Jun 26, 2006)

If the effects of global warming ARE real then i suppose I don't need a Scheel Keel afterall...

I don't believe what anybody tells me. I have to do my own research.. _Especially _when it comes to "loose wimmin" and coldbeer (it's an ongoing research project).

Speaking of coldbeer, who is Phyllis Godzilla? =P

Mat


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Actually, if you examine the SEC records, you'll find that Dick Cheney's pet Halliburton Corp. has some interesting long-term buy orders in for a number of ice cream companies, including Ben & Jerry's, Haagen-Daas, Breyers, and similar positions on dairy companies with a big ice cream market position like Borden's and Hood.

And, long-term options to purchase huge tracts of land that are now considered too unsuitable (cold, etc.) for dairy farming.

It's fairly obvious that that the Republicans are intentionally trying to heat up the globe so they can make a killing in the global ICE CREAM MARKET twenty years from now.

Which is not to say the Republicans are the cause of all this, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi own major stock shares in a holding company conglomerate that owns a corporation that manufactures solar powered ice cream trucks!

CD-
Why, you thought someone could just make this stuff up? <WEG>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Matt,

GO read the Australia post... Nazi's. Here is the link:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruising/28671-cruising-australia-customs-nazis-here.html

It did not teach me much about Australia or immigration, but I can say I did learn one thing:

DON'T SCREW WITH PHYLLIS!! BE NICE TO PHYLLIS.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

AHHH!! You see PB!! Hello proved it. HELLO PROVED IT!! DIscussion is over. My mind is made up. Admit it PB, the fact have been presented and you are WRONG!! 

- CD

PS Hello, if you could have just come out and said this in the second thread, this whole debate would have been over. Geez, get with the progam.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Ok, since Cam is not watching, can I throw out another thing I read today:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250710,00.html

Now I wonder how that makes the Jews feel? You cannot print a picture of Mohammad without them going ape-crap, rioting, killing each other, etc... and they put this thing across the wire.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CD - though I am not always right, I'm never wrong <G>.


----------



## mattypatty (Jun 26, 2006)

I presume that by "more fun than" you mean "more comprehensive than." Hopefully it wasn't "more of a white supremacist than." LOL!

The global warming thing started smelling like a global money grab so I had to dig a little deeper. If anybody reads any of my other (serious) entries they will find that I'm something of a libertarian.

I love reading sailnet and have found so much great help and info regarding boats and I am glad to see that the debate here is civil and light (although I did skip pages 14 through 37 so I may be wrong there). My blog is just me editorializing to whoever is interested. Right now that's about 3 close friends and the occasional random who stumbles in.

At any rate, when all of the aspects of the global warming issue are simplified and viewed together there are a lot of things that don't add up (to me). I took everything to their logical (to me) extremes and out the other end I found global socialism (something I am not keen on seeing in my lifetime). But I'm just one nerd and my opinion is just that, my opinion.

I just don't want harsh regulations and policies instituted based on _incomplete_ science. I think we all lose. People who say that we should do something anyway "just in case" I don't think are considering that the goal of mitigating global warming is ultimately ostensibly to ease human suffering and facilitate prosperity and the measures proposed to achieve these goals will accomplish just the opposite. At minimum, we'll depress the US economy with excessive price controls and restrictions of personal freedoms (wonder how many pollutants or greenhouse emissions are released in laying up a GRP hull?). Our economy is the pole that holds up the world economy tent. We fall, the whole thing comes down.

I don't think that's a good way to go.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

Matty ... Bob ran outta tags to put on folks a long time ago.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I wonder if it will skew the climate models when Iran lobs a nuke or two at Israel?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PB,

Didn't you hear ANYTHING the President of Iran had to say??!!! They are NOT building nuclear weapons. It is just a power plant that will not put out any power. Plus, Chirac is certain Iran will not use them (not that they are building them). The President of Iran told him so.

The idea. Once again, PB, you have totally missread the facts.

Hmph.

- CD


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I keep getting confused when he says they are going to obliterate Israel, wipe them off the map. Obviously, he's only joking, and I'm foolishly taking him at his word. Just because he says it *everytime he opens his freaking mouth.* Silly me! <G>


----------



## ccam (Dec 17, 2006)

Isreal is like a choking bulldog on the end of a chain and I think bush is fixing to let go of the other end. We just needed another carrier over there to mop up if they have any difficulty getting the job done. Of course I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on Israels f14's.


----------



## Hawkwind (Apr 25, 2006)

Hmmm, I had a question about global warming but the subject seems to have drifted. I read the first 20 pages of posts and skipped to the end so I'm sorry if I missed anything important.

For this question, let's assume that global warming is real and the oceans are rising. I sail in the great lakes and already have depth issues(Mouth of the Detroit River and Western Lake Erie) at times. Since the great lakes(other than Ontario) are about Niagra Falls height above the oceans, how does this affect me? Will the loss of Northern snow pack eventually drain my lake or will the rain keep it full or maybe even increase the depth, since the oceans will be rising?

I'm not overly concerned with the long term effects, I just want to know if I'll be running aground this summer.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Global Warming*

There is global warming going on. We know because we've been measuring it for the last 200 years or so. But it's not caused by man. Look at global history: 600 to 200 B.C. - A cold period that preceded the Roman Warming
200 B.C. to about A.D. 600: Roman Warming period
600 to 900: Dark Ages cold period
900 to 1300: Medieval Warming or the Little Climate Optimum period
1300 to 1850: The Little Ice Age
1850 to 1940: Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940
1940 to 1975: Cooling trend
1976 to 1978: Sudden Warming spurt
1979 to Present: A large disparity between surface thermometers, which show a fairly strong warming, and the independent temperature readings of satellites and balloons, which show little warming trend.
There is a strong correlation between climate change and solar activity.
To see why politicians have been making so much noise about global warming is that they need the perception of a catastrophe in order to gain power and redistribute wealth.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sailormon6... Excellent post...however this quote*
"The US Supreme Court has long held that any treaty that is ratified by the United States is fully binding on the US, even if it would otherwise be regarded as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of US citizens."

....*was a bit of a surprise to me as I am unaware of the ability of the Senate to ratify a treaty that would say... strip me of my right to criticize another country if that were part of a treaty..... Can you please cite the case which allows the senate to ratify something that would abridge my constitutional rights?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam, the Senate can ratify anything. Pass anything. Do anything they damn well please.

That doesn't mean it would bind We The People, it just means we'd have to roll up our copies of the second amendment and beat them to death with it.

As the late Mr. Washington said, the only thing more frightening than the prospect of needing to thrown down our government AGAIN, would be the need to do so without arms. 

Ain't pretty, but that's what the second amendment is about. Like restricting the vote to white landowning men, there was no question how it was meant when it was written.


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

Hellosailor,

Loved the Global Ice Cream Market. Damn, why didn't i think of that? Proves that Cheney is still thinking!

The country is working on a more bi-partisan approach now. In fact, they have agreed on the first bi-partisan bumper sticker.

RUN HILLARY RUN.

The Democrats put in on the back bumper, the Republicans put it on the front. Hows that for working together?


----------



## 6string (Oct 19, 2006)

I live where glaciers used to exist. SE Wisconsin. There are kettles and moraines that they left thousands of years ago. The lake I live on was created by them. 

Seems to me that there has been global warming for a very long time without man doing anything to create it other than an occasional fire to keep us warm when it is -16F as it has been multiple times this week.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

CD- that's only half of it. GWB wants Iran to have nuclear weapons (well, just like Saddam had WMD) because that gives him the RIGHT and DUTY to invade, and take their oil. These namby-pamby negotiation things never got your fuel tank full.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

ccam said:


> Isreal is like a choking bulldog on the end of a chain and I think bush is fixing to let go of the other end.


... and I thought it was the other way round.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens said:


> CD- that's only half of it. GWB wants Iran to have nuclear weapons (well, just like Saddam had WMD) because that gives him the RIGHT and DUTY to invade, and take their oil. These namby-pamby negotiation things never got your fuel tank full.


Let's see if I have this right.

Iran is a peace-loving country that needs nuclear weapons to protect itself against the war-mongering US, but if they get those weapons the US will then have a reason to invade them. And this is so we can have their oil, which we don't have the capacity to refine in the first place.

Well, I guess in some perverse way that makes sense. One thing that you will get far more consensus on than global warming though, is the effect of nuclear fallout.

Now, perhaps it doesn't worry you about fanatics having such weapons. Fanatics that have shown they are willing to die to further their jihad. Fanatics whose primary method of waging their jihad is the targeting of civilian populations, including their own people. But it scares the crap out of me.

By word and deed, they have shown they will not be satisfied until Israel ceases to exist. Could you explain to me where the basis for negotiation lies there?


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

> ...I am unaware of the ability of the Senate to ratify a treaty that would say... strip me of my right to criticize another country if that were part of a treaty..... Can you please cite the case which allows the senate to ratify something that would abridge my constitutional rights?


Cam, in *Missouri v. Holland*, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. The case revolved around the constitutionality of implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Prior to the Holland case, Congress had passed laws regulating the hunting of migratory waterfowl, but several states objected to this theory and successfully sued to have those laws declared unconstitutional, on the premise that the United States Constitution gave Congress no enumerated power to regulate migratory bird hunting, and hence the regulation of such hunting, if there was to be any, was the province of the states according to the Tenth Amendment. In other words, the right to regulate hunting was conferred on the states by the constitution, and the federal government had no power to enact such laws.

At that time, the United Kingdom was still responsible for negotiating treaties on behalf of Canada, so, the US negotiated a treaty with the United Kingdom, and, under the authority conferred by that treaty, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which regulated migratory bird hunting (virtually the same law which had previously been declared unconstitutional).

The state of Missouri then sued on the basis that the federal government had no authority to negotiate a treaty on this topic. In an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the Supreme Court held that the law was in fact constitutional, noting that the treaties clause of the Constitution (Article VI, clause 2), sometimes known as the "supremacy clause," makes treaties the "supreme law of the land," co-equal in status to the Constitution itself, a finding that trumps any state concern with regard to the provisions of any treaty, and further implying that treaty provisions were not subject to questioning by the states under the process of judicial review.

This ruling was regarded by many as allowing Congress or the President to, in effect, amend the Constitution by the means of treaties with other countries that would abrogate the rights of the people or the States otherwise protected by the US Constitution and laws. The Bricker Amendments were proposed in the 1950s, to assure that could not happen, but they failed to pass Congress with the required two-thirds majority.

If a treaty is regarded as co-equal to the constitution, then neither is supreme over the other. But the supreme court has already said that the federal government, under the authority of a treaty, can exercise powers that are denied to it under the constitution.

In short, we're sailing in uncharted waters here, because we don't know for sure how far the supreme court is willing to expand this concept, but history tells us that the supreme court is generally much more inclined to expand the powers of the federal government than to limit them.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

tommyt said:


> The country is working on a more bi-partisan approach now. In fact, they have agreed on the first bi-partisan bumper sticker.
> 
> RUN HILLARY RUN.
> 
> The Democrats put in on the back bumper, the Republicans put it on the front. Hows that for working together?


Now that is funny!!!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sailormon...thanks for the detailed explanation. I do however thank that the supremacy clause has historically been used to expand the federal gov'ts power over the states (along with the commerce clause) and specifically in this case...it was about a treaty regulating hunting of migratory bids. So...I'm not gonna get all upset about a single decision 90 years ago that "could possibly" be used by some court in the future to justify the abridgement of individual liberties. Apparently several other cases (Seery v. United States and Reid v. Covert) during the 50's actually implemented some of the protections sought by the Bricker amendment. 
I find the continued fed encroachment on state rights over time and the stretching of constitutional meaning to be a real problem, but I am unconvinced that the Missouri vs. Holland case threatens my individual liberties. Rather I think it is much more about fed vs. state power which has been a continuing struggle for 250 years. 
Thanks again for a very interesting exposition...you may ultimately be right about the implications of the case...but I am not much concerned.I enjoyed digging into it further!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PB,

Anyone that thinks Iran having Nukes will be allright is absolutely insane. But I really do not think we will ever have to worry about it. My feeling is that it is a game of chess. They just want to try and make the world give them a bunch of concessions and free lunches AND they want to drum up hatred in the stomach of the very youg (and unemployed) Iranians that are out of work and hungry. Nice old Nazi trick, used very well by Hitler: If you can't fill their stomach with food, fill their head with lies and hatred.

Quite candidaly, do you think for one second that Iran is REALLY going to get a nuke??? Seriously??? Mark my words, Israel will bomb them into the stone ages before they let that happen. Iran knows that too. Just a game of cat and mouse. Plus, if you can screw up things in Iraq bad enough (no matter what barbaric means you use), you sideline and prolong any chance of the US getting directly involved. Still, I don't think Israel needs us. Adn I agree that the US is the only thing that has held them back from: Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CD - I'm not so much worried about them building one, as I am of them buying one. Or maybe the French just giving them a few. <G>

The larger point is, they are still a bunch of fanatics who have shown, repeatedly, they have no regard for anyone or anything but their own fanaticism. And that is scary to me.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Let's see if I have this right.
> 
> Iran is a peace-loving country that needs nuclear weapons to protect itself against the war-mongering US, but if they get those weapons the US will then have a reason to invade them. And this is so we can have their oil, which we don't have the capacity to refine in the first place.
> 
> ...


PB - may I paraphrase that a bit?

>> The USA is a peace-loving country that needs nuclear weapons to protect itself against the war-mongering other countries, and as the USA has those weapons, the idea of being invaded by the US is pretty scarery. Those other countries better sell their oil at reasonable prices, and refine it if required.

Now, perhaps it doesn't worry you about the USA having such weapons. The USA has shown they are willing to die to further their freedom. The USA's primary method of waging their fight for freedom is the targeting of civilian populations, including their own people. But it scares the crap out of me.

By word and deed, the USA have shown they will not be satisfied until Israel (a state created by a US backed invasion) is recognised to exist. Could you explain to me where the basis for negotiation lies there? <<

Not that I endorse this view, but in the Arab/Persian world, it is often the accepted one.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh, this is going to get interesting...


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - nice bit of deconstruction, though it unfortunately doesn't quite jibe with history, nor reality. While anyone is entitled to their own perspective of events, past, present and future, any group of people that can deny the concentration camps of Germany and their purpose, is inherently suspect as to their ablity to deal with reality.

Whether you agree or disagree with their perception, you give the appearance of accepting it as a rationalization for their behaviour. A behaviour in defiance of "world consensus" (ie: one UN resolution already, and more to follow as they ignore them) and the accepted norms of civilized behaviour, to wit, the murder of innocent civilians.

Perhaps you could cite me some examples where the US has not, first tried negotation? Where they have acted, unilaterly, without prior warning, in the Middle East? Where they have *targeted* civilians outside of areas of armed conflict?

No, if a fanatic, that shows he has no moral compunctions tells me he wants to see a world without me in it, then I don't really give a damn what his "perception" is. I just make sure he doesn't succeed. If you think it's any more complex than that, that's certainly your perogotive.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> ... any group of people that can deny the concentration camps of Germany and their purpose, is inherently suspect as to their ablity to deal with reality.


I'm with you there. Iran has been ruled by strange people ever since the Shah was deposed (now who supported him?)



PBzeer said:


> ... Whether you agree or disagree with their perception, you give the appearance of accepting it as a rationalization for their behaviour.


I disagree with their perception, but I do understand why they have it.



PBzeer said:


> ... A behaviour in defiance of "world consensus" (ie: one UN resolution already, and more to follow as they ignore them)


Invading Iraq was without "world consensus" or a UN resolution.



PBzeer said:


> ... and the accepted norms of civilized behaviour, to wit, the murder of innocent civilians.


With almost every US bomb that falls (pity about the collateral damage)



PBzeer said:


> ... Perhaps you could cite me some examples where the US has not, first tried negotation?


Iraq, the US got impatient and refused to believe that they had no WMD.

Watch Iran. The UN and EU are trying negotiation. Condi is not keen.

Of course it depends what you mean by negotiation. Does threatening count?



PBzeer said:


> ... Where they have *targeted* civilians outside of areas of armed conflict?


So once the US designates an area as being of armed conflict, killing non-US civilians is OK?



PBzeer said:


> ... No, if a fanatic, that shows he has no moral compunctions tells me he wants to see a world without me in it, then I don't really give a damn what his "perception" is. I just make sure he doesn't succeed. If you think it's any more complex than that, that's certainly your perogotive.


Now, you are not talking about GWB are you?


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

I know that it is said by some that Reid v. Covert and Seery v. United States have ameliorated the Holland decision to some extent, and achieved some of the concerns that prompted the Congress to consider the Bricker Amendments, but the assurance that those cases offer is ethereal. Reid v. Covert is distinguishable from the Holland case, because the Reed case involved a treaty that was adopted pursuant to an Executive Agreement, and not one which was ratified by Congress. A treaty that is ratified by Congress is accorded far greater dignity than one created by executive agreement. Seery v. United States is a Court of Claims case, not a Supreme Court case, and it cannot be safely relied upon in deciding whether or not to bind ourselves to a treaty that is of such enormous significance as Kyoto. I don't have access to a Shepard's citator at the moment, and can't say for sure, but don't believe Missouri v. Holland has been overruled. Assuming that's true, it's still good law. We'd have to be crazy to ignore the clear language of a valid US Supreme Court decision, written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, that hasn't been overruled.

By the way, thanks for giving me a reason to do a little legal writing and research. I haven't had that pleasure since I retired, about four years ago. It's nice to know I can still think thoughts more complicated than the daily crossword puzzle! 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to catch up on the debate between PB and Idiens. It's really getting good!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

CD-
"Quite candidaly, do you think for one second that Iran is REALLY going to get a nuke??? Seriously??? Mark my words, Israel will bomb them into the stone ages before they let that happen. "
Didn't the Israelis launch a preemptive strike taking out the Iraqi (Iranian??)reactor around 1988(?) to do exactly that? They took a lot of political criticism over that but with changing times I suspect they might be unable to do it again.
What Dubyah seems to have forgotten is the unsubstantiated Israeli nuclear launch policy, i.e. there are many who believe Israel has had a nuclear strike capability since the 60's, and that the formal policy is that the weapons will not be launched until or unless Israel is being pushe into the sea. And, that Jimmy Carter got a very candid phone call during the Yom Kippur War telling him the strike was being authorized--which is why he called Egypt and arranged a truce.

Back then no one in Israel ever saw the breeder reactor at Dimona. You'd drive past and wink and point to the "orange grove". Orange groves and reactor containment buildings, of course, being SO easily confused. [sic]

The problem being, Dubyah is Born Again and he just might welcome the start of Armeggedon, which is prophecied to start in the Megiddo Pass, in Israel. If he lets Iran strike, Israel will strike back, the ******** all get to be martyrs and go visit Allah, and Dubyah gets to be saved as the world ends. Sounds like a good deal for too many of the participants, a little rough on the minority though.

Would make a great bonus for American coal companies though, since most of the oil in the middle east would be, ah, temporarily unavailable until the radiation dropped down. (Halliburton got any technology for removing radioactive materials from crude oil?)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Idiens said:


> Invading Iraq was without "world consensus" or a UN resolution.


There were a number of UN resolutions against Iraq. If Iraq did not comply then it was grounds for attack. Of course, Sadaam would push the limit of the UN and over time he would concede to the resolutions. Remember when the inspectors finally got to go back in, but after they got withdrawn because of Sadaam?

The only UN resolution that many wanted to see was a resolution to invade Iraq. But I refer you back again to the many against Iraq that stated just that. But how quickly the UN backs down time and again.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hello,

Regarding the reactor, yes, they did a preemptive. They would do it again. Iran has been quite a bit smarter and learned from the Iraq mistake of all their eggs in one basket. But, after the comments made from Iran, their support in Hezbollah (and undoubtedly other areas), there is no doubt in my mind that will never let Iran have a nuke. I honestly do not believe that any of the leadership there is insane enough to launch one... but I do doubt there ability (or interest) to keep it out of the hands of radicals that could care less (or more, depending on the definition).

Truth is, I don't think the US will let them have one either, for the same reason. I don't care if you GWB or Hillary Clinton or Giulliani, when it comes to a regime like that having nukes, they will make a tough decision with the "UN" on board or not.

Just my guess. I am not a politician.

- CD


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Well Idiens, since you sidestepped the question on rationalization, I'll just skip that one for now. Moving right along though, what does Iraq have to do with whether there are negotiations about Iran? Aside from the fact they had ignored every UN resolutions since Bush Senior was president, which is just what Iran will do. Personally, I could give a hoot about world consensus. I merely used it because you seem so fond of it, vis-a-vis the gw thing.

You blithely dodge that I had already stated the *targeting *of civilians earlier in the post and instead, use it in the broader context of any civilian casualties. Ignoring the fact that the US has gone out of their way to minimize such casualties, unlike the brave "freedom fighters" who routinely target civilians.

The reason appeasement failed with Hilter, is that the people of Europe refused to believe that he was evil, and would carry out what he said he would do. Now, Europe once again refuses to accept evil is loose, and instead, as you so cavalierly imply, it is Bush who is evil. Sorry, I ain't buying that.

Was it the people in the US who danced in the streets when Baghdad fell, as they did in the Arab world when the Twin Towers came down. It isn't Americans who go around killing writers who disagree with them. Nor is it Americans who DEMAND tolerance of their beliefs, under the threat of death, while mocking those of others.

So don't try to tell me the world is less safe because of GB. If you think this jihad violence will stop if we would leave Iraq, or even abandon Israel, then you accept that there is no such thing as evil in the world.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

John-
"what does Iraq have to do with whether there are negotiations about Iran? "
What they have to do with each other, is that Iran and Iraq are the same thing. Not two nations, but two partitions drawn on the same map by the same hand, splitting up the same tribal lands. And as such, doomed to failure from the moment the map was drawn. Very much like the other British or League of Nations "Partition" solutions.

Treating Iran and Iraq as problems is at best moronic. Realizing that the issue is Shia and Sunni and tribal warfare, is the only rational approach. Or as T.E.Lawrence remarked, "squabbling children in the desert" who will never be great until they learn to stop fighting among themselves. If then.


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Invading Iraq was without "world consensus" or a UN resolution.
> 
> With almost every US bomb that falls (pity about the collateral damage)


Well, I need to say one thing here. If the United States of America was such a bad place and disliked the world over then please tell me why we have so many people trying the get in (some of them legally even) and very few leaving? Any why when there is a disaster of sorts (Typhoons, mudslides etc, etc) or a monster killing people somewhere (Saddam killing the Kurds come to mind) why is my country called to put out the fires or regimes put down? Granted a lot goes on behind closed doors, such as the way wars are fought and I do not know all of the ins and outs. That is well beyond my pay grade. We all just have to keep the faith sometimes. I am just a simple soldier that's just the way it is. And I told you a million times Idiens quit exaggerating.

Jerry


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

chris9matt0 said:


> There were a number of UN resolutions against Iraq. If Iraq did not comply then it was grounds for attack.


That is exactly where a lot of the world disagrees with the coalition of the willing. Formally, Iraq did comply with the final resolutions, the Iraq's produced their 7000 page report explaining why they didn't have WMD. The UN inspectors could not find WMD. Saddam got pissed with the US inspectors on the UN team wanting to look in his private toilet for WMD and behaving entirely like the spies they were (and later admitted to be). - and for that, the US attacked Iraq? 
Note that Iraq was not attacked, at the time, because Saddam was a nasty critter - the US put him up to, and supported him, in fighting a 25 year war with Iran, during which time he did a lot of nasty things the US didn't care about.

Motto: Shoot first and ask questions later - if you don't like the answers, shoot the prisoner.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Um, Cam, not that you are reading this anymore, but I think Iran has implemented a new Spy called Diseducation and he is posting on the thread that is going to solve global warming, Iran, Iraq, Corporate CEO overpayments, and who knows what else.

- CD

You know, in the histroy of the internet, has anyone ever actually clicked on one of those things??? I don't undersatnd why these people even have jobs (if that is the right word).


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PB - Unlike the US and other, Iran does not have a veto on the security council, so no resolutions against the US ever get through. Many in the Arab world regard this as unjust.

A lot of the world puts faith in consensus and many see it as part of democracy. Global consensus not to mess up the planet too much is probably the only way to stop it being messed up.

Sorry I missed giving an example of the US targeting civilians. I was in the USA when the first "pre-emptive" "shock and awe" attack occurred on Baghdad. It was aimed at a head of state and hit his palace. I guess you would regard all his family and staff as being soldiers rather than civilians and the attack itself was the declaration of war, so I guess it became an area of conflict. Coincidentally, I was also in the US much earlier, when an attack was made on a Libyan palace, killing a 4 year old girl. Then there was that Aspirin factory in Sudan. I wonder if the night watchman's family ever got an apology. In these cases, the Americans around me were delighted to see their government taking violent action. But no, they were not dancing in the streets when Baghdad fell - that's usually reserved for the return of the victorious troops.

I have never understood why a 3000lb bomb is needed to do what a bullet might better achieve and why it is claimed that 3000lb bombs are used to minimise civilian casualties. A lot have been dropped in Iraq and elsewhere. 
Why is a US bomb only creating collateral damage but someone so frustrated, that he is prepared to kill himself and others, is a terrorist? Both claim to be fighting for freedom. Surely the killing is wrong in both cases and not just in one.

I am not sure if Hitler is a good example to bring in. The US waited, on Kennedy's advice, until it was clear that the Brits had won the "Battle of Britain", not to mention Pearl Harbour, before joining in. Still with 20:20 hindsight, it might have been good to have got rid of Hitler a lot earlier. The timing would need to have been good to change history though. The Germans at the time were frustrated at the injustice of WWI reparations, so maybe they would have found another leader. Then, the Allies having rid them of their most popular leader in their short national history, they might have been even more resolute. Anyway, all Europe is still grateful to the USA for winning that war.

Yes, I will tell you that the western world is a lot less safe than before GWB invaded Iraq. Because it certainly is. Afghanistan was risky enough, Iraq a step too far. Nor does the US need to abandon Israel, but it should not abandon Palestine either.

Evil in the world - no. Evil is of our making.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Well Idiens, it would appear you are a charter memeber of the "Everything is the US's Fault" club. In as much as everything that is said or done by the US, is devious, dishonest, or otherwise nefarious, whilst those who preach the gospel of hate and intolerance against all but true believers are pure of thought and deed. I can see why you would rather deal with the ambiguities of global warming.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Jerry - I guess you know the answers to your questions, so I won't answer them. I will say that being the tough guy on the block is difficult. You are not likely to be loved, but you might be respected. But not if you bully.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PB- there are usually at least two sides to any issue. Much as I admire America and Americans, I can't help teasing them about their belief that all that is US is perfect and the rest is rotten. Believe me, there are even nice people in Iran.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

It's not the people I worry about Idiens, it's the leaders of those people. It might come as news to you, but I've never met anyone that thought our country was perfect.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Unlike the US and other, Iran does not have a veto on the security council, so no resolutions against the US ever get through. Many in the Arab world regard this as unjust. 
Perhaps if Iran tried to work towards something positive like the creation of the UN/League of Nations, acted like a civilized country, quite threatning to destroy its neighbors, and funding terrorist, it could. By the way, Iran has existed much longer than the US, they could have taken the initive and set up the UN long before we did it.

A lot of the world puts faith in consensus and many see it as part of democracy. Global consensus not to mess up the planet too much is probably the only way to stop it being messed up.
"Consensus is the absense of leadership" - Margarett Thatcher

Sorry I missed giving an example of the US targeting civilians. I was in the USA when the first "pre-emptive" "shock and awe" attack occurred on Baghdad. It was aimed at a head of state and hit his palace. I guess you would regard all his family and staff as being soldiers rather than civilians and the attack itself was the declaration of war, so I guess it became an area of conflict. Coincidentally, I was also in the US much earlier, when an attack was made on a Libyan palace, killing a 4 year old girl. Then there was that Aspirin factory in Sudan. I wonder if the night watchman's family ever got an apology. In these cases, the Americans around me were delighted to see their government taking violent action. But no, they were not dancing in the streets when Baghdad fell - that's usually reserved for the return of the victorious troops.
All targeted ONLY at military targets with an accuracy and precision that has not and cannot be matched by any other country in the history of man. I agree that collateral damage is a shame and should be as limited as is humanly possible, and it is.

I have never understood why a 3000lb bomb is needed to do what a bullet might better achieve and why it is claimed that 3000lb bombs are used to minimise civilian casualties. A lot have been dropped in Iraq and elsewhere. 
Why is a US bomb only creating collateral damage but someone so frustrated, that he is prepared to kill himself and others, is a terrorist? Both claim to be fighting for freedom. Surely the killing is wrong in both cases and not just in one.
This is why neither you or I are teaching in a war college somewhere.

I am not sure if Hitler is a good example to bring in. The US waited, on Kennedy's advice, until it was clear that the Brits had won the "Battle of Britain", not to mention Pearl Harbour, before joining in. Still with 20:20 hindsight, it might have been good to have got rid of Hitler a lot earlier. The timing would need to have been good to change history though. The Germans at the time were frustrated at the injustice of WWI reparations, so maybe they would have found another leader. Then, the Allies having rid them of their most popular leader in their short national history, they might have been even more resolute. Anyway, all Europe is still grateful to the USA for winning that war.

Yes, I will tell you that the western world is a lot less safe than before GWB invaded Iraq. Because it certainly is. Afghanistan was risky enough, Iraq a step too far. Nor does the US need to abandon Israel, but it should not abandon Palestine either.
I don't recall any new terrorist attacks on the US since it began. The US is one of the few countries making any steps to make Palestine even exist.
Evil in the world - no. Evil is of our making.
Evil has existed since the beginning of time. The US is only 230 years old.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Let's review.

About 3000 innocent people were killed on a morning in September in New York alone by a foreign political party (radical Islam), and that result was cheered by lots of people in and out of the Middle East. Put yourself in the place of those in the top floors of the WTC. Think about their choice of burning to death or jumping to death. How would you have chosen?

The United States has undertaken to subvert that enemy political party by frustrating its objective of ruling every nation in the area and keeping them busy at locations remote from the continental U. S.

The members of this particular political party have sworn to fight us (and everyone who will not acquiesce to domination by them and their despicable Sharia law) to the death. There is nothing they will not do to carry out their Jihad. Dealing with them is limited to either armed combat or surrender. This enemy accepts no alternatives. They laugh at "consensus" and they laugh (justifiably) at the U. N.

Say what you want about the United States, it is and has been the leading nation in taking the fight to these vermin and has borne most of the cost to defend Western culture. My chief complaint about U. S. policy is that American fighting forces are crippled by political correctness to the point where our enemy gets a free first shot at them.

Idlens says that our forces "target civilians". That charge is outrageous. Many of the casualties suffered by American forces are the direct result of extraordinary efforts on their part to prevent such things. That is a fact that our enemy knows and exploits. _Show me another army in the history of the world that has taken such extraordinary measures to avoid injury to innocents, even when those measures subject its soldiers, sailors, and Marines to added peril._

It is a "them or us" deal, folks. Those who prefer surrender should brush up on how dhimmitude works. BTW, you will be called upon to play the part of the dhimmi.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Bin Laden said there is one major difference between the Americans and us (meaning those against Americans). They (Americans, etc) love life. We love death. To those who rail against America's efforts, I say sleep well,.................while you can.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Bob-
"I don't recall any new terrorist attacks on the US since it began. " 
A lot of news in the US is not being repressed, something even scarier is happening. The news is simply not being reported by the media. There have been a number of incidents on airliners that have gone unreported, except for tiny arrest notes buried in federal web sites or not picked up outside of local news. Things like a man arrested by air marshals (two years ago) while removing the mirror from a forward head on a 747 in order to gain entry to the cockpit.
Or, you may remember the ferry incident where a carload of explosives was being brought into the US in Seattle a few years ago.

There's been a lot of FUD, and some documentation about plans caught and aborted, but basically no one is talking about anything. Neither the Fed, nor the Nooze.

Remember this summer when an airport in West Virginia was shut down all day because a Pakistani woman flying to Detroit was caught with two bottles that tested positive twice for liquid explosives? Right after the big ruckus about liquids being banned and Ipods being confiscated in London? It happened on a Wednesday, I think. Made major news all over the country, proved that a Paki really was using liquid explosives and the bans were all vital and justified.
Except...there was no followup anywhere in the country on the national nooze. By the following Monday I had written to the TSA asking what the outcome was--and I still haven't received a reply. But, I did find a tiny article buried in a second-city newspaper confirming that FBI testing on the following day (the day after the incident) had produced NO TRACES OF ANY EXPLOSIVES and that no terrorist connections had been found.
In other words, the entire system screwed up on a false positive and our own government didn't even have the courtesy to tell us, they preferred for us to think we had all be Saved Once Again. Even if it wasn't true.

As long as we keep promoting FUD as the official policy (as both parties seem to enjoy, since it is a good election ploy) the terrorists HAVE WON. They don't need to blow anything else up here, all they need to do is sit intheir caves and laugh their asses off, while we terrorize ourselves and ignore the real problems.

Heck, if my shoes have to be xrayed, I'd at least like them to be shined while my feet are being washed and massaged. 

"Many in the Arab world regard this as unjust. " Yeah, well, if they'd wise up and convert to any one of a dozen Eastern religions they'd realize that life is suffering, stop complaining and get over it. That's what happens when you worship false gods, your whole life gets screwed up.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Idiens:
I found some interesting stats on Islam in Belgium in an effort to understand your various postings railing gainst GWB and Iraq/Iran policy:

*One quarter* of Brusselians under 20 years are of 'Muslim origin', and in 2002 in the region of Brussels the most popular names given to babies were Mohammed and Sarah.
According to the OECD, the *foreign-born have unemployment rates more than twice that of indigenous Belgians.* *Housing*
ALARM (Action pour le logement accessible aux réfugiés à Molenbeek) ran a survey on housing showing substantial bias against asylum seekers in searching for housing. 40% of North Africans reported being victims of housing discrimination (ECRI Report on Belgium, 2003).

I also find it interesting that the Belgian government actually pays for Muslim education in the schools and the salaries and benefits of Muslim clerics. (As it does for ALL religions). Though given what is being said in the mosques...one might say you are funding your own enemies.

Seems to me that YOU are a lot more vulnerable to Muslim extremeism AND societal upheaval than we are. If you think that talking to these fanatics is the solution you are simply deluded and those chickens will come home to roost on your own soil where the seeds are being sowed today.

The famous Belgian liberal society and tolerant attitude will be put to the test by the new generation of home grown radicals. They are the new Brussel sprouts!


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

TC - I haven't counted, but I hear on CNN that more Americans have been killed since 911 than were killed by 911. There were no Iraqi's involved in 911 but they have suffered the greatest losses since then and because of it. Soon there will have been more Iraqi's killed under US administration that Saddam managed in many long years. I guess it depends on how you want to measure world safety. Is it only measured in number of American lives lost?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens, it's Iraqis and imported terrorists that are killing most of the Iraqis, not the US. Nice to know you get your info from CNN though, great network. Thought their coverage of the death of Anna Nicole Smith was top notch. Certainly worthy of the "breaking news" status they gave it.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

GNB - The political party you refer to was even given its name by the USA and is projected by the USA as a world movement. When actually it is individuals and small groups that only partially share a common aim. Think about asking yourself: "Under what circumstances would you adopt their tactics?" It may be they find themselves under similar circumstances. Something drives them to acts of terror. The western world will not "win the war on terror" by failing to understand what is motivating terrorists. I think Jihad means "righteous struggle". So maybe injustice has something to do with it.

Military is non-civilian. Soldiers are in uniform, work for a government and proudly carry arms to defend their country. Civilians are everyone else, including the politicians. Since GWB declared he had won the war in Iraq, everyone in Iraq became civilians, the Iraqi military were stripped of uniforms, incomes and pride. Since then everyone targeted has been civilian. That's uncomfortable, so the allies have named Iraqi's something else when fired at, like insurgents. So now they are not civilian targets, they are insurgents. So you can rightly claim that the US is not targeting civilians. The US has also invented a new class of human being, called a non-combatant. This type has no rights at all, neither civil nor military. An injustice that will haunt America for a long time to come.

I think the US forces did a remarkable job of winning the war with minimum casualties. Snag is, soldiers are not good for keeping peace. A justice system is needed and what Iraq had was removed and nothing adequate has been put in its place. That was not a military decision, made by soldiers, but a political one, made by civilians. I think it was the point where the whole thing started to turn sour.



Goodnewsboy said:


> It is a "them or us" deal, folks. Those who prefer surrender should brush up on how dhimmitude works. BTW, you will be called upon to play the part of the dhimmi.


 I haven't seen that word before. But as far as "them or us" is concerned, it sounds fairly biblical.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> Idiens: Seems to me that YOU are a lot more vulnerable to Muslim extremeism AND societal upheaval than we are. If you think that talking to these fanatics is the solution you are simply deluded and those chickens will come home to roost on your own soil where the seeds are being sowed today.


You are right. But little Belgium, or Spain, or Italy, or even the UK are not in a position to go invade other countries when something nasty happens here. Europeans even have the embarrassment that any terrorist activity is likely to be home-grown. Consequently, Belgium has to adopt other tactics. Trying to understand the real causes may help find an alternative and more peaceful approach.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"I think Jihad means “righteous struggle”. So maybe injustice has something to do with it."
In US English we usually translate it as "Holy War". But it has nthing to do with injustice. It is simply classic Machiavellian politics, those in power keep the poor in poverty by proclaiming the cause of all evil is some infidel and decalring holy war, which then becomes the justification for everything and along the way, ensures that the poor do not overthrow their rulers. Much less blame the rulers for keeping them in poverty.

This game is not unique to the Middle East but it is well documented and it has been played by the rulers in the Middle East for centuries. Hitler played it very well, too.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Hellosailor -
I think we need to clarify something, I'm not Bob. "T34C" and "Tartan34C" are two different people. Although, Bob has the second best boat on this site!

I wouldn't expect that reply from the NTSB unless you have REALLY good security clearance. And I for one don't mind taking my shoes off at the airport if it might mean my family and I are more likely to live through the flight.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Idiens said:


> TC - I haven't counted, but I hear on CNN that more Americans have been killed since 911 than were killed by 911. There were no Iraqi's involved in 911 but they have suffered the greatest losses since then and because of it. Soon there will have been more Iraqi's killed under US administration that Saddam managed in many long years. I guess it depends on how you want to measure world safety. Is it only measured in number of American lives lost?


I think there are a few other stats from last year you may have missed. More US soldiers were killed last year in motorcycle wrecks than in Iraq. More children were injured from riding in shopping carts than injured in Iraq. It alway helps to put things into perspective.

As for Belgium trying something different, how did all that understanding and passivity work out for you in WW II? I think the invasion took what, 10 min. about what it will take the next time too.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I just saw on the news that Al Gore and Virgin Airlines are teaming up to come up with ways to decrease greenhouse gasses. WELL, Seeing that the average transport jet spews over 10,000 lbs of polutants into the atmosphere per hour, and Gore flys on a chartered jet (MD11?), Suggest all the airlines cut their routes by 50%, and Gore shut up and walk.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Or to put it another way. It is hard to deal peacefully with someone who sees it as a weakness, and not an effort of good will.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

T34C _and _Bob-
Sorry, you both look alike from here.<G>

"I wouldn't expect that reply from the NTSB unless you have REALLY good security clearance." Why not? They have an obligation to tell the public what they have done, and we can get the information by filing a FOIA request to mandate it. The fact that they did not issue a follow-up just means they are trying to cover up their failure and embarassment, and the public cannot vote for real security issues without knowing the ones that have and are failing to perform.

I wouldn't mind taking my shoes off either--if it accomplished anything. But let me put it in perspective for you. As I now fly, with what I am now allowed to fly with, I still fly with weapons. And, there are more available to me aboard the aircraft. Ask any prison warden to show you the collection of confiscated improvised weapons and shivs, you'll have a new disrespect for airline security. Even worse, the US government published booklets in the 50's and 60's intended to teach freedom fighters around the world how to use these weapons to throw down regimes. "Oopsie."

So, do I think taking my shoes off and returning them unshined accomplishes anything at all? No, I do not. Like I told the nice lady at the ticket counter last time they asked me about my bags, "I don't want your planes, I don't like your planes, I have no place to park one of your planes. I just want to sleep while YOU fly the plane, the same way I have for every flight I've taken in the past xx years."

What happens when you safely disarm all the good guys on the plane? Flight93. Courageous, but not the best outcome.

Belgium being overwhelmed by the advance team for the New Caliphate? Could be karmic justice paying back the Belgian Congo. Kinda like the way all the far corners of the British Empire have been invading Britain in recent decades, pretty much destroying what it was.

Who says the universe has no sense of humor?!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I like your train of thought Ian. Perhaps they should bring back the clipper ships. Low impact, speedy (in their day at least), transport. I'm sure Algore and Branson both eschew limo's when on the ground and use something more envior-friendly for transportation, unlike all the celeberties that seem so fond of promoting the "cause".

PS: those two pictures of your's are downright dirty pool by the way <G>


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Speaking of low impact, am I the only one who wonders if the Nancy Pelosi story (what should we call it? JetGate? TravelGate?<G>) about wanting a plane that can take her non-stop from DC to CA is a bit odd?

Does anyone know if the USAF really has *nothing* in between the size of a 757 and a small corporate jet, suitable for shipping one CongressCritter cross-country without refueling?!

I'd just as soon send her across via USPS Parcel Post, but that's just me.<G>


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Come on, even UPS has some standards.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Would we have to poke holes in the box?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I think, from my reading, it's a question of what is available at the Air Wing there. Also, she is being given the same plane as the previous speaker, and the plane was only provided after 9/11 for security reasons (the Speaker of the House being 3rd in the line of succession (which if I was Bush or Cheney, would make me very nervous)). There was also mention that she wanted to be able to fly friends, family and other congress critters as well, which is not the purpose of providing the plane.

Of course, she ignores this part of it, and blames Bush, Rumsfield and who knows who else, because of her anti-war stance and/or her gender. The choice is whatever plays the best in the press.

On a somewhat related note, I found it interesting (revealing?) in the CNN story online at the first of the week, that they said the purpose of the "non-binding resolution" was to embarass Bush.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

You guys are so wrong. I have the inside scoop:

It was Arnold that shot down the whole plane idea. He wants to kep her out of California as much as possible!!!

By the way, should Nancy somehow become President, you will see this dad and his family take a four year sabbatical on our boat on some South Island. I just hope I can find a parking spot 'cause I think the whole country will be following suit!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I'd rather have her out of DC and in Cali. Hurray for gridlock, the best thing that can happen in Congress!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

She's another one who blames humans on the so called "global warming", and yet she wants a BIG jet. I'm sure that will help. 

The other thing I can't understand is why I can't get a good weather forecast for next week, and these people are predicting global warming in 50 years? Wasn't it supposed to be a new ice age a couple years ago? 

Maybe it is or maybe it isn't, I do know that the earth is getting too many people on it, and it will strike back somehow. And the politicians jumping on the bandwagon looks pathetic. Maybe they'll be the first to go?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Hey Ian...loooks like your hood ornament avatar is all ready for global warming! <lol>


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Ian-
"Wasn't it supposed to be a new ice age a couple years ago? " And you heard this from the same source that told you Pelosi wanted a "bigger" jet?

You may need to find a more reliable source of news. So far, no one has actually produced any express statements of what Pelosi asked for. And no one has commented on whether the USAF has any aircraft in between the size of a 757 (the scandal) and the short-range exec jet. There's been no news, only politics.

Of course Pelosi could have released the text of her request, but instead of doing that she called this petty revenge by the Pentagon because she's been against them in too many votes. One has to ask, if the broad had nothing to hide, why she was hiding it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Pelosi Jet*

She is only the Speaker of the House. Nothing special. Make her fly with other military personnel that fly from East to West on C9s. I'm sure none of the military personnel would even care. They might want to kick her out while in mid-air however.

* Disclaimer: This is of my own personnel view. The views expressed are not that of the military.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Ian-
> "Wasn't it supposed to be a new ice age a couple years ago? " And you heard this from the same source that told you Pelosi wanted a "bigger" jet?
> 
> You may need to find a more reliable source of news. So far, no one has actually produced any express statements of what Pelosi asked for. And no one has commented on whether the USAF has any aircraft in between the size of a 757 (the scandal) and the short-range exec jet. There's been no news, only politics.
> ...


I would think a recording of her voice saying she needed a big plane was pretty good evidence. God forbid she had to have a layover to refuel like the rest of us. I beleive the "short-range exec. jet" was a Gulfstream with 4000 mi range.

I don't begrudge her the security offered by the private plane, even though they assure us airports and commercial planes are safe, but to then try and force measures on the rest of us in the name of GW is pretty hypocritical.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

T34C...where is the voice recording? Pls. provide link. Everything I've been able to find sounds simply like she needed a plane to take her to the coast and that i had to be different than Hastert's due to the mileage involved. The rest seems to be at the choice of the military. 
For the record I think less of her than Hillary and in the face of global warming stuff this is pretty funny and hypocritical...nevertheless from what I've read it sounds more like typical government screw ups rather than demands for a larger plane.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

They are now saying that the House Sergeant at Arms requested the larger plane. Which if he did, why was she defending herself, instead of saying that in the first place? White House says it's much ado about nothing. They'd dig deeper, but there's the more important story on Anna Nicole Smith, so evidently they haven't got to it yet. <G>


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

And a little bit more about the sergeant at arms.......

"The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have the prerogative of selecting and nominating an individual for the post in their respective chambers. Their candidate must then be elected by majority vote of the full chamber, but this is usually a mere formality."

Which would tend to indicate that he is "her" man. Think what you will.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Cam- I think you are right. I heard it on the radio yesterday and the day before. (How the hell do I link to the radio?)

I think Pelosi killed Anna Nicole to get the heat off of herself!!!!! I think we may need special prosocuter to investigate the cover-up.


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

global warming is more a political agenda than reality...
We have only been collecting data for 40 years concerning global warming..
everything in weather happens in cycles...such as the AMO,the ENSO etc..etc..We also know the planet has been warm before(remember the dinosaurs?)their bones have been found in Canada and the Arctic..now did man do that?..NO.
Sure the planet is warming...but did man do it??I think not.Do we contribute to the latest warming cycle? maybe but only as much as 1%..


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Hey Ian...loooks like your hood ornament avatar is all ready for global warming! <lol>*

I'm ready, I really hate cold. Remember the figures on the bow of the old sailing ships, I got a live one that knows how to cook.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*She is only the Speaker of the House. Nothing special. Make her fly with other military personnel that fly from East to West on C9s. I'm sure none of the military personnel would even care. They might want to kick her out while in mid-air however.*

right on dude! But that's not what she wants, she wants private quarters for her and her guests, not a bunch of us smelly GI's. Have you looked at her eyes when she talks? She's ready for a breakdown, or too many lifts have pulled those eyes too far apart.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> "I think Jihad means "righteous struggle". So maybe injustice has something to do with it."
> In US English we usually translate it as "Holy War". But it has nthing to do with injustice. It is simply classic Machiavellian politics, those in power keep the poor in poverty by proclaiming the cause of all evil is some infidel and decalring holy war, which then becomes the justification for everything and along the way, ensures that the poor do not overthrow their rulers. Much less blame the rulers for keeping them in poverty.
> 
> This game is not unique to the Middle East but it is well documented and it has been played by the rulers in the Middle East for centuries. Hitler played it very well, too.


Look up Jihad in Wikipedia. We usually use the name Holy War as a synonym for Crusade.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

T34C said:


> I think there are a few other stats from last year you may have missed. More US soldiers were killed last year in motorcycle wrecks than in Iraq. More children were injured from riding in shopping carts than injured in Iraq. It alway helps to put things into perspective.
> 
> As for Belgium trying something different, how did all that understanding and passivity work out for you in WW II? I think the invasion took what, 10 min. about what it will take the next time too.


I gather in the US you also kill 30000 Americans and put 100000 in hospital each year, with handguns. That's more than we manage in Europe each year with automobiles. So I guess that always helps to put 911, or the numbers killed in Europe by terrorists, in perspective too.

After WWII, Belgium joined NATO and hosts its headquarters. Of course, alone, it could never stand up to a super power. NATO is formally a defensive organisation, which suits peace loving Belgium. Were it a tool for invading countries, not only Belgium would object.

However, Iraq was not a super power, did not actually threaten anyone outside the Middle East, did not have WMD, or any capability of attacking London in 45 minutes (as TB suggested), and was not involved in any way with 911. So why were diplomacy and sanctions not adequate tools for keeping it in check.

Iran may have leaders with loud rude mouths, but do they really threaten the might of the USA, or even Israel? Do the really have the capability to successfully attack Israel? They could attack the American forces on their borders, but I think they know that would be very unwise.

Of course, before invading Iraq, your leaders said they knew Saddam had WMD, even nuclear ones. And you believed them. So of course now, your leaders know that Iran has nuclear weapons (or soon will), and I expect TB to claim they can deliver them to London in 45 minutes soon.

Interestingly, North Korea probably is close to testing a nuclear device, and has a loud mouthed leader too, but instead of threatening invasion, the US is negotiating, and it looks like successfully too. It contrasts with Iran, where the US position is all threats, just as it was with Iraq.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

The problem some of us have with current global warming scholarship is that it still cannot distinguish between natural cycles of climate change and the degree of impact caused by human activity...

The earth does goes through periods of global warming and cooling. This can be proven through geological investigation. But just how much of the current global warming is attributable to human commercial activity and what, if anything, can be done to reduce this? And should we?

The more radical proposals of the Kyoto treaty would exempt or subsidize "developing" nations like China, currently the world's largest polluter and contributor of green house gases while heavily penalizing more economically developed countries, such as the U.S. and Japan. Something is wrong with this picture. Kyoto, if fully implemented, will represent the world's largest transfer of wealth between mature economies and the developing world.

The climate models (and scholarship) being used to forecast rising temperatures and sea levels are not accurate or reliable enough to risk the tremendous economic restructuring and displacement of U.S. and global economies that would occur if we fully adopted Kyoto. One measure of accuracy in computer models is the ability to employ the model in reverse to reliably predict actual historical results. Current climate change models fail horribly in even the basic task of predicting past historical climate data... and we should base macro economic policy on the results of these questionable models?

Many scientists and researchers do not share the apocalyptic premise that "man made" global warming is threatening our future. If you want to read an interesting contrarian view, please follow the attached hyperlink. This represents a presentation made to the Georgetown International Law Review (1999). The review is pretty damning.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm

There is always room for honest disagreement in the pursuit of truth. I would like to see more of an honest and forthright debate before the media and the environmentalists proclaim the issue settled and we then move on to legislating the fundamental re-ordering of western and developing economies. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - first of all, whilst I consider "The Glorious Leader" to be a fruitcake of the first order, he doesn't have a death wish. Unlike the fanatics in the Middle East. Nor can you discount the probable effect of China on North Korea (unless of course, you believe NK is self supporting). So they aren't really the same.
_____________

I had typed out a much longer response, but decided not to use it. You have your worldview, and nothing I can say will cause you to re-examine it. So it's rather pointless to try

The tone of your posts suggests one who is in sympathy with those who said that 9/11 was America's fault, rather than those who perpuatrated it. That we somehow "forced" them to come here and kill thousands of innocent people.

You may feel there is no need for a War on Terror but I don't. The only solution, behind the reasoning you put forward, is to eliminate the Country of Israel. Because they will never be satisfied until that happens, and would then be embolden to go even further.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

bythenbrs said:


> There is always room for honest disagreement in the pursuit of truth. I would like to see more of an honest and forthright debate before the media and the environmentalists proclaim the issue settled ......


Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Idiens-
"We usually use the name Holy War as a synonym for Crusade." And why not? After all, what was the main difference between the Crusades and any other Holy War? Well, aside from that fact that the first million or two victims of the Crusades were other Europeans that the Crusaders "provisioned" and pillaged on the way to the middle east. Christians and Muslims are more alike than most of either sect would like to admit.

US handgun numbers? Don't gather, get our official government statistics from the DOJ and then try to put them in context. Yes, have a problem with gun crime, but there are no statistics--nor any way to get them--for "my gun saved my life". On the other hand, it has been well documented that in every nation that has banned guns in the past 20 years, other violent crime like fatal stabbings, armed robberies, etc. has gone up as people were neatly rendered defenseless. So please, let's not confuse this issue with that one, it deserves a thread of its own. Spare American private arms were pretty handy when the Brits had none and needed to form coastal defense patrols.

"Iraq was not a super power, did not actually threaten anyone outside the Middle East, .... So why were diplomacy and sanctions not adequate tools for keeping it in check. " Oh, so it's OK to ignore them because Sadam *only* killed other Arabs and Kurds and *only* invaded Kuwait? One thing that Europeans should have learned with WW2, is that "appeasement" of a thug and a bully only gets you a slot further down on his list. The sanctions were not working, and diplomacy cannot be used with liars and gamesmen, and Sadam was a brilliant little gamesman. Everything anyone did, he spun around to his own glory. The two mistakes that the US made, were not having a larger foreign policy (we're new at being a nation, we have none yet) and not properly looking at the larger problem, i.e. once Sadam was removed, the only control against a violent religious war would also be gone. 

"Iran may have leaders with loud rude mouths, but do they really threaten the might of the USA, or even Israel? " How sad that you have not learned from global history. When someone says "I'm going to kill you" you have to be a fool to ignore them, because sooner or later, they're going to try, and many will succeed. Considering the stakes, I don't see any reason to gamble on them. If someone says he wants to kill me and is going to kill me, that takes the cuffs off and if I can't send him someplace where he'll never be able to harm me, damn straight I'll kill him first without loosing any sleep.

That's the difference between "victims" and "prey" and if you aren't one, you are the other.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

bythnbrs...great link...and most interesting reading! Wish th graphs were still there. Thks.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Idiens- I have to start by saying Thanks You. I actually have learned something from your posts that I hadn't realized before. I realized that for many people who come from small European countries who’s GDP is smaller than the city of Chicago, who’s military capacity is on par with FAO Schwartz, that despite the lessons learned from two World Wars and countless centuries of history, appeasement is their sole means of survival. I learned that from where you sit, it is impossible to understand how the people of the US have built a country that has become the sole superpower in the world, with our own sweat and hard work, from nothing but wilderness, in a fraction of the time that most European countries have been around. From where you sit you can’t possibly understand that the people of the US strive for more than mediocrity and desire more than to just exist by the grace of others. For those of us who strive for more than just our own existence, by hoping for others to be merciful to us, appeasement is not a substitute for statesmanship and is not an option. 

I now realize why you have the opinions you do. You have never had the exposure to anything better. I used to get irritated and angry with people whose short sided views resembled some of those you have expressed, but now it is more akin to pity. I learned that in some cases trying to express the contrary view can be similar to explaining calculus to a third grader. Thanks for opening my eyes.

All that being said, I do find your sailing related posts to be pretty spot-on and I think I'll stick to reading them instead.


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

bythenbrs..it is way to political ,so political science from either side cant be trusted...can you imagine the research grants lost if global warming is just natural cycles??Its about money sadly and the movie by Al Gore "An Inconveinent Truth"..was a big lie it's self for political reasons and MONEY..
In all reality man may contribute to 1% of the latest warming cycle....


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

T34C,

Wonderful commentary! Thank you.
I was wondering how I could put those same thoughts into a post, but, wow, I'd be a moron to try. 
My hat is off to you.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

> Much as I admire America and Americans, I can't help teasing them about their belief that all that is US is perfect and the rest is rotten.


Idiens, I assume you consider yourself to be a reasonably thoughtful, intelligent, open-minded person. If so, how can you make such an ignorant, bigotted statement about Americans? I've never known a single American who believes that we are perfect and the rest of the world is rotten, but when you make a statement like that, you reveal something about yourself that is very unbecoming. We Americans are well aware that there is good and evil everywhere in the world. If you look around you, you might even find some evil in Belgium. If you're really making those rude, insulting statements just to "tease" us, don't you think that's a little ill-mannered and infantile?



> After WWII, Belgium joined NATO and hosts its headquarters. Of course, alone, it could never stand up to a super power. NATO is formally a defensive organisation, which suits peace loving Belgium.


It's a little misleading for you to say Belgium "joined" NATO. In 1948, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom signed the Treaty of Brussels, which was essentially a mutual defense pact. Those nations were becoming increasingly concerned about being consumed by the Soviet Union's growing appetite for expansion. It's more accurate to say that, for its own protection, Belgium set the wheels in motion that eventually resulted in the creation of NATO.

But those five nations knew they couldn't hold off the Soviets all by themselves, so they asked the US to help. We not only agreed to defend you, but we also used our influence to enlist the aid of other nations for that purpose, and we stationed troops and military equipment in Europe, at considerable annual expense I might add. In the nearly sixty years since the creation of NATO, Belgium hasn't had to "waste" much of it's national treasure on defense. It could use it's resources for reconstruction, and for building a strong economy, because Belgium knew we would be there for you if you needed us. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, you don't think you need us anymore for your defense. (Actually, that is a very short-sighted notion. Russian President Vladimir Putin would like nothing better than to reclaim Russia's role as a superpower on the world stage, and little Belgium, which is enjoying its present prosperity, but which still has neither the ability nor the inclination to defend itself, will almost certainly need the aid of others at some time in the future to preserve its sovereignty. When that happens, you'll hope that our mother's sons will still be willing to shed their blood for you, and you'll hope and pray that we have a President, like President Bush, who will have the strength to resist the tugging and pulling by all the pompous, short-sighted people in the world, who think that they love peace more than we do, and who believe that, if we appease the enemy by giving you up (often referred to as "negotiation"), the problem will just go away.)

You seem to share the simplistic notion that we have imperialistic ambitions around the world, but, after WWI and WWII, we didn't stay and occupy Europe. We went home, except to the extent that you folks asked us to stay. We occupied Japan long enough to set it on a more peaceable course, and then we went home. On the contrary, we have actually made committments to defend our former enemies. We stood eye-to-eye against the Soviets during the Berlin Airlift, and our committments to defend Asian nations are well-known. Following the two recent Gulf Wars, we didn't steal anyone's oil. If we wanted to steal someone's oil, it would be much easier to steal it from one of the big oil producing countries in our own hemisphere, but we don't steal it from them either. We buy it.

It's easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize the coach of an athletic team for making what you think are bad calls. You aren't burdened by the responsibility for the outcome, or for any of your players who might be injured. Despite the burdens that go along with actually playing the game, I think it's much more satisfying than sniping from the sidelines, because when you're on the playing field, you have a real opportunity to make sure the good guys win. You should try it.

It isn't difficult for fair-minded people to understand why we are in Iraq, but, if you are a closed-minded ideologue, nothing anyone can say will persuade you. I touched on it earlier on page 286 of the Fight Club thread, and won't repeat it here. You're singing songs of peace now, but when the next aggressor is knocking on Belgium's door, you'll be beating the drums of war, and you won't want us negotiating away your liberty.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

*I've heard enough from that boob Al Gore.*

If that twit told me it was raining, I'd stick my head out a window to make sure my hair got wet. He's nothing but a revisonist, opportunistic chicken little.

What does the treehugging fishkisser drive? A Prius? nope. The sky is falling remember, thats not good enough... 
Another hybrid perhaps? wrong. Maybe its a Ed Begley Jr. Bicycle? check again.

According to the state of Tenn. The Gores have 3 registered vehicles. A Hummer, A Ford Expedition
and a Caddy. This doesn't count the Secret Service vehicles he has at his disposal. I'm pretty sure they don't drive Cobalts. All wonderful examples of Do as I say, not as I do.

Since the movies release, aides state that he has *flown* over 400,000 miles "getting the word out"... Geez, you tube could put the word out from his living room. Oh, yea, its a 13,000 sq. ft house. I'm sure it's "green". Aren't you? Tipper doesn't like air conditioning or heat, does she?

just some revisionist stuff...

FICTION: Al Gore recently claimed that his mother-in-law pays more than $100.00 for the arthritis medicine Lodine; and he claims that his dog takes the same medicine for $37.00, claiming "This is wrong!"
FACT: Gore's aides were quick to apologize for Gore's lie, saying the information was from a Democratic study. Washington newspapers also reported that Al Gore wasn't even sure his mother-in-law was taking any medication at all and wasn't even sure she had arthritis. And, he doesn't know anything about his dog's "arthritis".

FICTION: Al Gore said his father, a senator, was a champion of civil rights during the 1960's.
FACT: Gore's father voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was a racist who was fond of using the "N----" word.

FICTION: Al Gore said that his sister was the very first person to join the Peace Corps.
FACT: By the time Gore's sister joined the Peace Corps, there were already over 100 members.

FICTION: The same sister died of lung cancer years later and Gore vowed to never accept tobacco money as campaign contributions.
FACT: Just four years later, while campaigning for office, Gore spoke to the tobacco industry and said he was one of them because "I've planted it, raised it, cut it, and dried it." He raised over $100,000 in "reported" Big Tobacco contributions.

FICTION: While running for office, Gore's campaign literature claimed he was a "Brilliant Student".
FACT: Washington newspapers said he barely passed Harvard and consistently earned D's and C's.

FICTION: Gore claims an extensive knowledge of law as a result of his extensive study at law school.
FACT: Al Gore dropped out of law school.

FICTION: Gore claimed that his knowledge of God and spirituality came to complete fruition while "finishing" divinity school.
FACT: Al Gore dropped out of divinity school.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in the 1990's.
FACT: Shocked scientists were quick to speak out, explaining that the Internet had been in widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and Tipper's.
FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim. (Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't die?"

FICTION: Gore claimed that as a reporter for a Nashville newspaper, his stories led to the arrests of numerous corrupt criminals.
FACT: He later apologized for his claim and actually said it was untrue (Also known as lying).

FICTION: Gore claims to increase diversity in the staff that follows him daily, especially among blacks.
FACT: Black members of the Secret Service are suing because they claim they are not being promoted to positions guarding theVice-President.

FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was even aware of it.

FICTION: Gore said just recently that if elected president, he would put harsh sanctions on the sleazy producers of Hollywood's extreme sex and violence.
FACT: Just six days later, Gore attended a fundraiser by Hollywood producers and radical gay activists where he told them that he would only pretend to "nudge them" if elected. He raised over $4 million in campaign contributions.

FICTION: Al Gore said he built his Tennessee home with his bare hands.
FACT: Totally untrue!

FICTION: Al Gore says parents should not have a choice between private and public schools because public schools are far better.
TRUTH: Al Gore attended private school and he has sent his children to private schools.

FICTION: Al Gore remembers his mother lulling him to sleep as a baby by singing the popular ditty, "Wear The Union Label".
FACT: The popular ditty was created by the unions when Gore was 27 years old.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed to co-sponsor the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
FACT: The Act was not sponsored until he had been out of office for over a year.

FICTION: Al Gore claims to be instrumental in keeping gas prices low.
FACT: Gore has voted on numerous occasions to raise the tax on gasoline. In his book "Earth In The Balance" Gore claims that the nation's Number One enemy is the internal combustion engine. (That's the motor in your vehicle that gets you to work and takes your kids to school.)

FICTION: Gore pretends to champion the rights of poor women to be tested regularly for breast cancer with the most modern technology.
FACT: While giving a speech on the subject in September, Gore didn't know what a mammogram was.

FICTION: AL Gore promised Florida's senior citizens that they would finally have low-cost drugs with no interference from government.
FACT: Gore's plan calls for the creation of a huge federal agency that would tell you which doctor you are allowed to see in order to get the "special rates".

FACT: Al Gore told NBC's Lisa Meyers that he had never told a lie. When Meyers pressed harder, "You've never told a lie?!" Gore said, "Not that I know of." (DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?)

Just 10 years ago, Gore told the Democratic National Convention that after his sister Nancy's needless death in 1984 from lung cancer, he committed himself "heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking." In his new film, Gore again dredges up his sister's death and how it led his once tobacco-growing family to turn away from tobacco. 
After the DNC speech, reporters with memories intervened. America learned that contrary to his rhetoric, in 1988 Gore campaigned as a tobacco farmer who told his brethren that "all of my life," I hoed it, chopped it, shredded it, "put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it." The year his sister died, Gore helped the industry by fighting efforts to put the words "death" and "addiction" on cigarette-warning labels. 
For years, Gore supported Big Tobacco in other ways. You could call the above "inconvenient" facts -- that you won't see in the movie. 
Let me be clear: The problem with Gore is not that he is a hypocrite. The problem with Gore is that he has no idea he is not Lancelot. He has this scary ability to block out any facts that make him less than a perfect, selfless eco-hero, and in his need to present himself as the world's savior, he'll say anything -- no matter how hysterical. 
There is a pattern here. In his book, "Earth in the Balance," written after he lost his first White House bid in 1988, Gore warned that the next generation might experience "a decade without a winter," that deforestation could create damage for "tens of millions of years" and that the automobile presented a cumulative global threat "more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever against likely to confront." (I'll write on the film's bad science in another column.) 
Gore tells his movie audience that he was mystified that, after he sponsored congressional hearings on global warming, Washington did not instantly change how it addressed environmental issues. 
Then, the film cuts to a personal vignette of loss, lest moviegoers notice that Gore himself did not change the Washington culture from the White House. After listening to Gore talk about his decades crusading on global warming, you might expect the movie to highlight his many achievements as vice president and designated chief nerd on the environment in the Clinton administration. Instead, the movie essentially airbrushes out Gore's eight years on Pennsylvania Avenue. 
(Gore does refer to his role negotiating the Kyoto global warming pact in 1997. He does not mention that 95 senators, including John Kerry, had voted for a resolution that announced the Senate would reject any treaty that exempted developing nations -- but Gore agreed to exempt them anyway. So Clinton never dared to ask the Senate to ratify it.) 
Here's another propaganda element. Average automobile fuel-efficiency hit a 19-year low under Clinton-Gore -- it was worse than under Ronald Reagan. President Bush has raised fuel standards more than Clinton-Gore. But Gore wants to lampoon the man who defeated him in 2000. So he shows his audience one of his trademark charts, this one comparing U.S. automobile fuel efficiency with other countries. The chart begins in the year 2002 -- it has to, because Bush performed better than Clinton-Gore. 
The post-2000 Gore has changed one angle of his green message: In "Earth in the Balance," Gore warned that "sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society" would be necessary to save the planet. Even if a "miraculous technology" was able to cut per-capita greenhouse gas emissions in half, he wrote, Washington still would have to raise taxes on gasoline, electricity and heating oil. 
No more. In 2006, Gore tells moviegoers that, as dire as the situation may be, the changes needed to avert global warming would not be onerous, except maybe for some greedy corporations. His prescription, he argues, would be good for the economy, and create wealth and jobs. Sacrifice? Struggle? Wrenching transformation? Forget that. Fighting global warming will be good for your bottom line. 
How convenient. 
[email protected]


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

CP - ask yourself one simple question. What would Algore do, if he wasn't running around crying the sky is falling? Get a job?


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Thank God he didn't get the last one he applied for!!!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

For those of you who have trouble remembering I present the following in its' entirety:
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

*If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.* We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.[SIZE=-1]2

THIS FROM PRESIDENT Bill Clinton on 2/17 1998...
[/SIZE]


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

oh, don't forget these gems...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." 
Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2001

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way part of this decision. "

Hillary addresses Code Pink, March 7, 2003.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. " -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

And NOW.........you know the REAL cause of global warming! <G>


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Haven't we all learned by now that it is all lip service? Politicians not only have a different mind set, but IMHO, should be considered a different species! Those of you that are self-employed may know well how hard it is to get insurance, and forget about a pension. Even those of us in jobs that offer pensions and health plans, I ask what happens after retirement? Is anyone taking care of you? Well, if you are a politician, you get 100% salary, and full health insurance. Who pays for that? We do. And they are trying to take even more away from us everyday. I have no respect for any of them! They are all disgusting pieces of ****! Democrat, Republican, Liberal, it makes no difference. Just be happy that you can sail away from it all.....


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It's not that there are people that strongly dissagree that some (1 degree over 100 years) warming has occured, but that it is caused by man. Human co2 emmissions account for only 10% of the co2. A single valcano eruption lets out more green house gasses that we (pepole) have with the last 100 years of industry. And if the slight warming that has occured is caused by man here on earth, then why is the same rate of warming being observed on Mars? Maybe it's the sun! The whole Global Warming thing going on right now is more political than scientific. And little swings in Temp. from year to year are not climate changes. Climate is the average over 100's of years, not 5 or even 20. At one time trees grew in Antartica, and Green Land. Too cold today for that. At one time Glaciers covered all of Canada and the US down to the Missouri river. Is that what you want to go back to?


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Oh my god! Are you saying that global warming is part of nature, that WE may be part of nature too? Brain...melting...so....confused......
Hey, just realized, SF will be the new San Diego, cool!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Global Warming does it really matter?*

As long as the sun rises and sets, the wind keeps blowing,there will be many more distant horizons to see.Your are sailors,flexible to changes.As you travel the worlds oceans you will come to your own conclusion as to what is responsible for global warming. That conclusion will be far more informative than what any sienctits,politican or scare monger can give you.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Global warming is just the latest embodiment of the Y2K hoax, which had replaced the ozone hole hoax. Somewhere in there was the global cooling hoax. Is there a pattern here?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> &#8230; Nor can you discount the probable effect of China on North Korea (unless of course, you believe NK is self supporting).


 I don't think I do. Nor does the US - maybe that's part of the reason why the US is less aggressive towards NK than towards Iran.


PBzeer said:


> &#8230; The tone of your posts suggests one who is in sympathy with those who said that 9/11 was America's fault, rather than those who perpuatrated it. That we somehow "forced" them to come here and kill thousands of innocent people. .


 No, I do not, nor have I ever implied that it in my posts.


PBzeer said:


> &#8230; You may feel there is no need for a War on Terror but I don't.


 I agree with you, but we disagree on how best to prosecute it.


PBzeer said:


> &#8230; The only solution, behind the reasoning you put forward, is to eliminate the Country of Israel.


 That is incorrect, that is your deduction.
However, I do believe that the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is at the heart of the current terrorist activities. Finding a solution gets harder every year.


PBzeer said:


> &#8230; Because they will never be satisfied until that happens, and would then be embolden to go even further.


 Now you are getting closer to the problem.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Hellosailor - GWB used the word crusade once, and then withdrew it. I guess he was advised of the implications.

Handguns - there was a nice study into global gun crime that showed the strongest correlation is between low gun crime and the dairy cattle population. Where there are fewer dairy cattle, there is more gun crime. (Beef cattle don't count it seems). There was no explanation as to why this should be.

Saddam - I agree with your analysis.



hellosailor said:


> If someone says he wants to kill me and is going to kill me, that takes the cuffs off and if I can't send him someplace where he'll never be able to harm me, damn straight I'll kill him first without loosing any sleep. That's the difference between "victims" and "prey" and if you aren't one, you are the other.


 That really sums it up.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

T34C said:


> For those of us who strive for more than just our own existence, by hoping for others to be merciful to us, appeasement is not a substitute for statesmanship and is not an option.


 Does statesmanship always imply violent action?


T34C said:


> I now realize why you have the opinions you do. You have never had the exposure to anything better. I used to get irritated and angry with people whose short sided views resembled some of those you have expressed, but now it is more akin to pity. I learned that in some cases trying to express the contrary view can be similar to explaining calculus to a third grader. Thanks for opening my eyes.


 Thank you for your pity. I don't think I can really take credit for the rest.


T34C said:


> All that being said, I do find your sailing related posts to be pretty spot-on and I think I'll stick to reading them instead.


 Thanks T34C, I like yours too.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens said:


> That is incorrect, that is your deduction.
> However, I do believe that the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is at the heart of the current terrorist activities. Finding a solution gets harder every year.


What else can I deduce? There will be no solution to that can of worms unless Israel ceases to exist. That is the one and only solution the Arab/Muslim world will accept. They've shown and said it, time and time again. How many times must they do so before people believe it?


----------



## garymcg (Jun 19, 2006)

*Who pays for research*



Cruisingdad said:


> I seem to keep getting placed in the Green Peace camp... unfairly so.
> 
> Here are three different view points:
> 
> ...


Here's something from sourcewatch on one of the scientists quoted in the first link:

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

The anti-global warming people employ the same tactics as the "intelligent design" people, which is to attempt to convince the populace that there are two equally supported sides to these arguments. Clearly the vast majority of climate researchers conclude that man-made climate change is taking place. The oil companies are working their butts off to convince the public that there is a real debate here.


----------



## Cruiserwannabe (Jan 28, 2006)

*watching the grass grow*

Well like I had said before when its the middle of February and Im sitting here in central New Hampshire looking at grass in my yard this makes me wonder? But after just spending the week in upstate New York with snow over my head in places I have to say fewwy as my old uncle Nick used to say "LORD,ALLS I UNDERSTAND IS THAT I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND" amen to that!

CW


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> ... There will be no solution to that can of worms unless Israel ceases to exist. That is the one and only solution the Arab/Muslim world will accept. They've shown and said it, time and time again. How many times must they do so before people believe it?


 So what is the solution where Israel exists and there is no opposition to its existence?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - That is commonly called wishful thinking.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

garymcg - perhaps, in the interest of fairness, you could tell us who pays the people who support global warming as being postulated by Algore and other's. 

I wonder if you see the deliciously perverse nature of your comparing "intelligent design" and global warming skepticism?


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

The study of global warming is based on computer models,,these models are mathematical solutions in fluid dynamics(our atmosphere).These computers crunch the numbers and project a forecast.
Thing is we have been using various computer models for years, predicting Hurricanes,what has been learned by meteorologist is models are JUST that and have trouble predicting weather 3 to 5 days out and the reliability gets ex potentially worse as you get beyond 5 days..So all the "Global Warming" research is based on these models...LOOK at how many times the weather forecast is wrong based on 3 day models and ask yourself..Would I trust them?


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens, there's one thing that really puzzles me. There are billions of people on this planet. Many of those people believe, like you, that President Bush is mishandling the Mideast situation. Why are you waiting for President Bush to find the solution? With the combined ingenuity of billions of human minds working on the problem, it seems to me that you naysayers should be able to find the solution. Why don't you do that? If diplomacy is the answer, why don't you urge French President Chirac, whose intellect and diplomatic skills are widely respected, not only by himself, but also by people of your mentality, to engage in negotiations with the various terrorist leaders and other megalomaniacs of the mideast, and stop the bloodshed? Why do you sit there apathetically, while so many "innocent" people are dying, and wait for President Bush and the United States to solve this problem? Don't you think it's time for you and Chirac to stop carping from the sidelines and to make a meaningful contribution to peace?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Idiens - That is commonly called wishful thinking.


Does that mean winning the war on terror is wishful thinking too?


----------



## mjbahr007 (Mar 19, 2000)

*Global Warming....Do They Really Know?*

How can the so called scientific experts say that they are certain that global warming is taking place AND is being caused by man when these same expects cannot predict the weather 7 days ahead with any accuracy? When was the last time your local meteorologist was right about the weather even 50% of the time?

Global warming is a theory and our attempts to "fix" it by the draconian measures proposed by these so called experts will only wreck the world economy , most likely start the next world war, and do nothing to change global warming.

Now reasonable conservation of all of our resources, reasonable pollution controls, and recycling are always a good practices, but the measures proposed by these "experts" on global warming go far beyond what is reasonable.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hey guys, thanks for the generally polite, and informative discussion about: Global warming/cooling, pick one; the ethics of politics, lying politicians (who would have guessed); differing national views of the above from all around the world; radical Islamic terrorism; Palistine/Israel conflict; crusades; reasons for the war in Iraq; international negotiations; gun control; etc., etc. I kinda forget what this thread was all about, but I'm sure it was covered.

Now after saying that, and reading all 51 pages, I'm gonna have a nice cup of coffe with 1/2 rum, and maybe it'll make sense.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

ianhlnd said:


> Now after saying that, and reading all 51 pages, I'm gonna have a nice cup of coffe with 1/2 rum, and maybe it'll make sense.


IAN.....

NO NO NO NO NO

DON'T DO THAT....QUICK RUN TO YOUR BOW.....SHE'S THERE....SCREW THE COFFE AND RUM.....SHE'S WAITING


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Alex, is that all you can think of? besides, her younger sister is coming over later today for some publicity headshots and I have to prep myself.  God, I hate working on Sunday!


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Sailormon6 said:


> Idiens, there's one thing that really puzzles me. There are billions of people on this planet. Many of those people believe, like you, that President Bush is mishandling the Mideast situation. Why are you waiting for President Bush to find the solution? &#8230; Why do you sit there apathetically, while so many "innocent" people are dying, and wait for President Bush and the United States to solve this problem? Don't you think it's time for you and Chirac to stop carping from the sidelines and to make a meaningful contribution to peace?


 Sailrmon6, why do you assume that no one else is working on the problem? Does your media only tell you of GWB's attempts? From your media, I see that most Americans now disapprove of GWB's handling of the Middle East situation, and voted in the Democrats to run congress and Senate. The rest of the world is not waiting for GWB to find a solution, they can see his solution is not working and it may leave the US in a Vietnam kind of situation.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Ian - if that's what you call work, where do I sign up? <G>


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Idlens, do you have facts to offer in support of that "rest of the world is not waiting for GWB to find a solution" crap?

Entertain us.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - In the larger context, no, the War on Terror can not be "won". For as long as there are people of evil intent upon the planet, there will be those who resort to terror as their tool.

The efforts in Ahfganistan and Iraq are two-fold. On the one hand, Bush wanted to show that there are direct consequenses for engaging in and sponsoring terrorism as with the Taliban, and for flaunting negotiated agreements as with Hussien. On the other hand, is fostering a growing sense of freedom and self government in those two countries based upon generally accepted principles and rights, that with good fortune can spread throughout the region, and bestow those same freedoms and rights enjoyed within the majority of nations upon the earth.

Without hope, and a belief that their life can be better, the Middle East will always be an incubator of terrorism. A source of willing martyrs in the name of Allah. But, give them a voice, a choice in their future .... something to live for, not die for, and then there can meaningful discourse rather than violence.

That's the foundation behind Bush's policies. While he has not done everything right since the ouster of Hussien (and that's a whole other subject), he at least, understands the need for fundamental change in the region if any hope of peace is to come to it. And in that regard, I support his actions.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Sailrmon6, why do you assume that no one else is working on the problem?


Idiens, why do you answer a question with a question? Why don't you answer it with an answer? I'll do you the courtesy of answering your question. I don't assume any such thing. I assume that others, like Chirac for example, are also trying to find a solution, but they have failed. What I find offensive is that many of you act as if you have all the answers, when in fact you don't. You say you're "working on it." That's another way of saying you haven't found it yet. I admire people who assume the responsibility for solving difficult problems. I have no respect for people who lack the creativity to find a solution to a problem, but who carp at the people who have assumed that burden.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"So what is the solution where Israel exists and there is no opposition to its existence?"
Idiens, anyone who asks that question is obviously and sadly someone who has never spent time in Israel. When the Yom Kippur War (aka 7-day war) broke out my uncle, cousin, whatever you call someone twice your age who is decended from your grandfather's brothers...left his small farm, wife, and three young children alone in the north in order to assault the Golan Heights. He was a tank commander. She was alone, with kids, and no gun in the house because his "service weapon" was the main battle tank he'd reported to. Somewhere after dawn the doorbell rang and now she was REALLY TERRIFIED because their Jordanian farm workers were outside the house.
The workers said to her, please, we know our governments are at war, but we are farmers and the harvest has to come in or we will all starve. Let us work, let us harvest, this is what we all must do.

To me that sums it up perfectly. The Arab _governments_ under the Islamic _mullahs _ led by the old Mullah of Jerusalem are the problem. Egypt took the lead, and Jordan has followed, realizing that they can't keep all the people down with the "damn jews" myth forever. You could drive down the Jordanian border with Israel and see green farms on one side, and yellow wasteland on the other, and it didn't take a genius for the people who lived there to figure out that by sstaying and working with the Israelis, they could have better lives.
The folks who fled, did so because the mullahs told them to flee. The folks who claim they suffered in the camps, indeed did suffer in the camps. Relief amps set up by their own fellow Muslim Arab neighbors, who wanted them to starve and shout and suffer, instead of welcoming them and sharing with them. 
This is the old Arab game. You play brother against brother in order to take more for yourself, unless you and your brother can unite to steal from your cousin. You set cousin against cousin, unless you can unite to steal from the clan. You set clan against clan, unless you can unite against the tribe. You play the game all the way up and down, simple Machiavellian politics of blaming the other guy so you can steal from the people closer to you without arousing their ire against you.

How to have Israel and her neighbors live in peace? Extinguish the governments that promote hate. Accept whatever collateral damage that requires. And let the people go back to what they understand best: Living as neighbors trying to make better lives, instead of listening to mullahs who want to cheat and steal and kill to justify it.

Leaders like Saddam, who cheated and stole and diverted humanitarian aid to build, what was it, 82 grand palaces? And his idiot people admired him, for having them, while ignoring how he stole from their children to build them.

Rational people can disagree and still live side by side. Religious zealots, like any zealots, are not rational. They are rabid dogs, and no matter how much you love dogs, any rational man knows you put the rabid ones down. Fast, before they spread the rabies.

(PB, that's how you deal with evil men, too. What's the saying? "All it takes is for men of good to do nothing, and evil wins.")


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Goodnewsboy,

Go to the web site of any non-US press agency and you will read, if you can in their language, the steps that each nation is taking to work against terrorism. They are not as spectacular as invading countries and usually do not involve Americans, so you will find little or nothing in your own press. Why do you assume that only America is concerned or active?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Why do you assume that only America is concerned or active?"
Uh, because Belgium and France have not sent any forces on foot into Pakistan looking for Osama Bin Laden?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> "So what is the solution where Israel exists and there is no opposition to its existence?" ... How to have Israel and her neighbors live in peace? Extinguish the governments that promote hate. Accept whatever collateral damage that requires. And let the people go back to what they understand best: Living as neighbors trying to make better lives, instead of listening to mullahs who want to cheat and steal and kill to justify it.


And you believe that extinguishing governments will make their populations love rather than hate you? Suppose someone extinguished your government, would you love them for it? I would not expect you to.

I have been to Israel several times and admire what they have achieved there and understand why they defend themselves as effectively as they do. They more than anybody wish for a peaceful solution.

Please do not make assumptions about other people just because they disagree with your point of view.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - it is one thing to have a contrary point of view. It is quite another to have one without offering an alternate, viable solution.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> "Why do you assume that only America is concerned or active?"
> Uh, because Belgium and France have not sent any forces on foot into Pakistan looking for Osama Bin Laden?


Did you find him there?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Idiens - it is one thing to have a contrary point of view. It is quite another to have one without offering an alternate, viable solution.


Let me be specific, the alternate viable solution was not to invade Iraq. That solution will not work anymore, so the next solution is to get out. Or does America intend to try to stay indefinitely in Iraq until the parallels with Vietnam become too obvious.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

"Let me be specific, the alternate viable solution was not to invade Iraq."

Tried that, all diplomacy failed. While he was killing his own, stealing money from the UN, He was defying the world... How many sactions? 14... I don't think diplomacy and "talk therapy" worked in this case now did it.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Q. When in history has surrender ever succeeded in overcoming evil?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Idiens...I would suggest that a 3rd strategy might exist. That would be for the US to secure the borders of Iraq to insure no outside influence and then just let the Iraqi's fight it out among themselves which is largely what is going on today with US Troops in the middle. Moving our troops to the borders with instructions to shoot anything that moves (and air support) would put them out of harm's way.
Of course this would result in a vastly larger death toll for Iraqi's but in the end we would have a winner and we could then leave the country in the winner's hands. Of course the Europeans/U.N. would be welcome to come to Bagdhad and negotiate with the shia/sunni militias to reduce the bloodshed. 
Of course the details need some fleshing out, but it is one alternative to the "stay the course" and keep on dying or "get out now" and cede the region to the fanatics alternatives, neither of which is very palatable to great chunks of the American electorate..... OR solves the problem of the bloodbath which will occur on a pullout in any event. At least this way, any boodbath will be an Iraqi on Iraqi one and not an Iranian/Syrian adventure.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Or does America intend to try to stay indefinitely in Iraq until the parallels with Vietnam become too obvious.


Either you are unfamilar with the end of the Vietnam conflict, or you choose to ignore the very real consequenses of the US pullout. But, if that's your idea of a viable solution, you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

cardiacpaul said:


> "Let me be specific, the alternate viable solution was not to invade Iraq."
> 
> Tried that, all diplomacy failed. While he was killing his own, stealing money from the UN, He was defying the world... How many sactions? 14... I don't think diplomacy and "talk therapy" worked in this case now did it.


Diplomacy was not allowed to work and we will never know if it would have now. The gas attack on the Kurds went almost unnoticed and without reaction at the time. Saddam first had to invade Kuwait to turn the US against him.

What we do know is that Iraq is a bigger mess now than it was then and America's image in the world is dwindling because of it.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> Idiens...I would suggest that a 3rd strategy might exist. That would be for the US to secure the borders of Iraq to insure no outside influence and then just let the Iraqi's fight it out among themselves which is largely what is going on today with US Troops in the middle. Moving our troops to the borders with instructions to shoot anything that moves (and air support) would put them out of harm's way.


Were it not for the length of Iraq's borders and the nature of the terrain, it might delay the ultimate need to leave completely. But I fear, the insurgents would still find and bomb the US troops.

I wondered about the divide-and-rule principle. Instead of having one Iraqi puppet government, divide the country into more managable bits with local govenrmants and some kind of federal meeting place. It is a process that is being tried, in a way, in Afgahnistan. Iraq was put together by the British not so very long ago, holding it together is proving very difficult. But I know there are a lot of political objections to the approach.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Sorry Idiens, some of us believe substance is more important than style. 

You can rehash the past all you choose, it doesn't change the present. You can say this or that was or wasn't done, it doesn't change the present. You can say we should or should not be in Iraq, it doesn't change the fact we are. I for one, am still waiting to hear something that concerns the situation as it stands, rather than an al Zawaraa editorial.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

"Diplomacy was not allowed to work and we will never know if it would have now. "

How, prey tell was it not allowed to work? He agreed to the proposals, he then, didn't, he then did, he then didn't told the inspectors, "sure, c'mon in" then tells them "look, over there", while playing a shell game, kicks inspectors out, lets them back in, steals humanitarian aid for his own palaces, steals oil money to turn into trucks full of dollars that we being sent out of the country... 
Now, Mr. Diplomat what so YOU propose that YOU would have said to this man that would have made him toe the line? Hmmm? This should be good.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Either you are unfamilar with the end of the Vietnam conflict, or you choose to ignore the very real consequenses of the US pullout. But, if that's your idea of a viable solution, you're sadly mistaken.


I fear the mess in Iraq is now at the point that you can choose between a lot of Iraqis dying and some Americans too, or only the Iraqi's dying. 
Do you have a viable solution? Firstly, to peace in Iraq and second to a reduction in world terror.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Sorry Idiens, some of us believe substance is more important than style.
> 
> You can rehash the past all you choose, it doesn't change the present. You can say this or that was or wasn't done, it doesn't change the present. You can say we should or should not be in Iraq, it doesn't change the fact we are. I for one, am still waiting to hear something that concerns the situation as it stands, rather than an al Zawaraa editorial.


Which part of "Get out of Iraq" don't you understand?


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

"Do you have a viable solution? Firstly, to peace in Iraq and second to a reduction in world terror."

Uh, kill all the terrorists?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

cardiacpaul said:


> Now, Mr. Diplomat what so YOU propose that YOU would have said to this man that would have made him toe the line? Hmmm? This should be good.


Firstly, its noticable that you regard Mr. Diplomat as an insult. Whereas I regard it as the opposite of Cowboy.

That man was testing the line and was continuously being put back in place. The devious activities dig not stop with his demise either, look what happened to 360 tons of cash that Paul Bremmer distributed.

Do you really think this Iraqi episode is going to shine in American history?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I've already iterated what I think is the solution, but let me state it once again.

Iraq has to be given the chance to see if their freely elected government can work, which can only happen once the sectarian violence is brought under control. If the US cuts and runs, as many would have them do, there is no hope for the Iraq people to have a freely elected government. Also, by staying, the US shows to others in the region, and the world, that we WILL stand by them if they choose to work towards freely elected governments.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Goodnewsboy said:


> Uh, kill all the terrorists?


And you get to choose who they are?


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Victory will make it shine, just as it did when a U. S. Marine Lieutenant named Presley O'Bannon took the fight to the Pasha of Tripoli, an Islamic terror master of the day.

As I recall, O'Bannon said something to the effect that, *in the future, the Pasha could expect only a tribute of (gun)powder and ball from the people of the United States*. It worked out pretty well.

One footnote to the story is that at that time most of Europe was paying cash tribute to Tripoli to ransom its citizens and to buy safe passage through the Mediterranean. Sort of what we hear from Europe today!

I favor the O'Bannon approach.

Oh, BTW, Idiens, the terrorists are self-selecting. When they commit terror, we should chase them down and kill them.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> I've already iterated what I think is the solution, but let me state it once again.
> 
> Iraq has to be given the chance to see if their freely elected government can work, which can only happen once the sectarian violence is brought under control. If the US cuts and runs, as many would have them do, there is no hope for the Iraq people to have a freely elected government. Also, by staying, the US shows to others in the region, and the world, that we WILL stand by them if they choose to work towards freely elected governments.


How long do you need to get sectarian violence under control? OK, I claim that diplomacy was working and after ten years, the US decided it wasn't and invaded. So I guess ten years should be a fair amount of time to see if sectarian violence can be stopped and a freely elected government take control. What would you do after ten years (you've had five so far)?

Hmmm.. Ten years is actually fairly short in the life of a nation, would you think 25 years more realistic?


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

Fifth three pages and counting. Lots of the same stones being thrown back and forth. Sounds like politics in any nation doesn't it?

The US certainly does not have all the answers, and I think that most of us will agree with that. US citizens by and large are good people who have shown in their short history that we will sacrifice to help others. 

Hell, there are families in Europe living in houses that are twice as old as the US. That long history has not proven that negotiation is their strenght, especially over the last 100 years. Many in Europe have not learned from their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents, that negotiation without resolution to fight for what is right, and their freedoms, is meaningless. The US aggressors were welcomed more than once in Europe, and we have funded military strenght in Europe since WWII. Was that aggression? We were there originally for reconstruction ( that is when our former enemies won the peace) and later to stand as a force in the Cold War. Were we standing that line on European soil so we would not have to some day stand that line on our own? Absolutely! 

We all hope that the problems of the world resolve themselves before warring factions blow up the world. In reality, history has proven that people , probably many people, will have to die before this war is over. We are not fighting just the likes of Saddam anymore. We only wish our biggest problem was our old nemesis Kadaffi. Ah, for the good old days! We now have a faction, within the fastest growing religion in the world, that wants us converted or dead. Israel first, but certainly not last.

The US has a large Muslim population, most of which do not share the fanaticism, and do not want to live under strict Muslim law. They like their freedom. Unfortunately, we still have our radicals, protected by the US Constitution, that are preaching and being heard. That group is growing. 

In Europe the Muslim population is dramatically higher and because of social issues much more vocal. Influence in and on EU nations is increasing exponentially. Currently the "war mongering" US forces are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we pull out as has been suggested we have a Shia force dominated by Iran that will run over the Arab Sunnis in a matter of a few short years and Israel will either take drastic measures to save themselves or be gone. Europe will be next. The EU can only hope that after all their negotiation, the US that they call upon for help, and remind what great friends we have been, is led by someone more resembling GWB then some of the passivists that were our presidents in the last 30 years. Carter would negotiate right up to the moment that the last of you dies, and then claim peace was achieved through mighty struggle. Give him a Noble prize! Oh, wait, who would vote on the Prize?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Goodnewsboy said:


> Oh, BTW, Idlens, the terrorists are self-selecting. When they commit terror, we should chase them down and kill them.


Preferably with minimum collateral damage. Bravo Team America.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Getting out of Iraq is not a solution, it is merely a band-aid that will allow the situation to fester and become worse. Of course, by then, it will be someone else's problem, so to quote that famous philosopher Alfred E Neuman ..... "What? Me Worry?"


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

tommyt said:


> Fifth three pages and counting. Lots of the same stones being thrown back and forth. Sounds like politics in any nation doesn't it?
> 
> The US certainly does not have all the answers, and I think that most of us will agree with that. US citizens by and large are good people who have shown in their short history that we will sacrifice to help others.


I certainly agree with that.

The point you and others make about WWII and Hitler and the US fixing the problem is also correct. Hitler was the invader and the US came to Europe's defense. We all cheer.

In the case of Iraq, the first time, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US bravely responded in Kuwaits defence.

The second time it was the US invading, not this time playing the defender. I think there is a difference.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Well Idiens, I'd have no problem with that, as long as it wasn't announced ahead of time. Realistically, I'd say we'll know within a year if they will be able to stand on their own. Unless of course, the Democrats succeed in hamstringing Bush. If they do, we might as well pack up and go home.

As long as whatever happens there after we leave is done by rule of law, rather than gun, I would be satisfied. Because that's really what's at stake here.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Getting out of Iraq is not a solution, it is merely a band-aid that will allow the situation to fester and become worse.


Getting out isn't a band-aid, its leaving an open wound alone and not scratching it any more.

There are sadly a lot of places festering in the world. Sending troops in to keep warring parties apart or to defend a minority from genocide seems very justifiable. Attacking a country because it might do something is another matter.

And yes I do expect Iraq to get a lot worse before it can ever get better. Do you really expect those extra troops and a new commander to be able to pull off a peace deal or suppress the insurgents?


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

"Firstly, its noticable that you regard Mr. Diplomat as an insult. Whereas I regard it as the opposite of Cowboy."

I did no such thing, I do notice however you chose not to answer the question.

"That man was testing the line and was continuously being put back in place. The devious activities dig not stop with his demise either, look what happened to 360 tons of cash that Paul Bremmer distributed."

Put back in his place... how so? he was still stealing, still killing his own countrymen, and still evading inspectors, is that what you waould call, back in place? 

the 360m was a drop in the bucket compared to the french telecom contracts for equipment that was hooked to nowhere (alcatel) comapred to the UN's money, and other cash saddam squirreled away. I do notice however you failed to answer the question. 

Do you really think this Iraqi episode is going to shine in American history?

If it turns out to be a black eye, I'm sure we'll wear it proudly, for at least, we tried... I do notice however, you failed to answer the question.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> As long as whatever happens there after we leave is done by rule of law, rather than gun, I would be satisfied. Because that's really what's at stake here.


I really hope you are right PB.

But I fear we see the people in the region have other ways. The Shah was taking Iran towards democracy and western ways. In Afgahnistan it looks like the ways of the Taliban are actually returning, if not in name, but in nature.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - You only have to look a few hundred miles east to see what a little freedom can bring. You look at the past and see hopelssness for the future, that things will not, can not, change. One of the abiding strengths of America is that we look to the future with hope, believing things can change.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Global warming!*



Cruisingdad said:


> I am sure this will provoke a heated response (or lack of) from many people... but here goes:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2834552&page=1


 Global warming is in front of us all, and it's how we plan for it will determine how well we live with it!


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Idiens - You only have to look a few hundred miles east to see what a little freedom can bring. You look at the past and see hopelssness for the future, that things will not, can not, change.


I am not sure how far east I have to look. Kuwait (still feudal), Iran (ugh!) Afgahnistan (sadly deterorating), Pakistan (military dictator), India (rising, should overtake China by 2050), Bangladesh (very sad), Burma (ouch!), .... But you are right, until recently we were about to H-bomb each other. Now Communism is waning fast with all its side effects.



PBzeer said:


> One of the abiding strengths of America is that we look to the future with hope, believing things can change.


Definitely, and further, America has the imagination and guts to go for it too.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

dserrell said:


> Global warming is in front of us all, and it's how we plan for it will determine how well we live with it!


Yup! I'm re-powering Jonathan to meet the new European rules on leisure craft emmisions, revising the plumbing on the heads and looking for a water side property with adequate freeboard. How about you?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*This is the real world!*



Idiens said:


> I really hope you are right PB.
> 
> But I fear we see the people in the region have other ways. The Shah was taking Iran towards democracy and western ways. In Afgahnistan it looks like the ways of the Taliban are actually returning, if not in name, but in nature.


It would be great if all than was done would be done by law, however even here in the United States, we ingnor laws and our lawmakers do very little to step up to the plate and correct themselves. It seems democracy is not working, and trying to change a culture, which has evolved over hundreds of years is not going to work. Therefore, people have to make choices and choosing to fight the system, that is our system of govenment is not realistic, so live day to day and plan a safe and healthy furture for yourself.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

What a brilliant concept; _lawlessness_! Everybody does as seems right for himself.

Problem is that the ensuing chaos may not be conducive to a safe and healthy future.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*American is not a good student of history!*



Idiens said:


> Getting out isn't a band-aid, its leaving an open wound alone and not scratching it any more.
> 
> There are sadly a lot of places festering in the world. Sending troops in to keep warring parties apart or to defend a minority from genocide seems very justifiable. Attacking a country because it might do something is another matter.
> 
> And yes I do expect Iraq to get a lot worse before it can ever get better. Do you really expect those extra troops and a new commander to be able to pull off a peace deal or suppress the insurgents?


 American needs to fix itself before it even attempts to try and fix other countries, especially countries with generatiions of cultrual differences, differences which have developed over hundreds of years, and people who have adapted and learned to live within their culture. We cannot change people, they have to change themselves!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam-
" That would be for the US to secure the borders of Iraq to insure no outside influence " You've got to think bigger and further out of the box. US forces have got better things to do. Better that we hire starving North Korean soldiers to patrol that border, they'll work dirt cheap, their fearless leader will gain great glory from a job well done, and besides, they'll eat or steal anything that's not bolted down, ensuring nothing gets across. Give 'em a break, they need the work.

Idiens-
"The Shah was taking Iran towards democracy and western ways. " The Shah was a despot installed by the US and hated by his people, which is why he was thrown out. He was leading them towards democracy the same way that the Russians held free elections. With exactly one candidate on the ballot.
The Shah was *not* a nice guy, don't fall for revisionist history.

Dserrell-
"American needs to fix itself before it even attempts to try and fix other countries," OK, so let's apply that to Iran and Iraq. Both were conquests in the Ottoman Empire (i.e., subjects of the Turks) before the US stepped into WW1 and helped the Allies end the Ottoman Empire. So, in all fairness, we should step back out and give the remaining scraps of Persia back to the Turks? That is what you're saying, right? One could say they deserve each other.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Which part of "Get out of Iraq" don't you understand?


Immediately after the election and formation of the new Iraqi government, President Bush announced that he was restoring sovereignty to Iraq. At that time he publicly announced his commitment to stay as long as Iraq needs us, and to leave Iraq whenever the Iraqi government asks us to leave. Do you really think we should walk out on our commitment to them, knowing that it will probably result in a bloodbath? If so, why, and how is that consistent with your self-avowed humanitarian concern for the safety of innocent Iraquis and their children?

Don't you think the Iraqis should be the ones to decide when we leave? After all, it is they who must decide whether it is in their best interests.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Idiens said:


> Yup! I'm re-powering Jonathan to meet the new European rules on leisure craft emmisions, revising the plumbing on the heads and looking for a water side property with adequate freeboard. How about you?


 Excellent reply! I have acutually moved inland about 100 miles and 100 feet above tidal elevation. Not that it's going to happen tomorrow, but it's likely going to happen. I trailer a sailboat now! It's not my preference, however I'm still passionate about sailing! Actually, my personal circumstances required me to more inland. It's cost me a fortune, but I'm adapting! Having been on the leading edge of many things which have happend in this country, that is positive, I can look back and look forward and looking forward I see, unfortunately, problems. Gobal warming and political unrest are in a neck and neck race to create a much more difficult world to live in!


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Sounds antedeluvian.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

For another look at the causes of global warming, you can look at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Unfortunately, neither the author nor subject are paid by the oil industry <G>


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

John....thanks for the link. Very interesting perspective and info.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

cam - would seem a more likely scenerio, given the changes in climate that the earth has gone through prior to man-made pollution.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> Sorry Idiens, some of us believe substance is more important than style.
> 
> You can rehash the past all you choose, it doesn't change the present. You can say this or that was or wasn't done, it doesn't change the present. You can say we should or should not be in Iraq, it doesn't change the fact we are. I for one, am still waiting to hear something that concerns the situation as it stands, rather than an al Zawaraa editorial.


Only problem with the "come up with a solution , don't just nitpick " line is that it is not up to the anti war brigade to sort out this ****fight but up to the idiots who invaded Iraq in the first place. Why should those of us who were against this rotten war from the very beginning be the ones required to come up with the solution on how to end it ? We had the solution way back then, simplistic perhaps but it was "don't invade in the first place", but oh no, Bush Jr was gunna do what papa never did and away they went. Didn't think it through properly, didn't work out how many troops would be needed, didn't stop to think that there would be any real resiatance after Hussein was gone.

The world has had to put up with umpteen different lies regarding WOMD etc etc etc, had to sit through the vomit inducing sight of Dubya in full military kit (what a laugh that was and you want to talk about substance over style !) landing on a carrier declaring it's all done and dusted, put up with arse wipes like the prime mincer of Australia strutting about like some two bit Mussolini as he inspected his troops, put up with that smug ***** Blair being well, a smug *****. It's pathetic. The anti war briagde were laughed at when they questioned the very premises on which this invasion was based and now the side that got it wrong wants us to come up with the solutions.

The US's defeat in Vietnam showed much about a small force overcoming a large but one major outcome was undoubtedly that when you force a nation to fight a war on it's own soil for 20 odd years , the chances are that that nation will be a basket case when the war is finally over. Mind you the lies back then were also out in full force.

The sad fact is that whether or not Hussein deserved all he got there was no good and pressing reason to invade when you did other than it took American minds off of the fact that Bin Laden had not been found and that invading an unrelated sovereign nation seemed the best way to avenge the deaths of all those poor souls who copped it on September the 9th 2001. If we say it enough times maybe no one will notice we are lying through our teeth. Simply rehashing the old "we didn't know it was all bullshit" line is simply not good enough.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Sorry tdw, you have it a bit skewed. There was far and away majority support for going to Iraq. Both in Congress and public opinion. And it has been shown, to all but the most dogmatic, that Bush acted in good faith on the information that was available at the time. The Left of course, will continue it's "Bush lied" mantra, because that is all you have, and as you pointed out.....say it enough times....

To the Left, there is, and always has been, only one villian in the world, and that is the US.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

dserrell said:


> I have acutually moved inland about 100 miles and 100 feet above tidal elevation.


Now, now! 100 ft is a little extreme! By that time every road on every hill will be a convenient slip for the trailer sailors. Me? I'm gonna patent a mobile jetty. Floats on it will ensure that every high-tide moves it a bit higher up the slope, automatically adjusting for global warming.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Sorry tdw, you have it a bit skewed. There was far and away majority support for going to Iraq.


 And they voted GWB in for a second term.


PBzeer said:


> To the Left, there is, and always has been, only one villian in the world, and that is the US.


 Naw! But if power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the only thing holding the world's only super-power back is the American voters.
(GOP declares all liberals as enemy combatants under the Patriot Act, denying them sufferage? - Naw! never going to happen.)


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Sailormon6 said:


> Don't you think the Iraqis should be the ones to decide when we leave? After all, it is they who must decide whether it is in their best interests.


Would a referendum be appropriate? Or do you prefer to trust the word of the puppet government that, according to US officials: "Is only capable of paying its own salary"? Anyway, GWB needs to keep Iraq as a base, from which to attack Iran and Syria.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Hellosailor - "The Shah was a despot installed by the US and hated by his people." One man's US despot is another man's Saddam Hussein (replaced by the current Iraqi government). Why can't we leave other countries alone?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Would a referendum be appropriate?


 I guess they missed the voting by the people of Iraq, done despite the violence and threats of the terrorists, there in enlightened Europe.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

*The Issue Is Not Iraq*

We are long past the question of the rightness or wrongness of entering Iraq to remove Saddam. The current situation is one where the various parties involved in world-wide terrorism, as well as middle-eastern strife find it convenient to field themselves on Iraqi soil. Unfortunately, the Iraqi citizens are bearing the price of this fact. Given the state of affairs prior to the US led invasion this is not the crisis that it might seem. The Kurds, for instance, are enjoying peace and freedom little known to them in recent history and their biggest concern is probably the Turkish government. Most of the country is relatively stable, with some notable exceptions. The marsh Arabs must certainly be grateful for the restoration of their homelands and the removal of their persecutors. All in all, things could be much worse. In short, the ultimate results of the conflict will revolve around Iraqi governmental sufficiency and US political will, neither one being a given.

The larger issue involves middle-eastern stability and world-wide terrorism. I am against middle-eastern stability. We have had it for the past 55 years and it doesn't work. Middle-east stability has given us the despotic regimes that do nothing for their own people and export their greivances to the world stage. The Syrians, Iranian's, Egyptians, and especially the Saudi Arabian's are particularly culpable in this regard. It is not coincidence that the 9/11 attackers were principly Saudi. That bassackwards country perpetuates a system that can only explode outwards and forces world-wide conflict. During the recent unpleasantness with the USSR it was important to have "our SOB" in various of these countries to hinder the expansion of the USSR. Those days are now gone and we are now left with a mulligatawny of Islamic fermented anarchy. The despots of the region, be they dictators such as Assad or "religion-inspired" regimes such as Iran, are interested in only self preservation and agrandizement, if not hegemony. This is the root problem and, if not for the existence of oil and Israel, would be of little passing concern to the western world. Or, at least that used to be the case. Now these malcontents are determined to take their age old grievances global, having had little success on their various home fronts.

It is not coincidence that the various players in jihadism are rushing into the Iraqi conflict. In some ways that is good. I have a very high opinion of American marksmanship and much prefer the plains of Iraq to metropolitan New York for a free-fire zone in resolving the issue. While Al-Qaeda may not have been present in large numbers upon our entry, they are certainly flocking to the show now. Much better that they be engaged with a US Marine than a US Customs officer. Now there is much nay-saying about the US military's ability to handle the situation, and it may, in fact, prove to be an unsolveable task. I doubt it. If American political will does not dissolve, we will succeed. The military will not be defeated in Iraq, but at home in the US. Sure it's going to be tough, as if WW II was a jaunt in the Euro countryside. The sacrifices currently required by the western world are almost beneath measurement. Where is Normandy? Where is state-side gas rationing? Where is the draft? Consider Afghanistan. All learned observers predicted debacle and quagmire amidst the ferocious Afghan winter and mujahadeen. Hadn't that little god-forsaken country brought the mighty USSR to her metaphorical knees? How could an American military, composed of young men who we know couldn't qualify for real jobs, possibly conquer such a foe? News flash: these guys are good, they're really good. Given proper leadership and commitment they will adapt to changing situations in Iraq and do quite well there as well. Military leadership is not infallible-remember, Lincoln had to relieve George McClellan before the Army of the Potomac could get out of camp and start shooting Rebels. The sons of the men who turned the Tet offensive into a North Vietnamese military disaster are fully capable of emulating their fathers. Hopefully, the same political mistakes will not be made here at home.

Some, mostly Euro-weenies incapable of handling issues in their own back-yard, do not see the real issues at stake. The issue is whether western European culture-which includes the USA-will survive. Having "invaded" Europe through the immigration process, Islamic fundamentalism is in the process of conquering that continent. If one is looking for a "crisis" you need not concern yourself with global warming. These people like it hot and they are making Europe very hot. The historically liberal and free-minded Dutch are being forced to consider what will happen when these Muslim fundamentalists are the dominant political culture within their own borders. this is true for virtually the rest of Europe as well. Europe has negative population growth and is staffing it's labor market with Islamic immigrants bereft of any tradition of democracy or western culture. This has far reaching implications that, at some point, may not be reversible. The attacks in Britain were by home-grown Islamic fundamentalists, or perhaps I should say Islamic jihadists. America is the only western country actually maintaining it's population irrespective of immigration. See Mark Steyn's latest book, "America Alone", for more on this issue. Written in his usual ascerbic and politically incorrect style. Europe may well be lost through breeding alone, as these immigrants do not have the "enlightened" family planning habits of the average cosmopolitan Euro-weenie.

Anticipating the normal cultural relativism response of "weenies" on both sides of the Atlantic I would mention that this culture of Islamists is not morally equivalent to liberal western thought. The area of the treatment of women alone should give one pause for thought as to what type of world we may be living in within a generation. Echoing the Beezer's earlier thoughts, I believe that these people mean what they say, and Lord knows they've said it often enough, and they mean to subject the world to their brand of religous despotism. Various weak-minded thinkers elected not to take the ruminations of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao seriously in the last century and we are not done yet with paying the price for their faith in the goddess Pollyanna. I see no reason not to take these men at their word and therefore no reason not to resist them, to extermination if they insist. Islamic culture as constituted in the middle-east, not Detroit, is fundamentally at war with western culture. Compromise is not an option-this is not a negotiation over such trivialities as borders, the whole enchilada is on the plate. We need only to look to history to see the results of what this culture has done to it's own region. Can anyone remember the Beirut, the Tehran, or the Cairo of not that many years past? With the exception of Turkey the whole region is sliding, quickly, into it's own dark age. The cultural glories of the region are merely a hard to be believed, let alone remembered, relic of history books. this is now a culture of sub-humanism and enslavement.

While I'm on the topic I might as well engage some of the flapdoodle regarding Israel. Is it mere coincidence that many Arabs prefer to live in Israel? Might it have something to do with the fact that Israel is a democracy and that they actually have rights in Israeli society, not the least of which the right to an economic future? The entire Palestinian issue is a canard, designed to distract men of good will from the fundamental goal of the destruction of the Zionist state. The Palestinians are mere pawns, mostly willing pawns, in the struggle to eradicate Israel. The Islamist culture sees nothing wrong with maintaining refugee camps, some over fifty years old, for Palestinians within which they incubate the terrorists of tomorrow. Can one imagine if we still had refugee camps from WW II in Europe? Would we be surprised if revolt was present? Countless Arab countries have had it within their power to ameliorate the situation and done less than nothing. In fact, the Palestinians have done less than nothing. As the saying goes, "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Every concession of Israel is met with renewed terror. The Israeli's have been living with their own 9/11 on a daily basis since their state's inception. Even now some secretly hope that the Israel's, with no options when it comes to their survival, will deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. I vividly recall when they dealt with Saddam's first attempt at nuclear capability and the western world felt it necessary to hypocritically poo-poo the action-all the while secretly sighing with relief that we would not have to do so. We might have been forced to toss a UN resolution at them or something. When confronted with a rattlesnake the Israeli's have to react as adults and kill the snake. The luxury of discussing the relative merits of snakes, and rattlers in particular, is left to the Israeli's western betters. Such luxury will prove to be temporal.

Without lending any credence to the bleatings from Belgium I would say that the US has not exactly covered itself in glory in the war on terror. The US government has understated the case consistently and dangerously. It comes as no surprise to me that the only terrorists foiled on 9/11 were those on flight 93 who were confronted by real Americans whose last words were, "Let's roll". They extinguished their smoking materials, returned their trays and seat backs to their upright position and proceeded to attempt to kick the bejesus out of the scumbags. Remember it is, and was, the US government that established the laws that failed to allow the citizens on those flights to defend themselves against box-cutters. It was inevitable that a government that does not allow a woman in the District of Columbia to own a hand-gun and then, after she has been raped and maimed, decrees that forty-five minutes is a reasonable response time for the local police would demand that we surrender our most basic right to self defense while riding on public transportation. Taken to it's logical conclusion of ad absurdum, as we always do, that government now bends over backwards to treat blue haired grandmothers in the same manner as obvious semites in robes with attitudinal problems. The same culture that responded to Columbine by placing police officers in schools, which has to be a violation of some important right or another if you're a normally horny teenager, refused to consider the idea of just allowing teachers to pack heat. Much like Bernhard Goetz reduced crime on the subways, no one would know who was armed. How many lives would have been saved if one of the aforementioned blue haired granny's on one of those flights been a victim of too many John Wayne movies and in possession of a snub-nose .38? "Drop the box-cutter pilgrim" has a nice ring to it. It's alright if the Euro-weenies sleep better knowing that Uncle Sam is right around the corner to pull their bacon out of the fire, but do we have to import their attitude to our shores and thereby deny Americans the right to behave and protect themselves as Americans have traditionally done? If we're going to be accused of acting like cowboys shouldn't we at least keep a few cowboys around, if only to perpetuate the myth, and maybe foster some self-reliance and cast doubt in the minds of our adversaries? Let's roll-we can sooth the hurt feelings of the Euro-weenies later over a Bud and a burger.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Well said sailaway. Concise and succicent.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Sailaway21 has said it well.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Sailaway21 Well said. With one voice you speak for many.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Would a referendum be appropriate? Or do you prefer to trust the word of the puppet government that, according to US officials: "Is only capable of paying its own salary"? Anyway, GWB needs to keep Iraq as a base, from which to attack Iran and Syria.


Jonathon-Livingston, it's difficult to conduct a thoughtful discussion with you if you won't answer questions. A discussion should involve the give-and take of ideas, and when you refuse to answer questions, you're hiding your own thoughts from us. That suggests that either you know your answers won't support the preposterous positions you've taken, or you have no confidence in your ability to frame consistent, intelligent and persuasive answers. Your technique of answering questions with questions is suitable to a high school debate, but it has no place in a discussion of serious issues among adults.

In my last post I asked the following questions:

"Do you really think we should walk out on our commitment to them, knowing that it will probably result in a bloodbath? If so, why, and how is that consistent with your self-avowed humanitarian concern for the safety of innocent Iraquis and their children?"

Those aren't rhetorical questions. They reflect the reality of what will happen if we pull out of Iraq. You have said you want us to leave. My question is, do you really want us to leave, no matter how high the cost to Iraqis in terms of lives? If so, why, and how is that consistent with your self-avowed humanitarian concern for the safety of innocent Iraquis and their children?

Those are fair questions, and if you aren't prepared to answer them, you obvously aren't interested in a serious adult discussion. If that's the case, then one must ask, what is your objective? If this is just an outlet for your contempt for the US, I hope you feel better. If you're proudly showing off your debating skills, you're losing, big time. If you're really trying to persuade us to your point of view, you're failing. When this discussion started, it seemed as if some of our members were not completely clear in their views, but their thinking has since been crystallized as a result of this discussion. We owe that to you. Thanks.


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

Well said Sailaway. I could not agree with you more. It is a very accurate and concise viewpoint.

Jerry


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

****NEWS FLASH******
The heated debate on Iraq at sailnet is the real reason for global warming
leave some slack in the springers!!


----------



## Shack (Sep 5, 2006)

*Interjection*

There are two distinct issues in Iraq: 
Iraqi infighting (civil strife not directed at the West) and Anti-Western Islamic Radicals. Please understand this dynamic. Iraqis will figure themselves out, but you have to give them reasonable time to do it. If you want to know what reasonable is, you need to study human history. On the other hand, the Islamic Radicals in the world only want to kill Westerners. Iraq is one place that they can have access to both Westerners and arms. They need the chaos in order to function. Without the chaos they'll have to move on.

State of our Military:
I deploy to Iraq in 4 weeks. I'd rather fight the Radical Islamists over there, than have to watch my back on the way to work over here. The people of London may be able to talk to that fear in a little more detail than me. I have young men and woman in my unit pissed off that they can not deploy. I have one young officer who just requested mast with our commanding general becasue she may not be allowed to deploy. I have another young man who volunteered to go train Iraqi soldiers becasue we did not have a need for his specialty on our deployment roster.

Drive-thru America:
I take a little offense at the "Feel-Good" and "Immediate Gratification" Americans who state that they are _tired of this war_. Firstly, they're not fighting the war - their military is. The military is not yet ready to throw in the towel and quit. We are farily accustom to putting up with discomfort and sticking to a job when the going gets tough. Unfortunately, most of the "feel good" Americans are not.

Many Americans I meet are quiters. Go into any work place today and observe the lazy attitudes of the Nintendo Generation. Their parents are likely the product of the qick fix, getting high, and buy it now attitudes. Such Americans also expect life to be delivered to them by the hand of a socialist government. Their mottos are _"There should be a law for that!" _and _"Where's mine?" _ Those with more are "evil", those with less are simply "lesser people" and should be helped by those with more (the "evil"). But, to their credit - again - they are not fighting this war. They still drive to work at the cheapest gas prices in the world, and ***** about it while paying more per unit price for Starbucks Coffee and Spring Water. They occasionally mow their lawn or pay an illegal to do it because its _easier and cheaper._ They watch Oprah, The View, Reality TV; the Superbowl and the Oscars have not missed a season yet. They worship entertainers and politicians who get paid to make friends and fake their true identities. Their biggest fear of death comes from wondering if their colesterol is too high.

In the end:
The West can pull out of Iraq now - with no immediate repucussions. This will suit the needs of the "Feel Good" people. But such people will not recognize the that the light showing at the end of that tunnel is really a train.

-Shack


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I don't think that will make the NY Times Shack, but thank you for posting your thoughts, and may you return safely.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Excellent rant sailaway21. You summarised the issues well.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

You make an excellent interrogator Sailormon6.

I will try to be brief. Again. As I answered your questions in other posts, but not directly to you. Now I will stare into your table light and attempt to formulate them again.



Sailormon6 said:


> "Do you really think we should walk out on our commitment to them, knowing that it will probably result in a bloodbath? If so, why, and how is that consistent with your self-avowed humanitarian concern for the safety of innocent Iraquis and their children?" .


 It is already a blood bath, maybe you haven't noticed. Will it get worse? I think so. Will it become even worse if you pull out? I don't think so. In fact, I think it will get better quicker, than if you stay to over see it. At least there will be less blood on your hands. 


Sailormon6 said:


> Those are fair questions, and if you aren't prepared to answer them, you obvously aren't interested in a serious adult discussion. .


 No, they are not fair questions. I am not in Iraq killing people on a daily basis, you are. Ask yourself if you will kill more this way or that.


Sailormon6 said:


> If that's the case, then one must ask, what is your objective? If this is just an outlet for your contempt for the US, I hope you feel better. If you're proudly showing off your debating skills, you're losing, big time. If you're really trying to persuade us to your point of view, you're failing. When this discussion started, it seemed as if some of our members were not completely clear in their views, but their thinking has since been crystallized as a result of this discussion. We owe that to you. Thanks.


 That is a classic bullying tactic of the type in which you excel. You demand that only Americans can have opinions on what Americans do, or at all. You will even reject a friend's advice out of hand if it goes against your dogma. You will never try to understand your enemy.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sailaway...good to have you back and making up for lost time! Excellent rant!! 

Shack...Well done! Know that many millions of us support you and the mission and pray for your success and safe return.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - as a piece of friendly advice, I'd quit before you become enmeshed in a deepening quagmire.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Idiens - as a piece of friendly advice, I'd quit before you become enmeshed in a deepening quagmire.


Thanks PB. I'm outa here.


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

It is amazing that so many people have their head in the sand. They that that "if we just leave them alone they will not bother us anymore" attitude. Sure, let's pull out of Iraq; I am positive the terrorists (combatants, freedom fighter etc) will surely only commit those atrocious acts within their own borders. No doubt it is _our_ fault because "we have so much and they have so little" or "they are just hungry and not responsible for what they do". WE are told we should just "pull out" but they do now have a plan for later. Talk about some real forward thinking winners we have around us. I all for pulling out of NATO (That alone will free up lots of cash since it is mostly funded by the US anyway and pull our troops out of NATO)

Jerry


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Shack,

Thank you for what you do.

- CD


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens said:


> You make an excellent interrogator Sailormon6..


 Thank you Jonathan. I'd rather discuss things in a more casual, friendly manner, but some people won't let you do that.

Thank you for answering my question. I asked if you thought the violence would get worse if the US pulls out of Iraq. You said, "It is already a blood bath, maybe you haven't noticed. Will it get worse? I think so. Will it become even worse if you pull out? I don't think so."

What leads you to believe that, Jonathan? Most people believe it would lead to all out civil war, with Sunni killing Shiite, and vice versa. Most people are convinced that our presence is the only thing that prevents death squads from roaming unrestrained through the streets. But, even if you don't believe that, I have a suggestion that would avoid any possibility of that happening, and it should be acceptable to all people of good will.

President Bush has made a clear public commitment to pull out of Iraq whenever the Iraqi government asks us to do so, but you and I both know the Iraqis aren't going to ask us to leave so long as the hostility is ongoing. If the hostility ends, there'll be no need for us to remain. Iraqis will want us to leave, and Republicans and Democrats alike in this country will be thrilled to see our troops come home. Under those circumstances, neither the world at large, nor Americans in general would permit President Bush to renege on his commitment to pull out, even if he wanted to. After our troops leave, Iraqis can hold elections and form or re-form their own government in any way they wish. In our absence, there'll be no reason to doubt the validity of those elections, but, even if you don't trust the US to refrain from interfering in the elections, this can still work. The elections could be monitored by an impartial arbiter, to assure that we do not interfere.

Doesn't my suggestion seem much more civilized and humanitarian than your suggestion of just walking out and hoping the bloodshed will not begin?

I can tell you why the terrorists won't agree to that. It's because they don't believe they can prevail in a free and open election. They want to impose their agenda and their rule through violence and terror. They've already proven that. They won't participate in the electoral process. You're making your appeal to the wrong people, Jonathan. We can settle this reasonably - the terrorists will not.

If the violence would just stop, this could all be over, and our troops could come home. Why don't you log onto the website for terrorist sailors (I think it's sailnut.com) , and urge them to stop the violence. Remind them how much blood is on their hands. Reason with them.

We're prepared to go home and let the Iraqis determine their own destiny through a fair electoral process. We can do that if the terrorists will simply stop the violence. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Sailormon6: Good we can talk. This is my view:-

There are people being killed in Iraq, more each day. Now look at the death statistics and where they come from.

Some insurgents are being killed by Americans (death rate 1), some Americans are being killed by insurgents (death rate 2). Then there are Iraqi's killing Iraqi's (death rate 3) and US collateral damage (death rate 4). The American forces are not able to lower rates 2 or 3 much but they might increase rate 1 and if not very careful rate 4. So there are four death rates.

So your alternative 1: Stay until the Iraqi government feels it is in control enough to take over (this will be a long time). Add the current four death rates together and integrate over that long time = lots dead.

So my alternative 2: Get out as soon as possible. Death rates 1, 2 and 4 stop just as quickly as the exit. That leaves death rate 3 to integrate over the time it takes to have a warlord/mufti in charge of each of the main sunni/shia/kurd areas. This is likely to be a much shorter period than that of alternative 1, in my view. The death rate may rise but the duration is shorter, so fewer deaths in total - especially fewer American ones.

Now I believe that the insurgents are attacking largely innocent groups of civilian Iraqi's because they want to demonstrate that the Americans or the Iraqi government are not able to defend innocent Iraqi's. When the Americans leave, the insurgents will turn on each other as the struggle for power is fought out. Yes, the insurgent death rate rises (we want that), probably much higher than the current rate 1. But the civilian death rate 3 is likely to fall, they will be needed by their new rulers later. Every govenment loves tax payers. So I believe the total deaths caused by the US invasion will be minimised by leaving early.

The really big downside of my alternative, is that the insurgents will claim to have beaten the US forces. I think that this is what makes this alternative unacceptable to those who prize staying the course, choosing the hard way, etc..


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Shack:
Thank you for your eloquent summation and for your faithful service.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Idiens-
"Now I believe that the insurgents are attacking largely innocent groups of civilian Iraqi's because they want to demonstrate that the Americans or the Iraqi government are not able to defend innocent Iraqi's. "
Do you really? Are so you naive that you cannot understand neither the Sunni nor the Shia recognize the concept of "innocents" ? Either you are of their clan, or you are the enemy. Infidel, unbeliever, wrong clan, Western Satan, are all the same. 

Shack: I hope you, and the rest of our forces, have no doubt that while some of us may disagree with our government policy and the involvement itself, we respect those who serve, and do the hard and unsavory job of being there. And support you 100%. Now, if only someone could figure out how to get out of the swamp without leaving a killing ground as our legacy.


----------



## Shack (Sep 5, 2006)

*Bad Days*

All,
Thanks for the kind words, and trust that I will greedily spend your tax dollars in the most calculated and violent way possible. Also, please recognize that Terrorists do have bad days. They have especially bad days when they meet us. Do note that when terrorists are killed by the score it hardly makes news because it is no longer an exceptional event its just an expectation. Much like the sunrise and sunset - it just happens.

I take risk in oversimplifying a multifaceted situation - but we well understand the dynamics involved. There are plenty of books and academics that can expound on that in a worthy way. The Iraqis grow stronger by the month, and like any worth while endeavor - it takes time and care. I just want the people of the West to know that their military men and women (although bloodied and sometimes mournful) are not tired, not quiting, and not giving up.

Semper Fidelis,
Shack


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> Sorry tdw, you have it a bit skewed. There was far and away majority support for going to Iraq. Both in Congress and public opinion. And it has been shown, to all but the most dogmatic, that Bush acted in good faith on the information that was available at the time. The Left of course, will continue it's "Bush lied" mantra, because that is all you have, and as you pointed out.....say it enough times....
> 
> To the Left, there is, and always has been, only one villian in the world, and that is the US.


PB,
At no time did I say that there was less than majority support for the war in the US itself or within your elected bodies. On the other hand I fail to see how it has been shown that Bush Jr acted in good faith.

Regarding the left and the right, really those labels are simply far too black and white. I'm left of centre, yes , but by no means am I a supporter of the likes of Stalin nor do I see communism as the answer to anything. You , on the other hand are of the right but does that make you a fascist , are you a supporter of the likes of Adolf Hitler ? I think not. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the USA has much to be proud of but every now and then the nations leaders get it wrong. Such is life. It's going to be more glaringly obvious when the US cocks up than when , say, we do. You're big and important, we are neither.

Regards
TD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Shack-

Well said and I hope you get back safely. 

While I do not believe we were justified in invading, as I am not a big fan of GWB or his reasons for going to war in Iraq in the first place—we are now responsible for having done so, and I do agree that we have a responsibility to finish what was started and to leave the country in at least as good a shape as it was in before we went in—at least in terms of a functioning government, military, infrastructure and such.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Actually tdw, Hilter was the leader of the National SOCIALIST Party.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

PBz-

While Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist Party, he was definitely a fascist.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> Actually tdw, Hilter was the leader of the National SOCIALIST Party.


Yep, and that pompus little schmuck who's the PM of Australia is head of the Liberal Party.


----------



## Shack (Sep 5, 2006)

*There is no Swamp . . .*

Hellosailor,
Permit me to borrow a phrase from modern story. "There is no spoon."
This is not an attempt at denial, but a realization of context. Getting out of the swamp (quagmire) as you phrased it speaks to the desire for an exit strategy. Many seem to take the concept of an exit strategy for granted.

Who ever laid out a need for an exit strategy? This has no historical merit in the annals of international power or military grand strategy. The concept of "exit strategy" is one of purly tactical context. Its a very low level context used for raids, and body snatches. It has no true place on the strategic level in diplomacy or military action. It is mis-named as it isn't really a "strategy" in the true sense.

Exit Strategy is a new buzz word brought about in the last couple decades that politicians push around on their rivals to catch them in a Catch 22. The reality is that "There is no such thing as an exit strategy." It falacious. One doesn't expend resources and efforts with and end state that gives you nothing. One doesn't plan on buying a house in order to break even or in debt when they sell it. Some kind of dividend must be achieved. It doesn't even have to be monetary. It could be intagible things - security, agreements, culture, quality of life, etc.

We will have some varied presence in Iraq and the Middle East for decades to come. We've already been there ever since the Saudis asked for US Naval protection way back in the last century. We've been there for decades and the current situation is merely an update - its not new. I'd ask you to merely look soley at our military presence in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Bosnia. We did not exit those places after long conflicts. We only recently left the Philipines. We're still in Cuba, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Greece and various islands of the Pacific. We have stayed on to satisfy American interests as well as to protect other allied naitons.

We are not leaving Iraq nor Afghanistan in the near future. Especially now that we have Iran's attention on both its borders to the East & West. The numbers may change, but we will never be "gone."

Thanks for your support to the troops. We need it. No one can 100% agree on eveything. I harbor no ill to dissenters. The players on a team don't always agree with the coach's calls. HOWEVER, the whole team drives to the goal. In this context the goal is keeping radical islamists off our shores. The means may vary, but right now it takes troops outside the wire to do it.

But there do exist dangerous dissenters. I must soundly diagree with those who favor peace at all costs. Freedom and peace (although compatible) are not the same concepts. One can easily have one without the other. One can make huge sacrifices to have either of them. How to have both at the same time?? . . . well I gess that's the meaning of life.

Thanks for letting me rant,
Shack


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Shack

As an member of the 504th airborne 30+ years ago, you have my respect. I wish you well comrade. The following helped me when I was called, maybe it will help you.

Warrior Ethos

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.
*I will always place the mission first.*
*I will never accept defeat.*
*I will never quit.*
*I will never leave a fallen comrade.*
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.
​​


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Mussolini was a fascist, Hilter took some of that and some of socialism and wasn't really a true fascist, but he had to be labeled as such so as not to taint the Communists.

Being that the word has only been in use since about the mid 1930's, it's amazing how little is known of it. Or what it actually means. But, that's neither here nor there, because the only meaning that counts is the one it is given by those who use it so freely, not as a definition, but as an epithet.

In the interest of clarity though, I will say, I think of the Left as being those who espouse a higher level of government involvement in people's lives, and the Right as those who espouse less government involvement. Whist I try to eschew labels, some definition is necessary, at least in a broad sense.

So when I say someone is "of the Left", I am not, and have not, linked them to Stalin, Mao, or any other tyrant of the socialist pantheon. To do so is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Idiens...
*That leaves death rate 3 to integrate over the time it takes to have a warlord/mufti in charge of each of the main sunni/shia/kurd areas.

*Kinda like Kosovo eh? Great idea!


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Shack said:


> But there do exist dangerous dissenters. I must soundly diagree with those who favor peace at all costs. Freedom and peace (although compatible) are not the same concepts. One can easily have one without the other. One can make huge sacrifices to have either of them. How to have both at the same time?? . . . well I gess that's the meaning of life.
> 
> Thanks for letting me rant,
> Shack


I'd reckon the concept of exit strategy may have been invented after the television footage of the rabble retreating from the US embassy compound in Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War was aired around the world. I doubt that there has been too many events in the history of the USA that would have seemed more demoralising and that many in the US political world would have vowed that such scenes should not be repeated.

While it's true that the US has bases on allied and non allied nations soil throughout the world that's a little bit different to troops on the ground.

Freedom and an Honourable Peace are well worth fighting for. Invading a sovereign nation, yes, even one that was ruled by a total nutter, is a doubtful method of achieving those goals, particularly when the expressed reasons for doing so were a pack of lies.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens, your proposal would have us abandon Iraq so that the most brutal, strong-arm warlords could assume control of Iraq, regardless of the will of the Iraqi people. 

When we joined NATO in 1948, at the request of Belgium, we weren't willing to abandon Belgium, so that the Soviets could assume control of Belgium, contrary to the will of the Belgian people. When Belgium asked us to defend it from the Soviets, your beloved homeland knew it's defense might result in the deaths of Soviets, Americans, Belgians, British, French, Spanish, as well as citizens of other Nato and Soviet member nations. Belgium so loved it's liberty that it was willing to accept those consequences. 

What makes you think liberty is any the less important to the people of Iraq, or that they are any the less willing to accept the pain of war in defense of their own liberty? Some things are worth dying for. Isn't that their choice to make?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

"Bush lied" is nothing more than a political slogan. There are many instances of the belief that Hussien had WMD's, long before Bush was elected, or 9/11. As with most all "debate" on Iraq, the use of buzzwords, political slogans, and guilt by association and innuendo is constantly employed rather than an actual debate of the situation.

We are there. That is an inescapable fact. The question is not of whether we should or shouldn't be, the question is how do we proceed. There are two options. We can turn tail and run, or we can finish the job. Anything less than either of those will solve nothing.

Where the people of the Middle East have been given the chance, they have overwhelmingly, in the face of violent opposition, choosen to go to the polls and vote on their future. The idea of handing them over to the "tender mercies" of tyrants, thugs and terrorists, is one I find unacceptable. And one, they have shown, is not their choice.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

tdw said:


> I'd reckon the concept of exit strategy may have been invented after the television footage of the rabble retreating from the US embassy compound in Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War was aired around the world. I doubt that there has been too many events in the history of the USA that would have seemed more demoralizing and that many in the US political world would have vowed that such scenes should not be repeated."
> 
> Maybe it was coined after the battle for Singapore where over 80,000 Indian, Australian and British troops became prisoners of war, joining 50,000 taken in the Japanese invasion of Malaya. (Feb 1942) I was there when Saigon fell, you went to far.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

In our oaths, we swore to defend the U. S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign _and domestic_.

The saddest part of all this business is that the domestic enemies of the Constitution are so close to obtaining for themselves another defeat of our armed forces. They will not be satisfied with less.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Goodnewsboy - that's the real parallel to Vietnam.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Shack-
" Getting out of the swamp (quagmire) as you phrased it speaks to the desire for an exit strategy. "
More and less than that. I do not believe that the US should be engaged in a long civil war between two large tribal cults, i.e the Sunni and Shia, at all. I also do not believe that was can simply walk out, having left Sadam's iron-fisted relative peace to be replaced by bloody chaos. We made a bad situation worse, and we have to own that. But...throwing Gis into a meat grinder where US strategy and goals come from an opium pipe on the highest levels is something I am totally against.
A civil war can't be "won" in the classic sense because there's no way to differentiate between friend and foe. And attempting to pull a rabbit out of the keffiyeh just ain't gonna happen. The government's original story line (and let's face it, pretty much everyone on both sides claimed it was so) was that we'd throw out the bad man and somehow, "Iraqis" would take back their country. Ooopsie, there are no Iraqis, or damn few of them.

So, in terms of getting out of the swamp? I don't care if we drain it or give it back to the gators, I just don't want GIs turned into cannon fodder by a government that is repeating the opium dreams it had with Vietnam. And I'm especially PO'd at Congress, who told us back in '73 that the War Powers Act could ensure this never happened again--and now are telling us that's a useless piece of paper, it can't be used without endangering troops. Hmmm.

I see no diplomatic solution and no military solution short of overwhelming force, IOW no acceptable solutions at all. Unless it is something radically creative, i.e. a mass kidnapping of a thousand mullahs on the same night, and we slaughter them all and ask who wants to take over and start a newer better way of sharing the land. I'm all in favor of creative solutions.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Hellosailor:

Where is the "cannon fodder" or "swamp" situation of which you speak? In absolute terms, we are engaged in a relatively low intensity situation in Iraq that is well within the capability of our very modest forces there. (Read the history of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne for comparison.) The situation would be much improved if our commanders were not burdened with the idiotic rules of engagement that give the bad guys the first shot.

That is not to say that I minimize the loss of any soldier, sailor, Marine or airman. Every such is tragic, but it ought to steel our resolve to make damn sure the enemy does not prevail and that they pay a full and terrible price.

If world history teaches us anything, it is emphatic that no nation is respected if it is not feared. Running from a ragtag bunch of terrorists will be the penultimate victory for them and will be proof to the world that we are as soft, decadent, and ultimately unable to withstand their sustained attacks, as the terrorists have said. It would be national cowardice. I cannot think of any action we could take that would be more favorable to their cause.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

tdw,
Freedom is certainly worth fighting for. An honourable peace is not worth fighting for. An honourable peace is what was imposed upon Tojo's Japan and Hitler's Germany at the conclusion of that war. Unconditional surrender by the enemy is the only effective method to allow for an honourable peace. Unconditional surrender is what allows a nation such as the USA to pump millions of dollars into a defeated nation to restore it's people to vitality. Honourable peace was implemented at Appomatox. The "honourable peace" you seem to refer to is of the type implemented at the Paris peace accords and resulted in the Vietnamese boat people and the genocide in Cambodia. Do not mistake honourable peace for utility or convenience.

And invading a sovereign country, as distiguished from un-sovereign, ill-sovereigned, or mis-sovereigned perhaps, is exactly the way to implement peace. The US military is the greatest peace implementer ever to stride the globe, with the British Royal Navy a close second. War is the execution of diplomacy by different means. That's Clausewitz, not me.

Now I am in full agreement that Saddam was in fact a nutter. So is Libya's Quadaffi. The difference between the two is one of pragmatism. Quadaffi sized up the US leadership, the US military which he was already familiar with, and the prevailing winds of geo-politics and voted the straight libertarian ticket (live and let live). Saddam, with vastly more experience with the forward deployed armaments of the US, was rather more obtuse. It is my experience that many liberals are Darwinists. Perhaps we could think of Saddam as a casualty of the evolutionary process. If he had the survival instincts of a Quadaffi he'd still be paddling around his pool on an inflatable ewe. When I encounter a police officer in the middle of the night on a dark country road I use such terms as "officer" and a lot of "yes sir" and "no sir". I may be substantially older, smarter, and more in the right than the officer but I find such behavior on my part to be prudent. Any serious differences can be worked out in court afterwards. Saddam had the best defendant's court in the world to appeal to, the UN. And so, while he was capable of growing a prodigous mustache, it seems there was little other activity above his chin. Las Vegas loves gamblers like Saddam.

Now of course, Saddam's terminal stupidity is no reason for his extermination, although I do find that many liberals favor eugenics also. As to your stated reasons for our invasion, I find your willingness to stop short of the goal by naming George Bush only, a little puzzling. Would not the honourable thing to do be to blame western civilization? After all, it was western civilization as represented by it's various government's, via their intelligence agencies, that universally deduced that Saddam was endeavoring to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction. Ok, the world for the most part was wrong. Oops-that's never happened before. Hell, even the French thought he was up to no good. And those little jaunts down to Niger have been brushed aside over partisan politics. What could Iraq want with Niger, a more pestilent and bedraggled nation hard to be found except for the fact that they do possess a certain mineral? Now given my previous estimation of Saddam's intelligence, I must admit to the possibility that Iraqi envoys were merely there to buy up some land before Club Med bought up all the good lots in the 23rd century-but I doubt it.

Furthermore, the "rabble" attempting to exit the US embassy in Saigon were Vietnamese citizens with the remarkable prescience to know what was coming in on the other side of town and harbored little in the way of misconceptions as to what Ho's re-education camps and mass slaughter held for them.

It is usually refreshing to encounter the puckish and plucky Australian, they contrast so markedly with their fellow commonwealth brethern on our northern border who seem to have cornered the med school market in proctology. When thinking of the great "down under" I find that thoughts of Jimmy Carter, Alan Alda, or Barbara Striesand hardly ever intrude upon my blissfull memories of Austrailian womanhood. Currently though, such thoughts just put me right off my feed.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> Mussolini was a fascist, Hilter took some of that and some of socialism and wasn't really a true fascist, but he had to be labeled as such so as not to taint the Communists.
> 
> In the interest of clarity though, I will say, I think of the Left as being those who espouse a higher level of government involvement in people's lives, and the Right as those who espouse less government involvement. Whist I try to eschew labels, some definition is necessary, at least in a broad sense.
> 
> So when I say someone is "of the Left", I am not, and have not, linked them to Stalin, Mao, or any other tyrant of the socialist pantheon. To do so is intellectually dishonest.


Simply because I espouse "leftish" views has seen me labelled all sorts of things, commo being probably the most absurd but there you go.

Ref govt v non govt involvement, the definition is pretty good except that to my mind both far right and far left both have control of the citizenry as their prime goal.

In reality a lot of this kind of argument re the left and right comes down to chaos v order. Too much of either can be a mongrel. Governments cannot stay out of peoples lives completely, to do so would allow the bully boys to take over. On the other hand some of those self same bully boys are in government and have shown that total bureaucratic control of the state is a disaster for the people simply trying to get on with their lives. Sadly for us as a species, without government intervention in our lives too many things go awry. Self interest and the hunt for the mighty buckazoid seem to outweigh all other considerations.

To bring this discussion at least vaguely back to matters environmental it was only government intervention that has seen Whales, American Bison, Sea Otter, Beaver and the Wedge Tail Eagle come back from the brink of extinction. Sadly that was too late for the Passenger Pigeon, Dodo and the Baiji while climate change, over hunting, habitat reduction and pollution will probably see off the Polar Bear, Sturgeon, Blue Fin Tuna , Hairy Nosed Wombat, Snow Leopard, Tiger and quite a few other animals particularly those that rely on specific environments for their existence.

Which does at least bring us back to climate change, a term I much prefer to global warming. Now whether or not it is caused directly by us there is undoubtedly something going on that is different to what we have seen in recent memory. The polar ice caps are melting, habitat is being destroyed, extinctions are on the increase and what rise there has been in sea levels in recent years has seen settlements in low lying areas subjected to flooding that has in some cases caused the abandonment of whole communities. Reality is that we are past the point of asking whether anything is going on, it undoubtedly is. We are now at a point where we need to be doing something to ameliorate the situation before it really is too late.

Much of the argument against global warming reminds me of similar debates regarding cigarettes and car safety devices such as seat belts and air bags. Despite all the waffle, despite all the pundits who came out denying that tobacco products cause heart and lung disease, that seat belts would cause more deaths than they would save, that seat belt laws are an infringement of the citizens rights, that air bags would crush your cojones and make your pregant cat give birth to the anti christ the truth did come out and now we know that cigarettes will kill you eventually while seat belts and airbags will save your life. The jury is still out on the anti christ and I still can't quite kick the smokes but then not everything is as it should be.

I'd recommend to any and all of your this website

http://www.theweathermakers.com/

The man behind it is one Tim Flannery. You can read all about him on the site, his credentials are pretty impressive. He was also named Australian of the Year on Australia Day 2007. Sod the bloody Crocodile Hunter, this is an Australian to be truely proud of.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

> When thinking of the great "down under" I find that thoughts of Jimmy Carter, Alan Alda, or Barbara Striesand hardly ever intrude upon my blissfull memories of Austrailian womanhood. Currently though, such thoughts just put me right off my feed.


Jimmy Carter ? Alan Alda ? Barbara Striesand ? Bronwyn Bishop? Jeanette Howard ? Man you have some mighty strange masturbation fantasies podner, mighty strange indeed.

(That was a joke, I'll answer the rest of your post when I have some free time later on. Work to do right now I'm afraid.)


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> Idiens-Are so you naive that you cannot understand neither the Sunni nor the Shia recognize the concept of "innocents" ? Either you are of their clan, or you are the enemy. Infidel, unbeliever, wrong clan, Western Satan, are all the same.


I don't think so, if you look back in this thread, I raised that point earlier. However, does that make pretty-well every Iraqi "guilty" (non-innocent) then?

Do you think the Sunni / Shia battle will stop because Americans are occupying their country, even indefinitely? I think America is being attacked by both Sunni and Shia insurgents, plus a good few foreigners. The invasion let that cat out of the bag and I don't think you are going to get it back under control with the current Iraqi government.

Even in 25(?) years time, when you eventually want to leave, what is to stop the country going back to Islamic dictatorship and hating America?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> Idiens..Kinda like Kosovo eh? Great idea!


Cam - America did not invade Kosovo first and Serbia is not occupied.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Sailormon6 said:


> Idiens, your proposal would have us abandon Iraq so that the most brutal, strong-arm warlords could assume control of Iraq, regardless of the will of the Iraqi people.


 Yes, sadly, I do, but only because I think fewer lives will be lost in total than will be lost by your proposal to stay and fight for as long as it takes. Vietnam was a war by proxy for the supporters of North Vietnam. Iraq is now also a war by proxy for those who violently oppose American domination. I guess, if you prefer to fight them there, it follows logically that you will want to attack Iran and Syria and then maybe Pakistan and Jordan and Lebanon and Saudi and Egypt and&#8230; There are a lot of Islamic countries that have young men opposed to America. But you will not be liberating the Iraqis.


Sailormon6 said:


> When we joined NATO in 1948, at the request of Belgium, we weren't willing to abandon Belgium, so that the Soviets could assume control of Belgium, contrary to the will of the Belgian people. When Belgium asked us to defend it from the Soviets, your beloved homeland knew it's defense might result in the deaths of Soviets, Americans, Belgians, British, French, Spanish, as well as citizens of other Nato and Soviet member nations. Belgium so loved it's liberty that it was willing to accept those consequences.


 Sailomon6 - please stop attacking Belgium just because I am posting from there. I do not pretend to represent Belgium's many points of view, you should not presume that I do.


Sailormon6 said:


> What makes you think liberty is any the less important to the people of Iraq, or that they are any the less willing to accept the pain of war in defense of their own liberty? Some things are worth dying for. Isn't that their choice to make?


 I think the Iraqi's would express that sentiment a little differently and would prefer to do it themselves without the US telling them how.
I listened to an Egyptian diplomat trying to explain why western democracy does not sit well with Islamic nations. I will try to paraphrase as best I can his words: He said that in Islam, God is the seat of all power, man cannot usurp it. Hence, the division of power between church and state is not acceptable, as God governs all. Consequently, westerners, who are used to their church and their state taking different and separate roles in their lives cannot understand Islamists. Nor can Islamic states tolerate western states insisting on a division of church and state as being essential to democracy. It leads them to reject democracy (western style). 
The US is trying to impose western style democracy on Iraq, with all the best intentions, but if that Egyptian is right, it will not work.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Shack said:


> Who ever laid out a need for an exit strategy? This has no historical merit in the annals of international power or military grand strategy.


A very wise and thought provoking rant, if I may say so Shack.

It does put the invasion of Iraq in a different light, not a knee-jerk reaction to 911, or an attempt to deny a dictator his WMD or his country, but part of a long-term US strategy. That's quite a thought and the implications are also very long term.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Sailomon6 - please stop attacking Belgium just because I am posting from there.


 I'm not attacking Belgium. I'm drawing a parallel between Iraq and Belgium.

I'm pointing out the hipocrisy in your belief that Belgium's freedom is worth fighting and dying for, but Iraq's is not. If Belgium came under attack, you peace loving people of Belgium would graciously serve coffee and donuts to NATO troops while they fight and die for your country. In that case, you wouldn't characterize the US as hell-bent on world domination. You'd call us "friend." You have no reservations about the general morality of someone fighting and dying for your freedom. Your problem is that you don't think it's morally acceptable for someone to fight and die for someone else's freedom.

Moreover, you think Iraqis are mere humble desert people who can't be trusted to decide for themselves whether they want to live in freedom, or under the rule of strong-arm warlords and Islamo-fascist mullahs. In your wisdom, you choose the latter destiny for them. You hysterically urge the US to get out of Iraq, and you unashamedly admit, in your last post, that your "proposal would have us abandon Iraq so that the most brutal, strong-arm warlords could assume control of Iraq, regardless of the will of the Iraqi people."

You claim that we ignorant upstart Americans are incapable of understanding that, while we believe in a separation of church and state, many Islamists believe that the church should govern the state. We understand that. We simply believe that Iraqis ought to be free to make that choice for themselves. It shouldn't be imposed on them by you or me, and it especially shouldn't be imposed on them by ambitious, power hungry church leaders.

You suggest that Islamic people would never choose a secular government over an Islamic government, but that's exactly what Turkey and Afghanistan have done, when given an opportunity to make a free choice. That's why the Islamic terrorists are fighting so hard to hang onto their power to govern, and that's also why they don't want the Iraqi people to have a free choice. They know that, once the dam bursts, and freedom washes all across the mideast, their governmental power will disappear, and they'll be relegated to administering to the spiritual needs of their followers. President Bush understands that, if you do not.

Historically, the great nations of Europe have taken turns trying to dominate the world, and each has failed. America is a much younger nation, but we have never aspired to world domination. This nation was formed out of a yearning to be free, and while some people are teaching hatred of America to their children, we prefer to teach the blessings of freedom.


----------



## Shack (Sep 5, 2006)

*Numbers of dying*

Idiens,
Thanks for reading the "different slant" as you put it. But please note that this has always been the standard amoung military and operators and strategists. I mean to say that it isn't a new context, and nothing is implied by it at all. Its merely a fact accepted by all sides of the argument at the national levels. To me - and others - that is what has been so frustrating. Politcians are calling for an falacious "exit strategy" with the sole purpose of stirring naive emotions of the masses; it is negelegent. The only true purpose for this is to gain political power. The concept of "exit strategy" is for politicians to use talking to constituents like parents talk to children about the Easter Bunny. It provides a means to manipulate emotion and action with naive listeners. I have no inetention of offending anyone, and I am personnally offended when I watch politicians try to sell this concept in exchange for their votes.

Secondly, re numbers of deaths: 
I have read some method of logic in these threads about varied ways of reducing the numbers of deaths in order to improve the situation. I can't help but find fault with this as numbers of deaths in Iraq is not the problem. Deaths are a "symptom", but not the end state. Therefore any proposed solutions with the sole intent of reducing deaths is misguided. The political govermental situation must be fixed first. One can ease pain with anthestetic, but it doesn't cure the sickness.

Meat Grinder Myth:
There are no Cannae or Somme battles going on. This conflict fits into the catagory of Low Intesity Conflict (LIC). The death rate in Iraq for US troops in not too different that from our peace time activities and off-duty death rates. Look at the services safety information (naval safety center for one). It is true that many battalions and brigades see deployment to the groud-hog day life in Iraq as a means of getting their troops out of the bars, off the highways, off the motorcycles and get more visibility on their daily lives. 
However, it is the Iraqi people who are suffering the most. They are losing scores of innocent people. Their suffering will only increase with immediate pull out. Therefore, I see no way to have a positive effect on the death rate by pulling out the combatants who are suffering the least.

Nice discussion - I'm actually enjoying the banter.
-Shack
_Facts are useless unless put into context of scale and proper proportion.
The only thing more powerful than a lie is partial truth (filtered facts).
Context matters._


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Idiens-
"Do you think the Sunni / Shia battle will stop because Americans are occupying their country, even indefinitely?" Nope. Not unless we subject them to a Roman conquest, or offer to help them form an interim alliance to throw out the Americans. 

"I think America is being attacked by both Sunni and Shia insurgents, plus a good few foreigners." Ya think?!

"The invasion let that cat out of the bag" If by cat you mean sectarian hatreds, yes. " and I don't think you are going to get it back under control with the current Iraqi government." Government? What government? On my planet, you don't have a "government" unless someone is in charge, keeping the domestic tranquility, putting out fires, supplying water and power and removing sewage. No one in Iraq is doing that, ergo there is no government there yet.

"Even in 25(?) years time, when you eventually want to leave, what is to stop the country going back to Islamic dictatorship and hating America?" That is why I call it a quagmire. The situation is not firm or stable, and it cannot be made firm or stable unless one of several things happen. If all the Shia and/or all the Suni were exerminated, that would be a good step. I make no apologies for saying that extremists who want to exterminate "others" should be given a first-class non-stop ticket to the afterlife, where they can get better information first hand. Until the intolerant extremists are GONE, permanently GONE, there will be no peace. There will only be times when they are not actively at war, but are preparing for their next war. And that's a fools game of cowardice and appeasement. Like the old African proverb about the lion and the scorpion.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Note to surrender advocates: What are the benefits to be gained from it?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Sailormon6 said:


> I'm not attacking Belgium. I'm drawing a parallel between Iraq and Belgium. I'm pointing out the hipocrisy in your belief that Belgium's freedom is worth fighting and dying for, but Iraq's is not. If Belgium came under attack, you peace loving people of Belgium would graciously serve coffee and donuts to NATO troops while they fight and die for your country. In that case, you wouldn't characterize the US as hell-bent on world domination.


 I'm not sure where you are going there. Are you saying that Iraqi's feel that their freedom is worth dying for and, as they are invaded by Americans, maybe they are happy to serve the Arabic equivalent of coffee and donuts to Al Qaeda who are prepared to die on their behalf? Remember, the US is the invader this time.


Sailormon6 said:


> Moreover, you think Iraqis are mere humble desert people who can't be trusted to decide for themselves whether they want to live in freedom, or under the rule of strong-arm warlords and Islamo-fascist mullahs. In your wisdom, you choose the latter destiny for them. You hysterically urge the US to get out of Iraq, and you unashamedly admit, in your last post, that your "proposal would have us abandon Iraq so that the most brutal, strong-arm warlords could assume control of Iraq, regardless of the will of the Iraqi people."


 Umm.. I don't think I ever said anything like that. But you obviously think that Iraqis are mere humble desert people who can't be trusted to decide for themselves whether they want to live in freedom, or under the rule of strong-arm warlords and Islamo-fascist mullahs. In your wisdom, you choose US subservience for them. You hysterically urge Al Qaeda to get out of Iraq, and you unashamedly admit, in your last post, that you would have the US stay there until they learn to live as you wish them to. Cos you know what's best for the world.


Sailormon6 said:


> You claim that we ignorant upstart Americans are incapable of understanding that, while we believe in a separation of church and state, many Islamists believe that the church should govern the state. We understand that. We simply believe that Iraqis ought to be free to make that choice for themselves. It shouldn't be imposed on them by you or me, and it especially shouldn't be imposed on them by ambitious, power hungry church leaders.


 Then why are you supporting your forces in doing just that?


Sailormon6 said:


> You suggest that Islamic people would never choose a secular government over an Islamic government, but that's exactly what Turkey and Afghanistan have done, when given an opportunity to make a free choice.


 Look around. Which party did Turkey elect a year or two back - the Islamist one. You have obviously not kept track of what is still happening in Afghanistan, the Taliban is firmly on the way back.


Sailormon6 said:


> That's why the Islamic terrorists are fighting so hard to hang onto their power to govern, and that's also why they don't want the Iraqi people to have a free choice. They know that, once the dam bursts, and freedom washes all across the mideast, their governmental power will disappear, and they'll be relegated to administering to the spiritual needs of their followers. President Bush understands that, if you do not.


 Which is why Iraq is such a mess and getting worse. The dam did not burst and no freedom came washing out anywhere in the Middle East. GWB made a bad situation worse and you don't want to see it.


Sailormon6 said:


> Historically, the great nations of Europe have taken turns trying to dominate the world, and each has failed. America is a much younger nation, but we have never aspired to world domination. This nation was formed out of a yearning to be free, and while some people are teaching hatred of America to their children, we prefer to teach the blessings of freedom.


 No you don't want to dominate, you just want to lead the world, and if anyone disagrees, they are reminded about how grateful they should be (that you are not (yet) like the terrible empires of history).


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Sailormon6:
Sooner or later you have to realize that you are up against the smartest man in the world.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Shack said:


> Idiens,
> &#8230;. The only true purpose for this is to gain political power_._


 OK.


Shack said:


> Secondly, re numbers of deaths: &#8230;. I can't help but find fault with this as numbers of deaths in Iraq is not the problem. Deaths are a "symptom", but not the end state. Therefore any proposed solutions with the sole intent of reducing deaths is misguided. The political govermental situation must be fixed first.


 OK, I see that whereas I saw the Iraq invasion as a mistake (as WMD and Al Qaeda were not present) and needed to be corrected asap, in reality it is a necessary step in fixing poor governance. There are a lot of countries unhappy with their politicians



Shack said:


> The death rate in Iraq for US troops in not too different that from our peace time activities and off-duty death rates. Look at the services safety information (naval safety center for one). It is true that many battalions and brigades see deployment to the groud-hog day life in Iraq as a means of getting their troops out of the bars, off the highways, off the motorcycles and get more visibility on their daily lives_._


 You can say that, I would not dare. I got flak for pointing at the US gun crime statistics.


Shack said:


> However, it is the Iraqi people who are suffering the most. They are losing scores of innocent people. Their suffering will only increase with immediate pull out. Therefore, I see no way to have a positive effect on the death rate by pulling out the combatants who are suffering the least.


 Choose a number: 10000 a year for 25 years = 250000. vs. 100000 a year for two and a half years is the same. Which numbers are more realistic? I don't know.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Idiens*
> OK, I see that whereas I saw the Iraq invasion as a mistake (as WMD and Al Qaeda were not present)


 Now I'm going to prove to you, unequivocally, that the Iraq invasion was not a mistaken search for Al Quaeda and WMDs.

But, first, you should explain how you know WMDs and Al Quaida were not present? Before we entered Iraq, President Bush said he believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and the majority of world leaders likewise believed it, and said so publicly. We all saw the videos of the rotting corpses of the innocent Iraqi men, women and children that he murdered with WMDs. He surely had WMDs at some time. He was utterly uncooperative with the inspectors, playing furtive, hide and seek games with them. He behaved as if he had WMDs. Thus, he failed to prove that he had properly disposed of his WMDs. The United Nations adopted resolutions that authorized our action. Some limited quantities of WMDs have reportedly been found, along with evidence that they were, at one time, present. Frankly, when President Bush announced that we were going into Iraq in search of WMDs, I felt confident that Saddam would make sure that we didn't find them. I had every confidence that he'd either hide them or transport them to another country, as he had done in the first Gulf war with his military aircraft. Surely you didn't think Saddam, who torched the oilfields like a spiteful child, who launched an assassination attempt on the President's father, and who hated the Bush family with every fiber of his being, would let President Bush have the satisfaction of actually finding WMDs, did you?

President Bush didn't say we were at war only against Al Quaida. He said we were at war against terrorism. But, let's start with Al Quaida. How do you know Al Quaida was not present in Iraq? Iraq is situated in the heart of terrorist nations. It is surrounded by nations where children are taught to hate Americans and Jews and infidels in their schools and churches, and where a suicide bomber can be hired in exchange for a $25,000. payment to his family. All Al Quaida would need in order to have a destructive presence in Iraq is one organizer, or a handful of organizers, to locate people who are sympathetic to Al Quaida, arm them, pay them, and send them on missions.

But, more importantly, Al Quaida is a shadowy entity that has no national territory that it can call it's own. When you go to war against a nation, you can invade that nation, but when you go to war against a shadowy entity, where do you choose as an arena to fight that war? You certainly wouldn't invade a nation that is your friend, and subject it's citizens to the collateral damage of war. The leadership of al Quaeda was hiding in Afghanistan, but it's tentacles were spread far and wide, and defeating Bin Laden in Afghanistan would not stop the international jihadist movement. We needed to choose an arena for our war against terrorism, and what better location than Iraq, which is surrounded by terrorists and terrorism-supporting, zionist-hating nations and people of a like mind? What better arena could we find than in a nation with which we are already at war?

If we wanted to fight terrorism in Iraq, we didn't need to start a new war with Iraq in order to justify it. Officially, the first Gulf war wasn't over yet. We were still at war with Iraq. We had only agreed to a cease fire, so long as Saddam complied with a list of conditions. He repeatedly violated those conditions. One condition was that he respect a no-fly zone, but he repeatedly violated it when he attacked our aircraft that were patrolling it pursuant to the cease fire agreement.

All we needed to do in order to go to war with Iraq at that time is to declare the cease fire in the first Gulf war to be at an end, based on the repeated violent attacks on our aircraft. Those were acts of war in and of themselves. Even if we hadn't been at war previously, we had every right to declare war on any nation that attacks our aircraft in violation of international law or agreement. We didn't need to prove that Al Quaida was in Iraq, or that there were WMDs in Iraq. Those would only have provided us additional justifications for resuming the war. We didn't need additional reasons. Saddam had already stupidly given us all the reasons we needed. The only reason why we went through the exercise of seeking an additional resolution from the UN is to appease some of the world leaders who had reservations about it, and give them a fair opportunity to express their reasons for their opposition. In other words, that was done solely in the interest of diplomacy, contrary to the chorus of President Bush's hysterical critics, who prefer to characterize him as a cowboy who shoots first and engages in diplomacy later.

Thus, there really is no such thing as a second Gulf war. There is only one Gulf war, that began during the administration of the first President Bush, and was temporarily paused pursuant to a cease fire, and that was then resumed and concluded, after the cease fire was violated by Iraq, during the administration of current President Bush. The Gulf war was no mistake. The only mistake is that the first President Bush didn't finish it in the first place. But, in his defense, he was being advised by Gen. Colin Powell, who warned him that we would lose tens of thousands of troops if we tried to take Baghdad, so, in the vain hope that Saddam would reform his vile behavior, and out of understandable concern for the safety of his troops, President Bush agreed to a cease fire. (Current President Bush proved indisputably that Powell's opinion was incorrect, and that Baghdad could be taken by a vastly smaller contingent of troops, and with minimal casualties.)

Thus, we killed two birds with one stone, so to speak. We finished the unfinished business of the first Gulf war, and we attracted many terrorists to Iraq, where we could kill them (or they could kill themselves). That doesn't sound like a mistake to me. It sounds like a brilliant strategy, considering it sprang from the mind of an ole' country boy like George Bush.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Sailormon6 said:


> Now I'm going to prove to you, unequivocally, that the Iraq invasion was not a mistaken search for Al Quaeda and WMDs. But, first, you should explain how you know WMDs and Al Quaida were not present?


 Before the invasion I did not know but I thought it very unlikely. After the invasion we all know. So I will interpret your question as to why I thought then that Iraq had no WMD of the NBC variety after the first Gulf War.. On WMD I have a little experience, and Blair's dodgy dossier, was clearly wrong on a couple of points and very speculative overall. Second, there were the results of the UN inspectors, both before and after their exclusion period, who found nothing. Third, the US has the best spy satellites in the world and Iraq has relatively clears skies and they saw nothing that could be firmly linked to WMD. Third, Saddam's own submission to the UN was confiscated and sanitised by the US before the UN were allowed to see it. The UN inspectors confirmed that it was compatible with their own findings. Finally, Saddam had every reason to get rid of the chemical weapons, as their presence would provide the US a reason to attack. There are about 195 world leaders and the majority did not agree with GWB's conclusion. The security council did not either, which is why there was no UN resolution to invade Iraq. You make a big thing of him using chemical weapons against the Kurds and ignore his use of them against the Iranians in a war sponsored by the USA. But that was all before the first Gulf War. The couple of aluminium tubes that were found could have been turned into containers for chemical weapons, or coke tins. You can speculate about him spiriting them away if you like, but don't suggest in transport aircraft, he had hardly any functioning aircraft left and the skies were patrolled by AWACS and co.


Sailormon6 said:


> President Bush didn't say we were at war only against Al Quaida. He said we were at war against terrorism. But, let's start with Al Quaida. How do you know Al Quaida was not present in Iraq?


 Again "know" is a strong word, but even Condi, Cheney and Rumsfeld backed down when congress questioned them in detail regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda. Before the invasion, I thought it very unlikely that Egyptians and Saudis, who committed the 9/11 murders, and who hated Saddam, would have much to do with Iraq and conversely Saddam with them. Al Qaeda as a name did not exist at the time, nor does the organisation even today. The name was adopted by the US government, together with the concept that it was a global organisation, in order to apply the organised crime law. (Under which membership is a crime).
Afghanistan was the place where Bin Laden was hiding and where the Taliban were protecting him, not Iraq. Hence one recognisable bit of the thing named Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, so I think attacking it was well justified. This was not the case of Iraq. As far as we know, Bin Laden and cohorts escaped to Pakistan, not to Iraq.


Sailormon6 said:


> We needed to choose an arena for our war against terrorism, and what better location than Iraq, which is surrounded by terrorists and terrorism-supporting, zionist-hating nations and people of a like mind? What better arena could we find than in a nation with which we are already at war?


 Is that what you call liberating a country and giving them freedom, like GWB does?


Sailormon6 said:


> It sounds like a brilliant strategy, considering it sprang from the mind of an ole' country boy like George Bush.


 And it has resulted in more Americans violently dead than from 9/11, Bin Laden still at large and his influence expanding, an even larger population hating America and a lot of doubtful allies. I guessed at 25 years to reduce the death rates, with you plan they will be still increasing in 60 years time (the current duration of the Israeli - Palestine conflict). But maybe you will be advocating using nuclear weapons to shorten the conflict.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I must admit Idiens, you are a remarkably skilled contortionist. Evidently, you discount the fact of the Iraqi elections that have occurred, and feel there is nothing wrong with letting them sink back under the heels of yet another tyrant. Or that, in doing so, it would most likely erode the attempts in Afghanistan to carry through with their effort for a free society. But then, you already enjoy the freedoms that those people are striving for. That they have shown, by going to the polls, in the face of violence and threat, that they do indeed, seek those freedoms.

That you continue to apply base and venal intentions to the US presence in Iraq, while excusing the terrorist activity there against the Iraqi people is reminiscent of the Euorpean outrage when Regan challenged the Soviets. But then, Europe doesn't like it when the US stands up to be counted, rather than meekly be mocked and bow down to "world opinion". Well, as they say in Alaska, "We don't give a damn how they do it Outside.". And now, you're faced with an American President who doesn't really give a damn what Europe thinks. I have my problems with Bush, but I must say, he at least does what he believes in right, rather that what will get him the most votes.

It's really quite simple. You either want the Iraqi people to have a chance for a free society, or you don't. And there is no argument you can put forth that can claim they have a chance without US help. They have shown, that is what they want. Just what is it you want?


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens said:


> Al Qaeda as a name did not exist at the time, nor does the organisation even today. The name was adopted by the US government, together with the concept that it was a global organisation, in order to apply the organised crime law. (Under which membership is a crime).


 Idiens, I decided to check your assertion about the origin of the name "Al Qaeda." Here's what I found:

Osama bin Laden explained the origin of the term in his videotaped interview with journalist Tayseer Alouni in late October 2001:

"The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. The name stayed."

The above quoted text is taken verbatim from Wikipedia's article on "al Qaeda." To find it, click on the following hyperlink. Then scroll down to the table of *Contents*. Finally, click on the first item listed in the table of contents, entitled "Pronunciation, etymology and origin of the name."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Pronunciation.2C_etymology.2C_and_origin_of_the_name

The same article says the organization known as al Qaeda was established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden. The article is quoted as follows:

"*Al-Qaeda* or *Al-Qaida* or *Al-Qa'ida* (Arabic: القاعدة _al-qāʕida_, trans. 'the base') is the name given to an international alliance of militant Islamist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden."

Thus, everything you said in the part of your post that I quoted above is a fabrication. Your tale about the origin of the name "al Qaeda" is false. Your fantasy that the organization does not even exist today is false. God only knows where you got the assertion that the US government concocted it - perhaps from the "al Qaeda" website.

We all speak ill-advisedly at times, and I held my peace when I read many of your previous posts, but this is way beyond the pale.

I don't understand you, Idiens. Who are you? Are you just a misguided idiologue with an insufficient regard for truth, or what?


----------



## Shack (Sep 5, 2006)

*Death toll vs Myth of Meat Grinder*

Idiens,
Trust me when I say that the death rate is nothing close to catastrophic. WWII killed 450,000 Americans in four years. Vietnam killed almost 10% of that over about 10 years. Desert Storm US deaths were about 200 in a few less than a month (many self-inflicted, blue-on-blue). OIF has thus far claimed over 3,000 in four years.

Just for proportionality - FY02 to FY06 the US Navy and Marine Corps suffered the following non-combat losses:
600 Marines and sailors in motorvehicle accidents alone. 
150 to off-duty recreation
411 to Operational Mishaps Ashore (non-aviation)
15 to Operational mishaps Afloat (non-aviation)
145 Class A avaition mishaps (loss of aircraft, $1mil damage, and/or fatality)
(source: http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/statistics/default.htm)

Without the counting aircraft Class A mishaps the Naval Service lost well over 1,000 servicemen to daily "peace time" operations since 9/11. We have lost 960 during OIF.

I could not access the Army or Airforce statistics but the US Army alone is as big as the USN and USMC combined. The USAF is about the same size as the USN at roughly 300,000. The US Army (to include Guard and Reserve have taken the brunt of casualties in OIF at over 2100.

I say this not to minimize or trivialize loss of life, but simply to put the whole thing into perpective. Proportion and scale matters!!! Every action has a cost. You will bever hear any general (wishing to hold on to is job) admit is that there is an acceptable level of loss in daily life as well as in war. To believe otherwise is to have a zero defect mentality. The problem is that no one wants to put a number on what an acceptable level of loss. But in this world where the public and media expect zero defects, any casualty is too much.

Meanwhile, the US Labor Department census estimates appx 5,000 occupational deaths per year for 2004 and 2005.

Further, as many as 2,000 doctors received sanctions for malpractice each year. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that as many as 98,000 patients may be killed each year in hospitals alone as a result of medical errors. If that number is even off by 50% - it is still a much bigger than that the "meat grinder" in Iraq. I'll bet you $5 that this will not be mentioned in the news tonight, tomorrow, or even next week.

Since 911 the US has suffered. . 
3,000 US military deaths to combat in Iraq
2,000 US military deaths non-combat
25,000 occupational deaths (Dept of Labor estimate)
450,000 deaths to medical malpractice (NY Times, 1994)
200,000 deaths on the highways 
100,000 deaths from the flu (CDC estimate)

Its all hub-bub, politics, history and future history. There are bigger bandwagons to jump on if all we are going to talk about is the death toll and how terrible it is.

Shack
_Context matters
Everything in proper proprtion and scale
The only thing more powerful than a lies are filter facts_


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Ideins,

You are a better man than me Gunga Din. You are on a hiding to nothing here. Your opponents will never simply admit what everyone else knows and that is the plain fact that the US and it's allies invaded Iraq based on a pack of lies. Having been caught out telling porkies the war's supporters now claim that they had far more noble reasons and that the only thing they really ever cared about was the Iraqi peoples, yearning to be free, crying out to embrace truth justice and the American way. That's a pile of crap, you know it, I know it, most of the world knows it, birds singing in the trees know it, but you are never going to get conservative USA to admit it. Some of these people still will not admit that the US lost the Vietnam War. On matters environmental they will continue to bleat that there is no problem and even if there is, well, you can't stand in the way of economic developement. 

The problem the Cons have is that the US people don't like to see body bags. (Who does ? Not me that's for sure). All very gung ho during the first Gulf War cos it was wham bam thank you maam, lets go watch some baseball. Now , more than ever they are being exposed to media reports that don't support the Bush Government line and public opinion, just as it did during the the Vietnam era, is moving to an anti war stance. Now more than ever they are being exposed to the death and carnage occuring in Iraq and they don't like what they see. 

To compound the problem we are dealing with a society that works in a very different way to a western style democracy. You cannot have western style democracy in a society that does not acknowledge the separation of church and state. That separation is anathema to an Islamic society. 

Finally it is also interesting to note that the US media, while heavily controlled within Iraq and with Fox and CNN faithfully spurting out the party line, has some pretty interesting television that is anti war. 
As to the alleged activities of Al Qaeda in Iraq I'm afraid I'll have to take that on advisement. While Hussein was in power AQ was not active in Iraq. Bin Laden and Hussein despite all attempts to join them at the hip loathed each other. Hussein's religious conviction was dodgey at best , Bin Laden has a very real and genuine faith by all accounts. 

Anyway, good on you for continuing to express you views. Keep up the good work. 

TD


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Thanks for the chuckle tdw. Thank goodness I didn't have any tea in my mouth when I read the part about CNN spurting out the party line. It would have been all over my screen.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> Thanks for the chuckle tdw. Thank goodness I didn't have any tea in my mouth when I read the part about CNN spurting out the party line. It would have been all over my screen.


Bugger, I should have tried harder. So CNN is the voice of the left now ? Gazooks. Personally I don't watch either of them but last time I did look CNN was not exactly the voice of Al Qaeda. So if CNN has drifted to the left without my knowledge (how dare they !) I do so humbly apologise, I'm sure Fox is more than making up for that.

Still and all I'm glad to be able to liven up your day.

Must be about time to bring back Country Joe McDonald...and it's one two three what are we fighting for....


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Now I understand why they call it Oz.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I was opposed to going into Iraq. I was not convinced there was an immediate nuclear threat. I did not see the urgency in committing the US to war. I knew that once we went in, we could not get out. Today, looking at the military bases being built, I do not think we intended to get out. I guess I am an anti-war liberal.
As the old line goes - whatsa behind you no matta. We are there and I still believe we cannot pull out. For better or worse, we own it. If 20,000 more troops is again too few, send the right forces to get it done. I strongly agree with the comment above that many that now want to cut and run are the same ones that couldn't wait to send our troops in. Too many of us in the US want the quick fix. For better or worse, we have taken on the role of responsibility for Iraq and all that comes with it. I guess I am a pro-war conservative.
I don't buy the "democracy" pitch for a moment. We intervene when our best interests are served. By the way, the US certainly does not hold a monopoly on that shortcoming so if you are feeling noble in some other country, get real. Human kind has been putting hatchets into heads since day one. It has always been so and it is part of the human nature. I also believe that most of us would figure out how to get along, but there is always that group that seeks power and those individuals are found in governments and religions around the globe.
What upsets me most is the willingness of politicians to play games with the lives of our troops and the future of the planet. There is always an agenda, deal, angle that screws things up. Mr Bush swore he had irrefutable proof that WMD were there; to the citizens of the USA, to the UN, to anyone that could hear his word. Oops. I don't know about you, but I always make sure I have my facts straight before I invade another country. Otherwise, it makes me look bad. Excuses don't change the facts. We got it wrong. Now the Congress wants to declare a "vote of no confidence". Does anyone have any balls. What a pathetic bunch of losers. If you want to stop the war, stop the war, and take responsibility for what follows. This "I told you it wouldn't work, but it's not my fault no matter what" game is disgusting. I know, I should run for office, but I would not do well under public scrutiny. 
At the end of the day I know that no civilization without a standing army has ever survived. I know that diplomacy should always come first. I do not think diplomacy ends even when war breaks out. I know that there will be times when we will have to go to war. I expect us to win those wars. 
I enjoyed this thread. Plenty of good thought on both sides of the debate. Probably more sincere argument here than on Capital Hill - and that, my friends, is the real problem.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> Now I understand why they call it Oz.


I know, I know. I'm just such a wizard. 

(well, I'm not from Kansas, Dotty perhaps but not Dorothy, I never did like Toto (70's AOR rock sucked big time lets face it !) , we know it bleeds so I'm not a heartless tinman, not anough hair left to pass as a lion, and far to clever .....oh, thats it isn't it ? Yu fink I's dum ? Oh surely not. How could you be so cruel ?

Cheers

TD


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

captlar said:


> I was opposed to going into Iraq. snipped


Now look. Don't you come in here talking a load of good sense. We'll have none of that. Either jibber on mindlessly like the rest of us or bugger off !! 

Seriously, I agree with much of what you say. Even though I am anti this war, always was, I am not under any mad illusion that you send in a couple of troop transports and run away as fast as possible. Any withdrawal must be done sensibly and orderly. On the other hand I'll gladly pillory the arsewipes who's lies and deceipt got us into this ****fight in the first place. 
The US only gets the criticism it does because it is Numero Uno. If (Heaven Forfend) Oz was in that position we would be getting the crap dropped on us. Instead we get to to go for a ride with the big boys without having to bear any of the responsibility. Now that's what you call a win win situation. The US is the world's leading nation, naturally your actions are viewed and judged by more people than view and judge a farting competition in Coober Pedy. 
**** Sapiens, having descended from the apes (oh **** here come the creationist rabble) carries within him some of the less desirable traits shared with our ancestors. One of , if not the least desirable trait of HS is the seemingly primal urge to beat the crap out of each other usually for no good reason but with great indignation and a sense of moral superiority. Go figure. It does sadly mean that standing armies are not going away in the foreseeable future.


----------



## xjgeneral (Feb 12, 2007)

You all are stressing me out. This thead is too long and too involved. Don't you all know that we don't talk politics to people we don't know.... All it will do is turn into a pissing match that will last 63 pages long. Everyone wants to be right but the reality is is that everyone will think that they are right and everyone else is wrong regardless of what is posted. I saw An Inconveniat truth too and it sucks...right or wrong, however if it means I can sail in Maine in feb. and not freeze my balls off, well I'm all for it. I do my part by driving a vehicle that gets 50MPG and dont use my kicker unless I run out of sailboat fuel. Whatever, I guess I don't care what everyone in the bible belt cares.... They don't sail anyways.
Ryan


----------



## Shack (Sep 5, 2006)

*WX to Geopolitics*

Neat how all works, eh? It starts with a remark about Global Warming assessments and moves to politics and geopolitical debate. I love it.

To those who need to hang to the "George Bush Lied" school yard rant, remember my favorite phrase. "The only things powerful than lies are filtered facts." GW did not lie, his admin strung together facts that fit what they wanted to believe. So . . . some facts were conveniently let out. OOPS. The only thing that the admin is guilty of is being overly optimistic about their bad intelligence. But they didn't "fabricate" anything. I was looking at the same intelligence information back in the 1990's. However, they failed to look at or flat out disregarded the whole picture. If Colin Powell (I guess he's a big liar, too) told the UN that we are going to go into Iraq because Saddam is a big pain in the ass and we're sick and tired of patroling the N & S No fly Zones for ten years . . . we'd still be in Iraq doing exactly what we are doing now.

The whole WMD thing is a moot point as far as I am concerned. We were likely going in there regardless. WMD's was plausible and all expected them to be found. However, the administration knew that it was one way of making the invasion more palletable on the political front. Too bad we dorked up Phase IV operations, but there you go - more overly optimistic planning at it's best. More for the historians to pull their beards on.

Oh - I also like reading the Three Little Pigs Story and rooting for the poor hungry wolf  
G'nite,
Shack


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

As usual in such debates, the "he said, she said" tends to overwhelmed the larger issue that somebody feels they got screwed. I would think it appropriate to return to what I feel is the fundamental issue; the worldwide spread of Islamic fundamentalism via a jihadist mentality of implementation.

As previously expressed, I see no point to a continuance of the "stability" exhibited in the Middle East of the past 50 or so years. This so called stability has brought the world nothing but misery, not to mention the semi-permanent subjugation of the various indigenous peoples of the region. All of that may have been well and good as long as the USA's only concern was the continued existence of Israel. Oil itself is hardly the factor many woukld like to ascribe. The US has plenty of oil, if we possess the desire to drill and pump it, and the tar sands of Athabasca hold untold quantities un-tapped at current prices. No, the answer is that the Islamic world is fomenting a revolution that demands the submission of western culture. The front lines of this revolution are currently in the Middle East and Europe. Europe? Yup.

The EU is doing all it can to play Neville Chamberlin to an Islamic "Hitler" and pretending it is not the force that it is in reality. Imams in Britain proclaim that muslims there are a state within the state and that the existing state must be undermined and defeated. The past summer's Islamic riots in France promise to continue and give a preview of the Marshall Petain approach to the problem, to wit-if we surrender maybe they'll love us. Given the success of the French "ostrich" strategy in the past century perhaps they have a point, although if Iraq is controversial one can only wonder at the level of enthusiasm for pulling France's poulet out of the fire once again. Regardless, Europe is well on it's way to becoming an "Islamic continent". France is not assimilating the large number of Arabs they are taking in, and Britain is attempting, or attempting to believe, to assimilate them. Either way, the avowed leaders of the Islamic movement reject all western values and are working from within to replace western democracy and culture. This is not a mis-understanding. They know full well what they are about and have the requisite patience, if numbers alone will not suffice.

The United States is a different kettle of fish. Contrary to our mostly self-imposed image of cowboyism and unilateralism, there is no country more obsessed with it's world-wide image. No other world power has ever been so self-obsessed with the rightness or wrongness or it's actions. Hell, we're still appologizing for slavery and we put that behind us over a hundred years ago. There has never been a more self-introspective nation capable of imposing it's will upon the world than seen today. Roman legions would have crushed Iraq and put the boot to the rest of the Middle East being as how they were in the neighborhood anyways. This is of course our strength and our weakness. We cannot hope to make the world happy. They will call for action and then turn like un-grateful step children when they get it. So why should the US be involved? Well, one reason is that we are the only ones who can really do anything in a meaningful way. Maybe dis-arming Japan and Germany and subjugating their militaristic tendancies doesn't look so wise right about now, but regardless, we're the only real world power and to whom much is given, much is expected. The down-side to being the hyper-power is that we must act like adults. We cannot flit in and out of NATO, ala the French, and we have not the option of just with-drawing to our shores. As a serious player in a serious world we arer required to examine the other players with a flinty eye. The Belgians can make a mistake, we cannot. The enemy we face is deadly serious and it is easy to forget that while sitting in the drive thru line in our comfortable sedans while mulling the morning commute. It is our political leadership that is at fault for allowing us to obsess over astronauts in diapers, over- inflated nude model's death's, and the significance of the addition of a number of troops roughly equivalent to the take at a decent day at Disney World to the on-going conflict in Iraq. There are bigger fish to fry. All of history tells us that men with the will to power mean what they say. We have yet to resolve our mis-calculations of that very same dynamic occuring in the twentieth century. These people call us infidel. A quaint word not often encountered in modern times and easily dismissed as the musings of one not quite right. Dismissed much as the cognoscenti dismissed Reagan's labelling of the Soviet Union a "evil empire". How soon we forget the long twilight struggle endured to bring that disaster to an end. And while every form of revisionist history you'd like is available about the end of that totalitarian executioner of freedom and innocence one fact remains. It was the blood and treasure of one nation that was indispensible to the conclusion. Again, to whom much is given, much is expected. Once upon a time, political leaders of all stripes looked upon the Soviets in what they said and what they did and said, "this shall not stand".

Today our enemy holds little in terms of nation states, but then he does not intend to win the battle in a conventional way as between nations. He is determined to play upon the shock and horror that the western mind encounters when it sees innocent children blown to pieces in service of a cause. He is more than willing to exploit the cultural relativism that we find so entertaining on college campuses. And, of course he knows that deep down we don't really believe that he hates us for our way of life, that our culture is anathema to him. We go to bed, thinking that our culture has it's excesses, but deep down nobody really hates us. In the real world, when somebody says they hate you-you listen. When they say they hate you, and they have the means to harm you, you leave the outside lights on over night. When they blow up your boat, tell you they did it, and that it ain't over-you decide somebody better do something about the bastard. Irrespective of jurisprudence, the most effective way to deal with such an SOB is to either blow him up or make him so scared he doesn't dare cross you again. The US is, by fits and starts, on that path.

The significance of the Iraqi conflict is that we have it within reach to establish a self-governing country right in the heart of a region that has never enjoyed a nation-state with what we would regard as the most fundamental of liberties. And by doing so we will de-stabilize the entire region. There is great discontent within Iran; it's not been that long ago that Iranian's enjoyed far grerater freedoms than the last quarter century have allowed them. The governments of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, et al are sham dictatorships subjugating their peoples by either religous or secular means or a combination of both. Planting a free Iraq right in their midst would create great internal pressures within those nations and go a long way to putting dreams of a restored caliphate back where they belong in Arabian folklore. Regardless of our success or failure in Iraq, these men are not going to go quietly, but they can be dealt a serious, if not mortal, blow by our triumph. Unfortunately, while the century is yet young, it is apparent what struggle will define the twenty-first century and I find the prospect of defeating the Islamists in less time than it took to defeat communism unlikely.

Let us not talk of the rightness of our cause, it involves our mere survival. Let us talk not of our sacrifice, we have had to make little to date. September has not been a kind month in American history. On September 17, 1862 at Antietam Creek 25,000 Americans died in battle "trampling out the fruits of victory where the grapes of wrath are stored". That was sacrifice. May we pray that such will not be required, but that the will to prevail will not be found less evident.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

God knows, it's easy to be cynical about government, but there's no reason why a nation shouldn't do what is both noble and in it's best interests. I believe the Iraq war is in our best interests because it is an integral part of the war against terrorism. While we're fighting that war, there's no good reason why we shouldn't also do something noble, and give the Iraqi people an opportunity for self-determination. If you think about it, in this case, doing the noble thing is also in our best interests, over the long term.

In fact, that very principle is what puts the lie to all the allegations that the US is just there to turn the Iraqis into puppets and to steal their oil, and for other unworthy reasons. If you think about it for two seconds, it's obvious that those actions would be contrary to our best interests.

Our image is suffering in the eyes of the world because people hostile to the US are spreading propaganda portraying our intentions as ignoble. Imagine how harmful it would be to the US if we would then turn around and steal Iraq's oil! We must continue to do what is both noble and in our best interests. We really have no choice.


----------



## mattypatty (Jun 26, 2006)

Since we're making grand statements....

Wow, sailaway, I am not sure that it can be put any better than that. It's a shame you aren't a presidential speech writer. It's also a shame that our politicians and media can't show the masses the real big picture and put all of this in global and historical context. Our political leadership could have sold us OIF in those terms instead of seeking politically expedient excuses that pander to their voting blocs (they can't see beyond the next election). I was for the war in the beginning and I am for it now only because of exactly what sailaway said above (and also sailormon, pbzeer, shack, etc, etc - brilliant, btw). All it takes is just a tiny bit of critical thinking and a basic understanding of human history and human nature and much of this becomes quite clear. We are in Iraq to protect western civilization. The US is doing the dirty work that needs to be done as part of a much much larger geopolitical strategy of keeping the darkness at bay. We may be nearly universally unpopular for it but if we didn't do anything and the Middle East became the dreamed of caliphate and it's armies _again_ marched across the free world we would be excoriated for not doing anything when we had the chance.

Then again, maybe they did try it that way in the beginning with the Axis of Evil. Much as I prefer him to the alternative, GWB is a poor leader. Gotta have those communication skills, people.

I also think that this goes much deeper than just terrorism or even Islamic fundamentalism. I think that we will be very soon engaging nations and not just the "shadowy entity" of Al Queda. The true enemy of the US is collectivism. Islamic fundamentalism promises a caliphate, which is all about redistribution of wealth and "social equality." Social equality being the effort to bring those on the bottom up by bringing those on the top down and in the case of Socialism, by force (Marx's words, not mine) - not exactly equal. Marx by any other name is still Marx. Look around the globe a little bit to some of our other most vocal detractors. Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong-il spring to mind. Even though Venezuela (and other emerging socialist regimes in Latin America) is heavily Christian and North Korea is ostensibly secular, the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." How many times have we heard about these three having little chats and trading stuff and making deals? They may not share religious ideology but they are certainly united in their strong dislike of the US and capitalism. What about China and Russia? Not exactly spooning up with good old Uncle Sam these days. But it's our "illegal war for oil" they all say. Chavez scares me the most because he seems to be the most charismatic and is well on his way to spreading "glorious revolution" throughout Latin America. The people who voted against Chavez were the educated, the property owners, and the business owners. Chavez promises agrarian reforms (ie., land for the landless), health care, and education to the bottom the socio-economic pyramid. It's popular. He is also using any excuse to nationalize private industry, yes, by force (read the latest news out of Venezuela, RE groceries, etc).

We've got a long road ahead of us and I believe that we are the ones with our heads in the sand. Alone, Iran and North Korea and Venezuela are but mildly unpleasant but not really important news items (to Americans anyway). Together, and with the allies they are gathering to their side, they are a big time threat and they don't like us one bit. Not only that, but they have declared innumerable times with much bravado that our days are numbered.

We can dream of a utopia where nobody gets mad at anybody else and where there is no prejudice or hate or war or swear words or child abuse or bad tipping, but we are humans and we have proven time and time again that even when we really try, there is always some a**hole in the bunch who doesn't want to play along. They must be dealt with.

And as far as global warming goes, it's a shakedown that has little to do with saving the world from climate catastrophe. In fact, it doesn't really matter what the climate is doing because none of the proposed solutions would do anything other than make everybody miserable and plunge us back into the economic dark ages. The climate will do as it will, warm or cold.

But don't take my word for it:

"[Kyoto] is about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world." -- EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, (quoted in the Independent, Mar. 19, 2002)

"Of course it's about money, about rubles. They are trying to calculate how much [the Kyoto protocol] will give." -- Wallstrom, in response to Russian reluctance to ratify the protocol, (quoted by Reuters, May 12)

It's a worldwide con job to scare us into a global socialist collective. Sounds extreme but to me there can be no other ultimate goal of extreme measures like Kyoto, which will have a negative net affect on temperature increases over the next century. Is it really that far-fetched?


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

captlar said:


> I was opposed to going into Iraq. I was not convinced there was an immediate nuclear threat. I did not see the urgency in committing the US to war. I knew that once we went in, we could not get out. Today, looking at the military bases being built, I do not think we intended to get out. I guess I am an anti-war liberal.


 captlar, tdw and idiens,

You make it sound like you were there. Like you have 1st hand knowledge of the ugliness, the frustration, the fatigue, hunger, the filth, the terror, and sometimes the good parts, the satisfaction of seeing a job well done. Or some kindness and humility displayed. 
 All you seem to think you know about the war is from the media. Do you honestly think the media knows all and tells all? Have you ever heard the advertising adage from a few years back "sex sells"? Well War sells now. The media pays big bucks to feel out which way the people are leaning. Have you seen the various polls, you know the telemarketers, the people with clipboards in the malls, the ability the see what programs you watch, the websites you surf with duration? Do you think that the information gathered just disappears, never to be seen again? . Then you really are not that bright and you and other like you tend to switch sides of the fence depending on which way the wind blows. I will bet that you even tend to have several favorite football teams, depending on who is winning and popular at the time don't you? 

 Yes I saw 1st hand several holes dug up. They were archeologists there and do you have any idea what was in those holes? I was there and let me tell you what I saw. In one hole there were hundreds of adults later identified and females all dressed the bright and colorful clothes and all most all holding babies in their arms. All of them, babies too had a single hole in the back of the head. In the next hole there were the adult men, same colorful clothes and with a hole in the head. They were Kurds by the way. It seems like Saddam had a hard-on for them for whatever reason. Satellite imagery has pinpointed hundreds of the same sites. Do you think that made it to the mainstream media? No. Do you have any idea why not? Because that version of war will not sell. One more example if I may. We got many packages from people whom we did not even know. In lots of these packages we had lots of hard candy, sometimes plastic toys. Our crew chiefs would put together little bags of candy with toys inside. We would load these on the helicopter and during a mission we would look for a house or small village close to the course we were on during our mission. If we would see one on the horizon we would radio the other helo and he would fly cover, then as we approached we would look for kids outside. At 100-200" and 120 kts you still have a few seconds to see and let the crew chiefs know. As we got closer the crew chiefs would stick their heads out and drop these bags to these kids. We would not dare do that over populated areas for obvious reasons. I believe that if we even turned one kid then it was all worth it. Do you think that made it to the media? 
 You appear to be guilty of Monday Morning Quarterbacking, you know the sort who points fingers and says "They should have done this" or "If I were there it would have been different" well let me let you in on a little secret. IF YOU WERE NOT THERE THEN YOU DO NOT KNOW THEREFORE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOR PRIVELEDGE TO SECOND GUESS NOR ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH THEM IF/WHEN IT IS POPULAR. 
 Just be aware that if this war is not to be fought there it will be fought in your home and mine. The choice is yours, if you do not stand behind our troops feel free to have the courage and fortitude to stand in front of them. 



*"Of every one hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there, Eighty are nothing but targets, Nine are real fighters...We are lucky to have them...They make the battle. 
Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior...and He will bring the others back." 
- Hericletus (circa 500 B.C.) *


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

Please forgive me for this repost but I believe it is fitting here too....

By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle,
productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This
is true.
Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the
aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent
crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which 
means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation:
We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is
still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people
who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under
extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. 
To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey 
but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators. "Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial. "Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." 
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy
for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a
wolf. 
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your
fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed. 
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep,
wolves and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. 
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police
officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more
likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but 
the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they 
chose the path of denial. 
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. 
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our 
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. The students, the victims, at ColumbineHigh School were big, tough high school students and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? 
Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. 
The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the
sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones. 
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said,"Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into
warrior hood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a
difference. 
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but
he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to
survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. 
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically
primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can
choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs. 
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall,
was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground. There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. -- Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep,
real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are 
wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. 
If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But
if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must
make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door. 
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well
concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of
religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in
your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an
individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre
you and your loved ones.

Continued on part two...


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the
break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The
other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I 
asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?" 
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was
carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would
probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and
would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their 
cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic
accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. 
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often
their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog 
quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?" 
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically
destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is
counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when
you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't
train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. 
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically
survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and 
horror at your moment of truth. 
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11
book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms
with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an
insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get
by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is
all the more unsettling." 
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in
small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. 
If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you
step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending
that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a 
lifetime. 
Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon,
and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to
yourself... "Baa." 
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a
continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the
other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. 
Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in
America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is worth war is worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is
a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and
kept so by the exertions of men better than himself. -- John Stuart Mill


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Great posts guys...I wish I could write like that! Instead I will cut and paste something I ran across today from Die Welt that I thought was especially appropriate for folks in Europe that feel like Idiens:

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family 
name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because 
it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their
lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and 
hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fough t, not bound to
toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in
the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe,
where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were 
glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in
Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we
Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when
finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into 
Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly
500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murd er
machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement,
has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is 
uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit
billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food
program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of
appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic
Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really
should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German)
Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of 
the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville
Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and
declaring Euro pean "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of 
systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our 
free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter
destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of
the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted 
by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is
actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will
always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent
American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan 
and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans
know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold Wa r,
freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and 
virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on
moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against
Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number 
of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic
self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal
society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same 
playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior 
Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, 
so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of
additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the
American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes 
what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because 
they seem too sure of their priorities, we
timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get
expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our 
dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors 
preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and
forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking
hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a
robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Shack, what I can't figure out is how the rubes think Bush and WMD's is any different from LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964, total fabrication) or 1915 and the sinking of the RMS Lusitania (according to both the US & UK, not carrying the munitions that were listed on her loading manifest).

Both, incidentally, Democrats not Republicans. Apparently the Democrats, as JFK, are simply better at looking innocent while misbehaving.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Sailormon6 said:


> Osama bin Laden explained the origin of the term in his videotaped interview with journalist Tayseer Alouni in late October 2001:
> 
> "The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. The name stayed."


 I notice you didn't quote the next line from Wikipedia:
"An alternative theory, presented in the BBC film series "The Power of Nightmares", states that the name and concept of al-Qaeda was first used by the U.S. Department of Justice in January 2001, at the New York City trial of four men accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. By alleging Osama bin Laden's leadership of the organization, it became possible to charge bin Laden in absentia with the crime using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO statutes."
Which is the one I was refering to, or the later official US one used in G-Bay, which implies a global organisation of much great magnitude than Bin Laden commands.
Take your pick and don't be so rude.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Interesting Idiens, how you always come up with an alternative that attempts to put the US position in a darker light. Also, how you skip right past the questions that would require an answer not found in the anti-war talking points.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

PBZ-

Don't you know... America is the Great Satan...  All the mullahs tell me so.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Geez SD, I didn't know the NY Times, Wash. Post, and NPR were even Islamic.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens, nobody on the face of this earth was in a better position than Osama Bin Laden to know, first hand, the origin of the name "al Qaeda." I quoted his account, which is preserved on videotape. Moreover, Bin Laden made that statement at the end of October, 2001, ten months after January 2001, when the U.S. Department of Justice accused four men of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. The U.S. alleged that Osama bin Laden was the leader of the organization. As you observed, those allegations made it possible to charge bin Laden in absentia with the crime using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO statutes. Thus, at the time bin Laden made the statement, it actually constituted an admission contrary to his own best interests, because he was, in effect publicly admitting the Justice Department's criminal allegations against him. Under those circumstances, it would be recklessly irresponsible to rely on the speculative musings of a television program, rather than the words actually spoken by bin Laden himself.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Jerry - I think you misunderstand my post. 
I most certainly do support the troops and their leaders. My concern now is that the 20,000 number in additional troops may be yet another political trade. Initially the number was 40,000 and the strategy outlined made sense to me. I have tremendous respect and confidence in our military, its leadership and its intel gathering capabilities....best in the world and better stay that way. If our politicians had let our military leaders run the show, I believe we would be in better shape today. 
I do not get my news from TV and I agree that the media industry is rarely accurate or impartial. I spent some time in government and I know first hand that what you read is rarely what really occurred. I would also say today's news agencies swing both ways. Worse yet is the ongoing acquisition and merger blitz that has an ever smaller number of owners controlling an ever larger number of news outlets. Thats a lot of power in a very few hands. Those mergers continue to gain approval.
My criticism, Jerry, it with the politicians on both sides who play for themselves rather than the nation. Not all, but far too many, have an agenda that serves only their ambitions. I think it is fair to say that describes both political parties. Most of the time, the Republicans do a better job of it than the Democrats. The "vote of no confidence" charade is beyond belief. We are sending 20,000 more young men and women into harm's way and our Congress thinks it is responsible leadership to tell those that serve that Congress doesn't think it will work. It is disgusting. 
This next presidential election is an incredibly important one. We will need someone that will tell us the truth and take on the tough issues. For me, so far, John McCain is the only one of the bunch qualified. I don't agree with all his positions, but I trust him. We will need someone we can trust.
The only part of your post I do disagree with is your statement that only those there have a right to speak. That's not the way democracy works. Even protesters that show up at a gay guys funeral, or a civil rights gathering or a ProChoice rally or an NRA meeting have the right to voice their opinion. For me some of it crosses the line of simple respect but once you start deciding who can and who cannot speak - you are on the other side of this fight. We may disagree, but we ARE all on the same side.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

*What's Changed?*

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an Tommy that, an "Tommy go away";
But it's "Thankyou, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play-
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thankyou, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide-
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll-
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Savior of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool-you bet that Tommy sees!

"Tommy",
Rudyard Kipling

Written over one hundred years ago, I was reminded of it watching the usual blather about ROTC in San Francisco the other day. It was my distinct pleasure to sail with US Marines embarked upon my ship a number of years ago. There is no finer group of men.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Interesting Idiens, how you always come up with an alternative that attempts to put the US position in a darker light.


Why a darker light? I think it very reasonable for the US police to need a way to arrest suspects immediately after 911, so using the existing law on membership of an illegal organisation is sensible. Trouble is, that organisation needed a name. It needs some research to see when an by whom the name Al Qaeda was first used. If you haven't seen that BBC series, its worth a look. It claimed that the US adopted it and Bin Laden was happy for the publicity and adopted it too - for the organisation rather than just for the training camp. 
The point I was trying to make is the war on Iraq, or on terrorism, is different from the war on Al Qaeda, and it might be worth noting the difference. Your new defense secretary seemed to think Al Qaeda is now pretty ineffectual last night on TV. Obviously the insurgents in Iraq are another matter and even GWB is warning of a Spring Taliban offensive.


----------



## Bill Mc (Apr 10, 2006)

As a Sailor I would hope every does their part to promote Global Warming.
   
Fair Winds,

Bill


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - the point that you are trying to make is that the US should leave Iraq. Yes or no?

A simple question that requires no nuance or ambiguity. The endless nitpicking of motivations, intent, etc. accomplishes nothing. The simple fact is, we are there. Whether rightly or wrongly in your eyes, that is the fact of the matter. The question is.....do we stay or go? That's the only thing that matters at this point, unless you're pandering for votes like the US Congress.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> Great posts guys...I wish I could write like that! Instead I will cut and paste something I ran across today from Die Welt that I thought was especially appropriate for folks in Europe that feel like Idiens: EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)


Cam - Interesting article, but beware of its roots. Just change the references to Islam into Judism and set it back into the late '30's to see why. The article has another purpose in Germany, where it comes dangerously close in parts to racism and incitement to hatred under that country's strong laws.
But since you lump me in as an appeaser, I will give a defence of appeasement.
Firstly, appeasement is not morally more reprehensible than invasion and killing. But maybe some people here think it is, as it used on the basis of: "We may attack countries, but at least we don't appease them". (Except North Korea and China).
Secondly, appeasement is something that the weak give to the strong and aggressive. The strong and aggressive can say proudly: "We do not do appeasement (we receive it)". Have a look how the WTO works someday.
Thirdly, it is often used as a delaying as well as deflecting tactic. This was the case with Chamberlain, who may have said "Peace in our time", but what he did was start to put the country on a war footing and hoped that he would have enough time. (Not enough, as Dunkerque demonstrated). Sneer though you may, the US at that time was not rescuing anyone. In fact, at that time, there was a fair degree of support for "Mr. Hitler" in the USA. The rescue came when only the UK was left un-invaded.
Fourthly, it is usually very effective. The best examples of relevance are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, (whose sons and money were used to attack the Twin Towers). They are pretty good at appeasement, as the only people allowed to fly out immediately after 9/11 were Bin Laden's family, and then the US turned its wroth elsewhere.
So that's in favour of appeasement. 
Against it are of course the examples of ex-Yugoslavia in the recent past and Dafuur today, maybe NK and China tomorrow.


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Idiens - the point that you are trying to make is that the US should leave Iraq. Yes or no?


Yes. 
(Plus ten extra characters)


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Shack said:


> Idiens, Trust me when I say that the death rate is nothing close to catastrophic.


I do. 
But while on statistics, the US used to have a War on Drugs, I believe narcotics result in one or two deaths somewhere. US troops were sent to South America to help to fix things. Do you know if the world poppy crop has been reduced or not? It looks to me as if Afghanistan production is making up where Columbia may be reducing. Can it be measured in drug related deaths?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Idiens - thank you.


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

sailaway21 said:


> I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer, (etc)


Very good post sailaway. Fits right in with the sheepdog/sheep situation.

Jerry


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Idiens, in your previous post you said: "Al Qaeda as a name did not exist at the time, nor does the organisation even today." This statement is important, because it is the basis for your claim that the name and the existence of Al Qaeda are fictions created by the U. S. Justice Department as a false pretext to allow them to bring criminal charges under the RICO laws. If the videotaped statement of Osama bin Laden is true, it completely undercuts your derogation of the United States, by way of it's Justice Department.

In your post # 646, you claim that bin Laden lied when he made that statement, because he wanted "publicity." It seems to me that he could have obtained publicity in some way other than to undercut the legal defense of his four henchmen on trial in the United States based on what you claim was a trumped-up RICO claim. He must have wanted "publicity" so much that he was willing to abandon his troops while they were under fire in a court of law. (If you're a leader of men, as bin Laden claims to be, you don't feed your own troops to the wolves, because you have to demonstrate your loyalty to them, if you want them to remain loyal to you.)

More important, however, is the fact that, under the RICO laws, the United States didn't have to prove that the name of the organization was "Al Qaeda." The name "Al Qaeda" doesn't appear anywhere in the RICO Act. The Justice Department didn't have to prove that it was a legally existing corporate entity in a technical legal sense. They only had to prove that it was a "criminal organization," which is defined as "&#8230;a group run by criminals&#8230;." See the following hyperlink for my source. In your post # 646, you repeatedly refer to Al Qaeda as an "organization," so, you aren't even consistent with your own contention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_organisation

Paul and the others are onto your game. No matter what the United States does, you find some way to portray our action as evil or stupid. If the President condemns North Korea for it's nuclear program, then you would call the U.S. an aggressor and saber-rattler. On the other hand, when we skillfully employed diplomacy to peacefully negotiate a deal to end their nuclear development, based on terms that both our nations can live with, then you portrayed it as "appeasement." If we had jailed the members of the bin Laden family after the Twin Towers attack, even though there was no evidence that they had committed any crime, it would have been a corruption of our constitution, our laws and our courts. Because we sent them safely home, you call that appeasement. With reference to WWII, you fault us for not coming to Europe's defense soon enough to please you. (Never mind that we had a few problems of our own to deal with in the Pacific theater, after Dec. 7, 1941.) Your ravings go way beyond a simple difference of opinion. They are so lacking in any rational underpinnings that they evidence a malicious purpose. Other members of the forum express their strong disagreement with our President and our nation, but the discourse with them continues as a thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas, because, even though they sometimes express themselves forcefully and colorfully, nevertheless, they don't try to insult our intelligence with outright propaganda.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

But Sailormon!
"No matter what the United States does, you find some way to portray our action as evil or stupid."
We ARE evil and stupid. The stupid part is easy, any course of action less than pursuing and exterminating threats against ourselves is stupid. 
The evil part is almost as easy. If we weren't so evil, we wouldn't tolerate and condone the existance of evil men.

So, until and unless the full force and might of the US is brought into play to end Islamic extremism and "stateless" terrorists...Yes, we're evil and stupid and we deserve everything we get. Including 9/11 type events. (Al-Q didn't cause 9/11, they just took advantage of evil and stupid Congressmen who took payments from evil and stupid airline lobbysists to shut down the domestic air marshal program in the 80's.)

I'm just hoping that the next real Pearl Harbor event (and if you haven't read "At Dawn We Slept" a long and slow definitive history by Gordon W. Prange, you're missing things, your library will have it) doesn't kill me, but finally gets people up off their asses. But without a massive loss, we're going to continue being stupid and evil for a long time.

Pearl Harbor, seen in the larger and more detailed historical view, was a massive compilation of errors on both sides. Our multiple screwups that allowed it to happen, and their multiple screwups that allowed us to recover with great speed and nowhere neaer the damage that could have been caused.

"Hi, my name is The Great Western Satan and I've got a gift for you. [BOOM] Next?"

The only problem I see, is that the US hasn't been at _war _since WW2, and we played pussyfoot both then and in every police action afterwards.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> But Sailormon!
> 
> The only problem I see, is that the US hasn't been at _war _since WW2, and we played pussyfoot both then and in every police action afterwards.


Vietnam was a police action ? In excess of 500,000 US military personel involved, 60,000 US service men and women killed but you got your backside severely tanned so it doesn't count as a war ? I'd also doubt that the citizens of Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki think you were ***** footing around but you never can tell.

This thread is getting somewhat silly. IMHO.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Ok I'll bite on this one.
I think that Sailormon has pretty well bracketed Idien's view of the US and classical liberal western culture, so there's no need to go there.

Question: What is, and was, wrong with the US that such an attack could be successful (9/11)? Another words-what about us has made us vulnerable?

A few thoughts:
Too much reliance upon government to keep us safe. In many communities the local police cannot arrive in a reasonable amount of time to save you from mayhem, yet these same communities are often adamant about gun control, issueing no concealed weapons permits for instance. Will they be able to respond any more quickly when we call to report that "Achmed" was observed dumping some liquid in the reservoir?

Airline security. Got to be the oxymoron of the new century. In what other form of transportation are you required to surrender all forms of defense on the assurance that the feds will take care of you? As mentioned, even the knowledge that air marshalls are frequent fliers would provide a large measure of security. The only glory that shone on 9/11 was on flight 93 where the passengers, probably in violation of numerous FAA regulations, attempted to defend themselves and their fellow citizens on the ground below. One does not seriously expect the Greyhound bus driver to keep one's self from being molested in transit and we don't search passengers for weapons. Women on the bus are still free to carry long hat pins and use them for purposes other than nailing down a fashionable hat. We know our fellow subway rider may be armed and we go to great lengths to not get into conflicts on the subway for just that reason.

Border security. Need I say more?

Racial profiling. We must search your blue-haired grandmother more frequently than "Mohammed" to avoid even the taint of discrimination. This area is reaching the point where, before long, we won't be able to hear a description of an armed robber in the media because we'll be offending by mentioning their race as a descriptive term. It'll be like "Mr. Kimble" on Green Acres; well he could be white, but then again he could be black, and of course he might not be either. Please tell me we're not heading there.

How can we "lose" so many foreign visitors who over-stay their visa? Run up a $5000 credit card tab and try to disappear. The credit card companies can and do track you to the ends of the earth. You can disappear for a while, but as soon as you put your name down anywhere they're right back on your trail. We're slapping GPS ankle bracelets on first time DUI offenders and they are US citizens. How is it that you can get a job with a fake social security number? Maybe if Visa was handling the visa business we'd have a better handle on things, and from my experience with them-we'd probably make a profit!

Why are we building aircraft carriers when the cost of just one would go a long way towards solving our lack of "humint", or spying, in foreign countries; an intelligence gap deplored by all.

Why are we "soft-selling" the war on terror? We know that Iran is responsible for exporting terror and terror resources throughout the world. Why not declare war on Iran? A declaration of war does not mean we start bombing or invade automatically. It merely means that the normal forms of diplomacy have broken down to a point as to become useless. Declare war, seize assets, embargo the country, there are many options; but a perception of a lack of seriousness would not be one of them. We should have had a formal declaration of war against Afghanistan and Iraq, acknowledging that the "government" in Afghanistan was a rather amorphous entity. Furthermore, a declaration of war let's the American citizen, as well as the world, know that we are quite serious about the relevant issue. This would seem to address some other issues as well, ie...an un-uniformed combatant in a war is deemed a spy and may be executed.

What is going on in our educational institutions and culture. We fought the "hun" and the "japs" and popular culture reviled our enemy. The anniversaries of 9/11 are cause for our public schools to engage in "sensitivity training" to the nature of Islam. Our Oprah-fied culture needs "closure" on the issue. We're teaching moral relativism. We launch a nation-wide exercise in tolerance and understanding, imploring that there be no back-lash against Arab-Americans. Ignoring the fact that there might well be Arab-Americans attending madrasses, funded by the Saudi's, that are sympathetic to the terrorist's cause. And, btw, what back-lash against Arab-Americans? Yup, we all rushed out into the night to perform our version of a Kristalnacht against our fellow citizens who happen to be of Arab descent. We did have German sympathizers here in WW II and we didn't think twice about hauling them in for questioning. But then, we were serious about that war. In WW II we were able to say that the Germans were evil and, at the same time, differentiate and get along fine with the Mueller's next door. And the Mueller's went out of their way to express the same emotions about Germany. Can you name one Islamic organization that has unequivably and loudly condemned the Islamic terrorists? Rightly or wrongly we interred Japanese-Americans in WW II because we perceived them to be a threat. We not only do not consider whether Arabs in the US are a threat, we are consciously looking the other way so as to not harm their self-esteem. If a burgler is coming through your window with a knife in the middle of the night and you perceive a threat of harm, American law holds that you may shoot the bastard. Current thinking has us taking the knife from him, helping him through the window, and handing the knife back to him so that he not injure himself in the commission of his felony. We don't respond to perfectly well-bred and trained, peacefull pit-bulls in this fashion. What gives?

Saudi Arabia. If I hear one more reference to our long-time loyal allies in the House of Saud I'm going to have a conniption. What has ibn Saud and his progeny ever done for us? I know the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. I know that they were funded by the Saudi's. I know that the Saudi's fund the world-wide network of madrasses that perpetuate jihadism. I know the Saudi's reward suicide bombers in Israel-our only true ally in the region. The Saudi's allow terror attacks on Americans on Saudi soil. We defend the Saudi's against the threat of Saddam rolling on through Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia and they tell us we can't fly missions against him from Saudi Arabian airfields. And then when the threat is neutralized, tell us we must abandon those bases. The French at least gave us Lafayette, and we have no trouble mocking, if not despising, them. What have the Saudi's EVER done for us?

What happened to, "you're either for us or against us"? The French wouldn't allow us to over-fly French airspace to bomb Khadaffi in the 1980s. Now they won't back us in the war on terror. Why are we allowing US airlines to buy Airbus airplanes, thereby enriching the French? Why are we still members of that cesspool of corruption and malfeasance called the United Nations? Demonstrably we don't need the UN to protect, innoculate, and provide humanitarian relief to the world and they certainly do need us. Sounds like another one way street to me. What do you call an organization that takes your money and then thwarts your every legitimate ambition? (actually that sounds alot like the federal govenment, but that's another topic-or is it?) At least the Mafia, after extorting protection money from your business, does protect your business.

And what's up with the new Congress? Just what is the purpose of a "non-binding resolution"? If you are against the war in Iraq then cut the funding today. It's not like we don't know your position-is there one of you that Chris Matthews hasn't interviewed on "Hardball" yet. Is the goal to send a signal to our enemies that there is division at home? Is the goal to craft a position of opposition without paying any political consequences if it turns out you're wrong? Certainly the goal should not be driven by the whims of political polling. Isn't the entire principle of representative democracy based on the elected congressmen doing what they feel to be best for the republic and not swaying to and fro in public sentiment? We elected you to educate yourselves on the issues and make informed decisions based on a depth of experience not permitted the masses. Isn't it a representative democracy instead of a pure democracy just so as to prevent national policy from being subject to every passing whim of the public? Didn't we elect you to become better informed than the rest of us on such arcane issues as the Law of the Sea treaty so that we could conduct our normal lives secure in the notion that you were on the case? Are you seriously waiting for me to read through the entire Federal budget so you'll know which way to vote? I can do that, but it then begs the question as to why I need you. If I agree with you on 99% of the other things you vote on, I'll probably re-elect you, but please don't tell me that you've just wasted 1/52nd of a year on something that is "non-binding". I can't take a week at work to do something that is non-productive to my boss and expect to get paid. Vote the funding up or down, but don't waste my tax dollars heating a building that's already full of hot air. I don't expect alot out of government, but I am troubled by the thought of having to lower my expectations further. "Non-binding" is a desirable characteristic in under-garments, not legislation. Are these the actions of a serious government or another episode of, "I'm not really a congressman, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night".

You know what's really troubling? I can't recall the last time somebody brought up the war in Iraq, or the war on terror, in conversation with me. It's like the whole thing is something we are all watching in private at home on our TV screens, and it really doesn't have anything to do with us personally. I meet quite a few different people over the course of an average day, and this thought does trouble me. Are we serious or does the phrase, "pitchers and catchers report today" have more import to us?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Have to agree with you on the Congress Critters sailaway. What a monumental waste of time, though a most successful pandering job. And since staying ahead in the polls is all that really matters to the vast majority of them, of either stripe, they were productive for themselves. Would be a whole lot easier if they'd be honest and do what they are going to do from the beginning instead of little steps that are "poll approved".

Hopefully (for them), Abdul won't get too bold and launch another attack, or they are going to suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the issue. And then they'll be for the war, before they were against the war, before they were for the war. How is it that kind of gibberish gets taken seriously?


----------



## Idiens (Jan 9, 2007)

Sailormon6 said:


> Idiens, in your previous post you said: "Al Qaeda as a name did not exist at the time, nor does the organisation even today." This statement is important, because it is the basis for your claim that the name and the existence of Al Qaeda are fictions created by the U. S. Justice Department as a false pretext to allow them to bring criminal charges under the RICO laws. If the videotaped statement of Osama bin Laden is true, it completely undercuts your derogation of the United States, by way of it's Justice Department.


 As usual Sailormon6, you are determined to interpret my posts incorrectly and introduce your own assumptions as to what my views are. I have never suggested, as you presume, that Al Qaeda, as it is now called, is a fiction. Please do not suggest that I did. What is often misrepresented, which I was humbly trying to point out, is that Al Qaeda is not a global organisation. Nor was it in Iraq.



Sailormon6 said:


> In your post # 646, you claim that bin Laden lied when he made that statement, because he wanted "publicity." It seems to me that he could have obtained publicity in some way other than to undercut the legal defense of his four henchmen on trial in the United States based on what you claim was a trumped-up RICO claim. He must have wanted "publicity" so much that he was willing to abandon his troops while they were under fire in a court of law. (If you're a leader of men, as bin Laden claims to be, you don't feed your own troops to the wolves, because you have to demonstrate your loyalty to them, if you want them to remain loyal to you.)


 You believe Bin Laden on an Arabic channel as a source rather than one of your own countrymen on a BBC programme? Once again, you extrapolate in completely the wrong direction. You ignore the difference between an organisation and a global organisation, but then differentiate between an organisation and a criminal organisation. You even presume that I think that Al Qaeda's 9/11 act was not a crime under existing US law. Wrong again. 


Sailormon6 said:


> Paul and the others are onto your game.


 Good for them, try to catch up. 


Sailormon6 said:


> No matter what the United States does, you find some way to portray our action as evil or stupid.


 Wrong again. I have only criticised the US for two things. Others have too, but it seems for you, the US may only be criticised by its own citizens.


Sailormon6 said:


> If the President condemns North Korea for it's nuclear program, then you would call the U.S. an aggressor and saber-rattler. On the other hand, when we skillfully employed diplomacy to peacefully negotiate a deal to end their nuclear development, based on terms that both our nations can live with, then you portrayed it as "appeasement."


 On this thread, those who oppose attacking a country, because of WMD it doesn't have, are mocked as appeasers. But you call not attacking a rogue country that demonstrated its nuclear capability as skilful diplomacy. Why not try some of it on Iran and Syria too. Perhaps they would trade in their nuclear ambitions for promises of peace and financial aid. Pakistan provided nuclear capability to NK, Iran and Lybia (Saddam refused it). So skilfull diplomacy has managed to stop that flow from Pakistan.


Sailormon6 said:


> If we had jailed the members of the bin Laden family after the Twin Towers attack, even though there was no evidence that they had committed any crime, it would have been a corruption of our constitution, our laws and our courts. Because we sent them safely home, you call that appeasement.


 The Bin Laden's did the appeasing, the US just decided that every other poor soul wanting to fly home would have to wait in case they needed to be interrogated. By the way. How do you know they knew nothing of the attack? Did you ask them? You could have called them enemy combatants and put them into G-Bay without offending any of your laws.
Your ravings go way beyond a simple difference of opinion. They are so lacking in any rational underpinnings that they evidence a malicious purpose. Other members of the forum express their strong disagreement with our President and our nation, but the discourse with them continues as a thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas, because, even though they sometimes express themselves forcefully and colorfully, nevertheless, they don't try to insult our intelligence with outright propaganda.
No Sailormon6, I will not appease you.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I have to admit Idiens, I'm truely amazed at your indepth knowledge about Bin Laden, al-Quaida, Bush's motivations, etc., etc.. With such a talent at prescience, you should be living in Monte Carlo, not Belgium.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

sailaway21 said:


> Question: What is, and was, wrong with the US that such an attack could be successful (9/11)? Another words-what about us has made us vulnerable?


The U.S. has always been an open society. In an open society, the government is limited in it's ability to inquire into the comings and goings of it's citizens, and to search their persons and places. We like it that way. Even after 9/11, we grudgingly submit to searches of ourselves and our luggage before we are allowed to board an airplane, but we submit because we know it's necessary to our safety. In an open society, the government "trusts" that most of it's citizens can be allowed to move about freely and that they will not commit crimes against society. We know, of course, that some people will commit crimes, but our criminal courts can deal with those people individually. The theory of an open society is that the majority of people are afforded the greatest amount of freedom, and only those who abuse their freedom are punished. Our open society has generally worked well for us.

We cherish our open society, but it is also what makes us vulnerable. Terrorists who don't care whether they die or are captured are able to move about our society freely, taking photos and gathering intel, purchasing fertilizer to make explosives, learning the skills needed to carry out their attacks, and purchasing tickets to fly on airliners. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and similar anti-terrorism laws have provided the government new investigatory tools, but once again, we only accept them grudgingly.

After 9/11, we suddenly realized how open and vulnerable our borders are to intruders, but the truth is, they have always been open. From the outset, Americans and Mexicans crossed the border back and forth at will. We think that all we have to do is build a 700 mile long fence between the US and Mexico, and we will be secure, but what about the US/Canadian border? We have always bragged that it is the longest unsecured border in the world. I haven't heard anyone, either Democrat or Republican, suggest how we're going to secure that one. Moreover, we are surrounded by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico. Oh, and by the way, we're also expected to accomplish this seemingly impossible task without granting "amnesty." People are completely unrealistic about the difficulty of securing our borders in an open society. It can be done, but hard, realistic choices have to be made, hard work has to be done, and a whole lot of money will have to be spent.

So far as our international relationships are concerned, the plain reality is that we can't declare war against everybody who commits an act of war against us, or who represents some degree of threat to us. During the cold war, we occasionally committed technical acts of war against the Soviets and others, and they committed them against us, and we settled them in other ways. I've said before that I support U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but we certainly resolved the cold war peaceably, and we seem to have settled our problems with Libya without an invasion and all-out war. We appear to be resolving the current crisis with North Korea, which might well be one of the most serious of our times, by using diplomacy and negotiation. So far, I think we can still resolve the problems with Iran without war. Each problem that arises in the world has a different cause and a different remedy. We need to find the right remedy for each problem, and I think we're doing that reasonably well, although I know some will disagree vehemently.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Caught a British historian on C-Span over the weekend. Andrews I believe, but his book is titled, "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900". It takes up where Churchill left off. He espoused the idea that success in Iraq makes the necessity of a military strike on Iran less likely, and the opposite true as well. The basis for his claim, which I find convincing, is that if American prestige in the world is harmed it will be assumed by other countries and movements that America can be flouted with little consequence. It seems to make sense to me to consider this, rather than obsessing over possible past mistakes obvious mostly to Belgians, and the practical implications of any tin-pot dictatorship or jihadist movement feeling free to take pot-shots at the US without penalty.

The glories of diplomacy, as illuminated by the Flemish, in N. Korea will probably prove to be temporal and, in fact, have only really succeeded in now making China a real player in future negotiations. North Korean non-compliance will only be mitigated by the small amount of heavy fuel oil it takes to run that dismal country. The issue will be re-visited.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Sailaway-
"The basis for his claim, which I find convincing, is that if American prestige in the world is harmed it will be assumed by other countries and movements that America can be flouted with little consequence. "
That holds true for pretty much all countries and is worst when the cultural concept of "face" is involved in judgments of strengths and weaknesses. Case in point, the US loss of the Korean Peacekeeping Conflict. (Which only felt like a war, but never was one.) Look at how North Korea has continued to poke the bear, so to speak, ever since. 
Aside from mistakes during the non-war, we "lost" the truce on the second morning of the truce negotiations. The NK's were insulted because the US negotiators were taller, not sitting eye to eye, and on the first night they literally cut inches off the legs of the US chairs. All unevenly and hastily. On the second morning, the US chairs all rocked, and the negotiators were now eye to eye. Which, to NK standards, literally "took them down a peg". The appropirate response for winners or "conquerors" would have been to end the talks or shoot the NK's on the spot. Continuing the talks while allowing the change in posture, made us losers in NK eyes.
And so it goes, the US has lost everything since WW2 that way. Arguably including WW2 on both fronts and even WW1, to many other cultures. Best sadly expressed in "The Mouse That Roared". We just can't seem to understand that "turn the other cheek" works only in *****-slapping contests.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Hellosailor,
I find your choice of the Korean conflict quite interesting. It absolutely begs the question as to where we'd be now if Stormin' Norman had rolled on through Baghdad to the Turkish border during the Persian Gulf War. Would the swift dispatch of Saddam at that time have possibly prevented the recent unpleasantness with Al Qaeda?

South Korea is still officially at war with the North as I understand it, although their actions do not seem to indicate it. My understanding also is that, when the war is ended, the Korean flag will be flipped over and the blue of the yin/yang will then be on top.

If Jack Nicholson was saying it; unconditional surrender, is there any other kind? It does seem that some "diplomatic" solutions seem to either result in genocide (Paris Peace Accords) or merely punt the problem further down the road to more death and destruction. While I am not of the "nuke 'em" school I do not see much of value in less than total victory. It's hard to see much of Weimar or Bismark in Germany today, and Tojo-ism doesn't seem to be a factor in a still somewhat xenophobic Japan either. Benevolence is the gift of total victory.


----------



## LOCKNUT (Apr 11, 2009)

If you want to pay more TAXES-vote for the Global warming side.


----------



## Dumah (Feb 18, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> Southerncross-
> Car exhaust is a bad example. Actually, these days? Sometimes it is cleaner, with lower CO and CO2 content, than the air going INTO the engines.
> 
> And that pretty much sums up the whole global warming argument. Everyone has felt one piece of the elephant, but NO ONE can be bothered with finding out what the whole animal is. Aside from a few professional climatologists and geologists, who can't get enough funding to buy new shoelaces.
> ...


That has got to be the MOST illogical argument I've seen and I'm only halfway through this thread. If it is that clean, hook up your gas mask to your exhaust and tell us how well you are breathing in 10 minutes.


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

I am staying out of the politics of this.

YouTube - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

You just got sold.

Google "Ben Franklin Close" and you'll see what I mean. His whiteboard work is a classic "Ben Franklin"- how to influence the prospect in such a way that you appear impartial yet lead the prospect to your desired result, ie. the sale.
Just count the seconds he spent describing the best case scenario, and the length of time invested describing the worst case scenario. 

The greater the effort you need to expend to convince your audience that your opinion is valid, the weaker your position.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

blackjenner said:


> I am staying out of the politics of this.
> 
> YouTube - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See


The old "What if your wrong" it's your very soul that is at stake argument. We would all be Chrisitians, no wait Jews, no wait (insert religion of choice).

That video is now much more interesting that we know, for certian, that the premise was false.

As it always is if you have to use that argument.

Or "its for the children..."


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Interesting picture for those who are talking about North Korea.

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/1438/earth_lights_lrg.jpg

It doesn't really look like much of a civilization there.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

That's because there isn't much in the way of civilization there...



Bene505 said:


> Interesting picture for those who are talking about North Korea.
> 
> http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/1438/earth_lights_lrg.jpg
> 
> ...


----------



## BGallinger (Oct 14, 2009)

The issue of 3750 "scientists" who reviewed the climate change paper is often brought up. What's interesting is discovering how many of those 3750 "scientists" held a Ph.D from a recognized university! Ask the UN to tell you.
Climate "modelling" seems to be the current buzzword. Its a fancy way of saying an algorithm is developed to assist those who track climate data and want to show trends. Funny thing is, no one can do a computer model on a cloud. Never mind predicting weather 50 years from now. I guess the Climate modelling for Global Cooling didn't work either!


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

Architeuthis said:


> The old "What if your wrong" it's your very soul that is at stake argument. We would all be Chrisitians, no wait Jews, no wait (insert religion of choice).
> 
> That video is now much more interesting that we know, for certian, that the premise was false.
> 
> ...


The comparison to religious arguments falls down here: there is no scientific basis to back up religious beliefs. That's what *faith* is.

I'm sure there are as many ways to dismiss his argument as there are political arguments against the actual science.

People can choose to look at the issue, or the arguments through whatever rose colored glasses or political views they choose. His is a good way to frame it if one chooses to listen. I don't trust axe grinding myself. I don't see that in his statements. The science is pretty clear, it's the politics that messes with that.

Me? I'll stick to the science, thank you, no matter how the politics tries to divert us.

Like I said, not arguing for either side except the science.

Not interested in the politics.

Oh, and you all do have fire extinguishers, PFDs, life rings, lifeboats and such on our vessels, right? Now what are the actual chances of needing them? What if you don't have them and do need them? Preparing for bad things is simply prudence. I think that is all he is saying.

Others are free to interpret it however they choose.


----------



## elkscout (Feb 12, 2010)

Bene505 said:


> Interesting picture for those who are talking about North Korea.
> 
> http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/1438/earth_lights_lrg.jpg
> 
> ...


Maybe they're trying to be green/practicing energy conservation by turning off their lights.


----------



## elkscout (Feb 12, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> But Sailormon!
> "No matter what the United States does, you find some way to portray our action as evil or stupid."
> We ARE evil and stupid. The stupid part is easy, any course of action less than pursuing and exterminating threats against ourselves is stupid.
> The evil part is almost as easy. If we weren't so evil, we wouldn't tolerate and condone the existance of evil men.
> ...


AMEN BROTHER! although I agree w/ TDW- I don't think we were pussyfooting around during WW2, but we definitely have been with the latest conflicts. I'm presently in Iraq, and it's a freaking joke to see what's going on/not going on! The rules of engagement have totally changed because someone decided we needed to fight a kinder, gentler war in an effort to eliminate or at least minimize destruction and civilian casualties. This is leading into a whole other topic/debate, so I'll end it with you can thank those dumb clucks who bow to world opinion for having to pussyfoot around. Though, I will also add that IMHO 9/11 was a Pearl Harbor. Review the similarities. :hothead :hothead


----------



## elkscout (Feb 12, 2010)

blackjenner said:


> The comparison to religious arguments falls down here: there is no scientific basis to back up religious beliefs. That's what *faith* is.
> 
> I'm sure there are as many ways to dismiss his argument as there are political arguments against the actual science.
> 
> ...


Actually, science is slowly confirming the existence of a Supreme Being, or more applicable a Creator, even though most scientists who are atheists don't want to admit it, and archaeology has countlessly discovered support for events mentioned in the Holy Bible and the Torah, thereby giving credence to the two mainly related religions; Christianity and Judaism. 

Also, don't skew good/pure science with some of the knuckleheaded and agenda driven scientists who claim to practice it.


----------



## elkscout (Feb 12, 2010)

*OP's video n/a*

 BTW, I know it's over three years old, but the video cruisingdad linked to, which originally started this thread, is not available for some reason. Hmmm.
I didn't get to see it, but from the thread, I imagine it had something to do with global warming.


----------



## smillinjack (Aug 13, 2009)

madseiler said:


> What happened to global cooling?
> http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf


 It's still here ,it's going to be 25 wed. night in lake city Florida.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

*About Science Not Religion*



elkscout said:


> Actually, science is slowly confirming the existence of a Supreme Being, or more applicable a Creator, even though most scientists who are atheists don't want to admit it, and archaeology has countlessly discovered support for events mentioned in the Holy Bible and the Torah, thereby giving credence to the two mainly related religions; Christianity and Judaism.


Actually archaeology has confirmed that the Bible is part oral history and part borrowing parables from other religions that existed at the time -- a common practice among religions historically.

But then this thread is about global warming. Faith is a whole other discussion.

Jim


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

*Getting Back to Global Warming*

OK, my background is engineering so my first reaction is show me the data. My second is where did the data come from and is the data valid. I've also had the experience of working in areas where the science was new, so you're constantly refining the details.

That said I would trust the scientists who are working in this area. They are willing to put their reputations on the line, and in many documented cases they have put their jobs and careers on the line to speak out loudly on this issue. And for some the reality for some was they did sacrifice their careers.

That tells me, that when you get down into the weeds and really look at the issue they are seeing some VERY scary things.

Can you find flaws in their data? Have they continued to modify and refine their predictions? Absolutely.

That is not an indication of a flaw in the science, but rather that the scientists and engineers who are working on this issue continue to do the day-to-day hard work of pushing the science forward.

Jim


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

*Personal Unscientific Observations*

Three summers ago there was an article in one of the Chesapeake Bay magazines (I think SpinSheet) about how odd it was that pelicans had become a common sight on the Bay.

Now I regularly see pelicans and other wading birds that I would associate with Florida on Barnegat Bay.

I've also seen a good half dozen of articles on sailing the northern passage by adventure sailors. Remember it was considered deadly to attempt this not very long ago.

Glaciers are disappearing all over the world.

Seems pretty obvious something is going on. How Americans view that something depends in large part on the political glasses you're wearing.

Jim


----------



## sharps4590 (Jan 14, 2010)

So what really happened to the dinosaurs? And what about the "scientist" from East Anglia who started this silly thing admitting there is no global warming nor has there been any since 1995 and that the "hockey stick anomaly" was a hoax created by them? Not throwin' stones.....just askin'.

Vic


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

I'm not going to debate it. I'm going to do what the guy in the video said and learn what I can about it for myself, then encourage others to do so. I'm not going to attempt to convince others or change their minds. It's not worth the politics.


----------

