Do you even know what my POV is? I don't think you do. You might outnumber me on this board, but not in most of America. You don't really mean to tell me that you believe you're in the majority do you? There is absolutely NOTHING that can support such a statement.
Of course there are more people who share your views then mine IN AMERICA. I am outnumbered ... in America.
But America isn't even the most populous nation of the world, let alone the only one.
And there are plenty of things to support the statement. Even in your most loyal coalition partner, more then 50% thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. In your second-loyal partner, Spain, more then 90% thought the war was a bad idea. The entire middle East was against it. The people of Russia and France were against it. You didn't have a majority on the security council. We can guess at the opinions of the Chinese people, but the government was against it. Your immediate neighbours were both against it.
So, you're wrong again, no matter how passionately you feel about the rightness of your position.
I think the article is a little alarmist compared to the report.
Everything is a partisan debate with you.
Where is it? Show me. Otherwise, believing a claim that extreme is totally insane. As for politics, you can't deny that it's awfully suspcious that this "report" comes out during an election year.
Of course there are more people who share your views then mine IN AMERICA. I am outnumbered ... in America.
But America isn't even the most populous nation of the world, let alone the only one.
And there are plenty of things to support the statement. Even in your most loyal coalition partner, more then 50% thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. In your second-loyal partner, Spain, more then 90% thought the war was a bad idea. The entire middle East was against it. The people of Russia and France were against it. You didn't have a majority on the security council. We can guess at the opinions of the Chinese people, but the government was against it. Your immediate neighbours were both against it.
So, you're wrong again, no matter how passionately you feel about the rightness of your position.
I know there are many, many people who disagree with my POV. That's fine. But, there are also a lot who agree. Either way, my opinions are not based on who agrees or disagrees with me.
Where is it? Show me. Otherwise, believing a claim that extreme is totally insane. As for politics, you can't deny that it's awfully suspcious that this "report" comes out during an election year.
I know there are many, many people who disagree with my POV. That's fine. But, there are also a lot who agree. Either way, my opinions are not based on who agrees or disagrees with me.
I'll take that as confirmation you agree that whatever my and "our" opinions may be, they are not "extreme" as you said. And I advise you to reread the previous post to this with that in mind.
Edit: what would it take? A deus-ex-machina? Bush breaking down on primetime saying "I'm sorry!"? The Pentagon itself writing a report to Bush?
Oh, wait.
What would it take before you give up your extreme position on climate change?
I know there are many, many people who disagree with my POV. That's fine. But, there are also a lot who agree. Either way, my opinions are not based on who agrees or disagrees with me.
hmmmmm.....
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001 in feb 03
Well, the leftist's typical responses have all been offered:
1. The evidence is not credible.
------Fact; It actually IS.
2. The evidence is not sufficient
------Fact: It IS more than enough.
...
Colin Powell made a DEVASTATING case against Saddam.
We have more evidence than I thought we would have. Can you say "National Security Agency Intercepts"???
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001 in feb 03
How can ANYONE here actually argue that Saddam doesn't have WOMD? Please. At least admit he has them. Then your opposition would at least be halfway reasonable. Oh, we'd still disagree. But at least you'd have some self-respect then.
So what are your opinions based on? Clearly they aren't based on fact.
The evidence presented was the same evidence Congress saw. It was the same evidence Clinton saw in 1998. It was apparently good enough for John Kerry to vote for the war as well. So, despite the lack of actual weapons turning up, I stand by those statements. There was no reason to think he DIDN'T have WMD. None. Nice try.
The evidence presented was the same evidence Congress saw. It was the same evidence Clinton saw in 1998. It was apparently good enough for John Kerry to vote for the war as well. So, despite the lack of actual weapons turning up, I stand by those statements. There was no reason to think he DIDN'T have WMD. None. Nice try.
Apart from everything that the UN inspectors on the ground were saying. And that VX nerve agent degrades to uselessness in less than five years. And that two cabinet ministers in the UK resigned because the case for war so weak.
And incidentally I don't recall Bill Clinton ordering a full-scale invasion of Iraq to prevent Saddam using his WoMD. I'm convinced I'd remember if he did, anyway.
I'll take that as confirmation you agree that whatever my and "our" opinions may be, they are not "extreme" as you said. And I advise you to reread the previous post to this with that in mind.
Edit: what would it take? A deus-ex-machina? Bush breaking down on primetime saying "I'm sorry!"? The Pentagon itself writing a report to Bush?
Oh, wait.
What would it take before you give up your extreme position on climate change?
OK....now you're jumping around. I do not think your positions are "mainstream" compared to most of America. That's what I'm saying. Any other assumptions you've made are YOURS.
As for climate change, my position is anything but extreme. I believe that mother nature is not quite as fragile as the extreme environmental movement would like to believe. I believe global warming may, in fact, be happening due to human activity, but I also believe the case is not closed on that topic. As far as this report, all one has to do in order to be skeptical is look at the title: "...Climate Change Greater Threat Than Terrorism". I mean really....think it through! What is Bush's number one issue? Terror. And then, all of a sudden, an article is printed with that title (without producing the actual report). Oh gee...wouldn't that be just PERFECT for the Democratic Party?
"...Climate Change Greater Threat Than Terrorism". I mean really....think it through!
Take your own advice. The two greatest threats to national security are climate change and infectious diseases. Terrorism is an immediate problem that has only a remote chance of ripping apart the US. Not so for the other two.
And your statements about intelligence concerning Iraq are still as dead wrong as they have been from day 1. An intelligent person would look at a mistake as an opportunity to learn.
It doesn't matter a **** whether it's man, Bush or the Jolly Green Giant causing climate change.
It's real, it's happening, and it's going to drown Holland. And Bangladesh. And possibly freeze the UK.
Although those don't qualify as America, they are none the less full of people. If you think that 3000 deaths in the WTC were a big issue (or a ****ing dirty bomb in NYC for that matter) you need to stop ignoring what mainstream science and research (including the Pentagon for Christ's sake) is saying. Because terror is nothing, nothing, compared to climate change. Few thousand Americans. Few hundred thousand Americans. Big ****ing deal.
I strongly advise you to abandon your extremist position. Just like evolution, this argument has been won. You are NOT in the mainstream, just deal with it and acknowledge the fact. I'm sick to death of a tiny amount of people ignoring mainstream excellent research and science -- and the evidence of their own eyes -- and saying this isn't happening. Having the bare-faced cheek to try and control the language and call it extreme.
Remember when anyone with any knowledge of trademark and libel law looked at the Al Franken case and told you you were wrong? Remember the slap down the judge gave because it was totally obvious? Your blind faith in ideology blinded you to the truth and it's the exact same here.
Take your own advice. The two greatest threats to national security are climate change and infectious diseases. Terrorism is an immediate problem that has only a remote chance of ripping apart the US. Not so for the other two.
And your statements about intelligence concerning Iraq are still as dead wrong as they have been from day 1. An intelligent person would look at a mistake as an opportunity to learn.
Oh look...here we go. You'll get away with a direct insult as you usually do. At least I'm used to it.
I'm not discounting the threat of climate change. Such a change would of course be a disaster of unthinkable proportions. However, I'm not convinced in any way that such a change is happening...especially in the short term (i.e. 20 years). Why are you convinced? Why do you believe this report? In fact, what reason AT ALL is there to believe this report even exists? Have you seen it? Add those to list of questions earlier (what was the report's nature? Was it speculative? How certain was its author(s) about the prediction?). Based on all of those unanswered questions, I can't take the article seriously. But more importantly, giant, do you REALLY believe these climate changes are coming in the next 20 years? (with or without the report).
As for Iraq, it is apparent we'll never even "agree to disagree". I still think the evidence was sufficient for any reasonable *intelligent* person to come the conclusion that Saddam had WMD, whether or not that person supported war. Quite frankly, if you're insulting my intelligence for believing such evidence, then you're also going to have to insult every single member of Congress that saw the SAME intelligence and voted for war...not to mention the former President himself. Was Clinton lying too? Oh, wait.....bad example.
Finally, your hypocrisy on these two issues is amazing. You believe a news article that references an unproduced report with claims that are, in the least, extremely surprising and unexpected (and at worst, utterly extreme). Yet when it comes to Saddam, you scoff at my believing what the upper levels of US Government (once again, including the former President) believed for at least 11 years about man who USED chemical weapons in the past.
And I can't believe your bald faced hypocrisy. WHERE IS THE REPORT?
We have an article from the extraordinarily liberal Guardian. That's all we have. It's one of the most unbalanced articles I've ever seen:
Quote:
So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.
Gee.....
Even if this report DOES exist, we'd need to see it in context and examine its nature. You won't do that though, because a headline like "Now Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us" is like a big piece of political candy for you.
Where is the report? Have you seen it? What is its composition? Is it making concrete predictions? Is it a contingency plan? What evidence supports a short term global climate change? How is the report worded? You don't have answers to these questions. Until you do, taking this article at face value is irresonsible and intellectually dishonest, not to mention all too convenient for Bush haters.
How much of the global warming problem is reconcilable by reducing greenhouse emissions alone? I had the perception (from a journal I read quite some time ago) that currents really played the biggest part in climactic change. If they're changing, what can Bush do about it? I don't see why he's being attacked for cyclic planetary changes...
I just thought I'd quote this, seeing as how it went completely ignored because it wasn't politically charged. Interestingly enough it's more important to the global climate than our fossil fuel emissions... but hey, why worry about that when we're trying to argue?
I just thought I'd quote this, seeing as how it went completely ignored because it wasn't politically charged. Interestingly enough it's more important to the global climate than our fossil fuel emissions... but hey, why worry about that when we're trying to argue?
It is connected. The currents are changing because the layered structure of the water is going away. The layered structure is going away because of changed salt balance in the water (less salt). The salt balance is changing because ice from the poles has melted away. The ice is melting away because of the heating of the planet
Where is the report? Have you seen it? What is its composition? Is it making concrete predictions? Is it a contingency plan? What evidence supports a short term global climate change? How is the report worded? You don't have answers to these questions. Until you do, taking this article at face value is irresonsible and intellectually dishonest, not to mention all too convenient for Bush haters.
SDW, I was really reffering to the mountains of research and papers that have been written on the subject, all of which have been discounted.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Do you even know what my POV is? I don't think you do. You might outnumber me on this board, but not in most of America. You don't really mean to tell me that you believe you're in the majority do you? There is absolutely NOTHING that can support such a statement.
Of course there are more people who share your views then mine IN AMERICA. I am outnumbered ... in America.
But America isn't even the most populous nation of the world, let alone the only one.
And there are plenty of things to support the statement. Even in your most loyal coalition partner, more then 50% thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. In your second-loyal partner, Spain, more then 90% thought the war was a bad idea. The entire middle East was against it. The people of Russia and France were against it. You didn't have a majority on the security council. We can guess at the opinions of the Chinese people, but the government was against it. Your immediate neighbours were both against it.
So, you're wrong again, no matter how passionately you feel about the rightness of your position.
Originally posted by SDW2001
But, I do have some problems wit this story.
Oh, SDW.
First, where is this report?
In a few extremely easy to find places.
Beyond all of that, I just have a little trouble with the claims of this report. It's a little alarmist, don;t you think?
I think the article is a little alarmist compared to the report.
Please tell me you guys don't take this at face value without questining it. It's all a little too politically convenient.
Everything is a partisan debate with you.
Originally posted by giant
Oh, SDW.
In a few extremely easy to find places.
I think the article is a little alarmist compared to the report.
Everything is a partisan debate with you.
Where is it? Show me. Otherwise, believing a claim that extreme is totally insane. As for politics, you can't deny that it's awfully suspcious that this "report" comes out during an election year.
Originally posted by Harald
Of course there are more people who share your views then mine IN AMERICA. I am outnumbered ... in America.
But America isn't even the most populous nation of the world, let alone the only one.
And there are plenty of things to support the statement. Even in your most loyal coalition partner, more then 50% thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. In your second-loyal partner, Spain, more then 90% thought the war was a bad idea. The entire middle East was against it. The people of Russia and France were against it. You didn't have a majority on the security council. We can guess at the opinions of the Chinese people, but the government was against it. Your immediate neighbours were both against it.
So, you're wrong again, no matter how passionately you feel about the rightness of your position.
I know there are many, many people who disagree with my POV. That's fine. But, there are also a lot who agree. Either way, my opinions are not based on who agrees or disagrees with me.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Where is it? Show me. Otherwise, believing a claim that extreme is totally insane. As for politics, you can't deny that it's awfully suspcious that this "report" comes out during an election year.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I know there are many, many people who disagree with my POV. That's fine. But, there are also a lot who agree. Either way, my opinions are not based on who agrees or disagrees with me.
I'll take that as confirmation you agree that whatever my and "our" opinions may be, they are not "extreme" as you said. And I advise you to reread the previous post to this with that in mind.
Edit: what would it take? A deus-ex-machina? Bush breaking down on primetime saying "I'm sorry!"? The Pentagon itself writing a report to Bush?
Oh, wait.
What would it take before you give up your extreme position on climate change?
Originally posted by SDW2001
I know there are many, many people who disagree with my POV. That's fine. But, there are also a lot who agree. Either way, my opinions are not based on who agrees or disagrees with me.
hmmmmm.....
Originally posted by SDW2001 in feb 03
Well, the leftist's typical responses have all been offered:
1. The evidence is not credible.
------Fact; It actually IS.
2. The evidence is not sufficient
------Fact: It IS more than enough.
...
Colin Powell made a DEVASTATING case against Saddam.
We have more evidence than I thought we would have. Can you say "National Security Agency Intercepts"???
Originally posted by SDW2001 in feb 03
How can ANYONE here actually argue that Saddam doesn't have WOMD? Please. At least admit he has them. Then your opposition would at least be halfway reasonable. Oh, we'd still disagree. But at least you'd have some self-respect then.
So what are your opinions based on? Clearly they aren't based on fact.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The evidence presented was the same evidence Congress saw. It was the same evidence Clinton saw in 1998. It was apparently good enough for John Kerry to vote for the war as well. So, despite the lack of actual weapons turning up, I stand by those statements. There was no reason to think he DIDN'T have WMD. None. Nice try.
Apart from everything that the UN inspectors on the ground were saying. And that VX nerve agent degrades to uselessness in less than five years. And that two cabinet ministers in the UK resigned because the case for war so weak.
Apart from that, no. None.
Originally posted by Harald
I'll take that as confirmation you agree that whatever my and "our" opinions may be, they are not "extreme" as you said. And I advise you to reread the previous post to this with that in mind.
Edit: what would it take? A deus-ex-machina? Bush breaking down on primetime saying "I'm sorry!"? The Pentagon itself writing a report to Bush?
Oh, wait.
What would it take before you give up your extreme position on climate change?
OK....now you're jumping around. I do not think your positions are "mainstream" compared to most of America. That's what I'm saying. Any other assumptions you've made are YOURS.
As for climate change, my position is anything but extreme. I believe that mother nature is not quite as fragile as the extreme environmental movement would like to believe. I believe global warming may, in fact, be happening due to human activity, but I also believe the case is not closed on that topic. As far as this report, all one has to do in order to be skeptical is look at the title: "...Climate Change Greater Threat Than Terrorism". I mean really....think it through! What is Bush's number one issue? Terror. And then, all of a sudden, an article is printed with that title (without producing the actual report). Oh gee...wouldn't that be just PERFECT for the Democratic Party?
Come on. Get real. It's bullshit.
Originally posted by SDW2001
"...Climate Change Greater Threat Than Terrorism". I mean really....think it through!
Take your own advice. The two greatest threats to national security are climate change and infectious diseases. Terrorism is an immediate problem that has only a remote chance of ripping apart the US. Not so for the other two.
And your statements about intelligence concerning Iraq are still as dead wrong as they have been from day 1. An intelligent person would look at a mistake as an opportunity to learn.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Come on. Get real. It's bullshit.
It doesn't matter a **** whether it's man, Bush or the Jolly Green Giant causing climate change.
It's real, it's happening, and it's going to drown Holland. And Bangladesh. And possibly freeze the UK.
Although those don't qualify as America, they are none the less full of people. If you think that 3000 deaths in the WTC were a big issue (or a ****ing dirty bomb in NYC for that matter) you need to stop ignoring what mainstream science and research (including the Pentagon for Christ's sake) is saying. Because terror is nothing, nothing, compared to climate change. Few thousand Americans. Few hundred thousand Americans. Big ****ing deal.
I strongly advise you to abandon your extremist position. Just like evolution, this argument has been won. You are NOT in the mainstream, just deal with it and acknowledge the fact. I'm sick to death of a tiny amount of people ignoring mainstream excellent research and science -- and the evidence of their own eyes -- and saying this isn't happening. Having the bare-faced cheek to try and control the language and call it extreme.
Remember when anyone with any knowledge of trademark and libel law looked at the Al Franken case and told you you were wrong? Remember the slap down the judge gave because it was totally obvious? Your blind faith in ideology blinded you to the truth and it's the exact same here.
Originally posted by giant
Take your own advice. The two greatest threats to national security are climate change and infectious diseases. Terrorism is an immediate problem that has only a remote chance of ripping apart the US. Not so for the other two.
And your statements about intelligence concerning Iraq are still as dead wrong as they have been from day 1. An intelligent person would look at a mistake as an opportunity to learn.
Oh look...here we go. You'll get away with a direct insult as you usually do. At least I'm used to it.
I'm not discounting the threat of climate change. Such a change would of course be a disaster of unthinkable proportions. However, I'm not convinced in any way that such a change is happening...especially in the short term (i.e. 20 years). Why are you convinced? Why do you believe this report? In fact, what reason AT ALL is there to believe this report even exists? Have you seen it? Add those to list of questions earlier (what was the report's nature? Was it speculative? How certain was its author(s) about the prediction?). Based on all of those unanswered questions, I can't take the article seriously. But more importantly, giant, do you REALLY believe these climate changes are coming in the next 20 years? (with or without the report).
As for Iraq, it is apparent we'll never even "agree to disagree". I still think the evidence was sufficient for any reasonable *intelligent* person to come the conclusion that Saddam had WMD, whether or not that person supported war. Quite frankly, if you're insulting my intelligence for believing such evidence, then you're also going to have to insult every single member of Congress that saw the SAME intelligence and voted for war...not to mention the former President himself. Was Clinton lying too? Oh, wait.....bad example.
Finally, your hypocrisy on these two issues is amazing. You believe a news article that references an unproduced report with claims that are, in the least, extremely surprising and unexpected (and at worst, utterly extreme). Yet when it comes to Saddam, you scoff at my believing what the upper levels of US Government (once again, including the former President) believed for at least 11 years about man who USED chemical weapons in the past.
Right...OK. I'm with you now.
Originally posted by SDW2001
In fact, what reason AT ALL is there to believe this report even exists?
I can't believe you haven't figured this out yet.
[edit] actually I can
Originally posted by giant
I can't believe you haven't figured this out yet.
[edit] actually I can
And I can't believe your bald faced hypocrisy. WHERE IS THE REPORT?
We have an article from the extraordinarily liberal Guardian. That's all we have. It's one of the most unbalanced articles I've ever seen:
So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.
Gee.....
Even if this report DOES exist, we'd need to see it in context and examine its nature. You won't do that though, because a headline like "Now Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us" is like a big piece of political candy for you.
Where is the report? Have you seen it? What is its composition? Is it making concrete predictions? Is it a contingency plan? What evidence supports a short term global climate change? How is the report worded? You don't have answers to these questions. Until you do, taking this article at face value is irresonsible and intellectually dishonest, not to mention all too convenient for Bush haters.
Originally posted by fred_lj
How much of the global warming problem is reconcilable by reducing greenhouse emissions alone? I had the perception (from a journal I read quite some time ago) that currents really played the biggest part in climactic change. If they're changing, what can Bush do about it? I don't see why he's being attacked for cyclic planetary changes...
I just thought I'd quote this, seeing as how it went completely ignored because it wasn't politically charged. Interestingly enough it's more important to the global climate than our fossil fuel emissions... but hey, why worry about that when we're trying to argue?
not me.
Originally posted by rageous
I just thought I'd quote this, seeing as how it went completely ignored because it wasn't politically charged. Interestingly enough it's more important to the global climate than our fossil fuel emissions... but hey, why worry about that when we're trying to argue?
It is connected. The currents are changing because the layered structure of the water is going away. The layered structure is going away because of changed salt balance in the water (less salt). The salt balance is changing because ice from the poles has melted away. The ice is melting away because of the heating of the planet
Originally posted by SDW2001
Where is the report? Have you seen it? What is its composition? Is it making concrete predictions? Is it a contingency plan? What evidence supports a short term global climate change? How is the report worded? You don't have answers to these questions. Until you do, taking this article at face value is irresonsible and intellectually dishonest, not to mention all too convenient for Bush haters.
SDW, I was really reffering to the mountains of research and papers that have been written on the subject, all of which have been discounted.