|
Post by whiplash on Jun 14, 2006 11:29:43 GMT -5
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. thingy Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jun 14, 2006 11:46:25 GMT -5
Guess you got bored today Whiplash so you decided too spend all day typing posts in here good for you Should be playing civ a bit more though perhaps
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jun 14, 2006 12:45:50 GMT -5
I didn't type it; I pasted it.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 14, 2006 13:36:43 GMT -5
Oh well US public should really figure that not some nonexistant terorists are their major problem but global warming.
At least after New Orleans ..
But majority is dumb so they elected a dumb president whos only interest is makin his oil companies succesful to gathr money for his family clan.
U dont need to be a rocket (or climate) scientist to see the fact that and outcomes of globalwarming I cant really say what AL Gore d have done different but many of us europeans had hopes in him
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jun 16, 2006 19:33:05 GMT -5
I don't have the expertise to comment on whether global warming is bunk. That said, I've heard a lot of horror stories about the Bush administration's treatment of researchers in the field, culminating in CBS's 60 Minutes episode on the topic, where a load of climatologists report that they aren't allowed to even issue accurate reports about any negative aspects of their research before they are sanitized and anything that might sound negative is removed. That pisses me off.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Jun 17, 2006 2:16:03 GMT -5
Wikipedia also calls your dissenters a "small minority." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmingThe most interesting theory is that we just came out of a Small Ice Age from 1315-1850. If you didn't know, ice ages can easily be caused by massive volcanic eruptions or from catastrophic meteorites crashing into the earth. One of which is believed to be the cause of the extinction of millions of species, most notably the dinosaurs. Little Ice Age - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 18, 2006 2:05:24 GMT -5
Tommy, it must be nice to live in your play video games all day fantasy land.
Last I read almost none of the EU countries are meeting the Kyoto protocol levels of emissions they set for themselves.(France, I think, is the only EU country to have a lot invested in nuclear energy) China and India will be the major pollution pumpers for the next few decades at least but somehow it's all the U.S. fault. Also you can bet that no EU counties would have agreed to Kyoto Protocol if their economies had better then the anemic 1.5 percent average growth.
The U.S. is making steady improvement through technological innovations to produce more with less waste. That's what will get us out of this situation, innovation and new technology,not some treaty no government will enforce beyond it's convenience. I will never understand these people who think that if you get a bunch of people to sign a document all of a sudden the problem is just solved.
As for these nonexistent terrorist, I would like to have you explain that one in more detail. Are we dreaming of all the buildings and trains and vacation resorts and naval ships and whatever else these guys can get a bomb into, to blowing up. Are you really trying to tell everyone here that there is not a fanatic group of religious hardcores around the world who would like to have the western world be reduced to ruble or controlled by an Islamic state.
Logical people could argue about the degree of danger they represent but to say there nonexistent shows you must live in a bubble. I for one, am in the camp, that believes if they are not constantly forced to use their resources and kept on the defensive the terrorist will become very dangerous.
Maybe you think your safe from all that and that only America has the problem because we don't understand the third world and have brought this on ourself. Is that why the latest plot to be foiled was to decapitate the Canadian prime minister. The terrorist may hate us more but they still hate the EU and Canada plenty as well and the EU is much closer to Iran and the other terrorist enclaves.
Whip great article you pasted there. I would say the global warming scenarios are definitely overblown hype. But that being said I also am 100 percent sure there is a better and more efficient way to propel a hunk of metal along the highway then the combustion engine. Also producing electricity can be done more efficiently through nuclear reactors than burning coal which will one day, I believe, produce a virtually unlimited supply of energy. There is also real world problems with burning oil other then pollution, like enriching the countries Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran. All not friends of the U.S. and western society. The question we need to ask ourselves is, how can we get the scientists to stop predicting dome and gloom and start coming up with practical ways to improve the situation. And get entrepreneurs to invent the solutions.
One comment on Elledge. If you know about it doesn't that, by default, make it, that they were able to report the negatives. Also most major news organization are no longer, if ever were, unbiased and have agendas. I can no longer watch the news. It's all dumbed down fluff and garbage.
I always intend on just writing a few sentences and I end up with several paragraphs and still would like to write more but, I know, your attention spans are too corroded from all the easy digestible fluff you are fed by the mainstream TV broadcasters.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 18, 2006 13:55:46 GMT -5
Necro I decided long time ago not to start a discussion in internet with slowed or anyoing people as it s pointless. U seem to be the sort of people thinkin they were very clever - thats the worst sort - a discussion ll never end and personal attacks ll be a big part in a discussion with this kind of a guy. So u ll get 1 small answer surly not more.
U have 0 clue about my life and my knowledge - so dont make yourself that big when being one of these dumb majority of US guys every1 in rest of world laughes about.
Global warming is a fact not more not less.
That CIA didnt do all they could to avoid the only big terorist attack that happened in USA as long as i live is a fact aswell - maybe there s more behind theories that 9/11 was known before maybe not.
I bet that 1.000 times more people died and ll die to problems caused by global warming as by terorist attacks.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jun 19, 2006 8:12:51 GMT -5
looks like we agree on more as i suggested - u should just allways have in mind that a constant level of fear makes a people very loyal and bush government knows that very well
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 19, 2006 23:26:16 GMT -5
Ah. who is being clever now.
I'm not always sure what you are getting at in your post due to your broken english and/or sloppy writing style. Maybe you're not always sure what you're saying either, just trying to piece phrases together you heard to try to sound like you know what's going on. Are you instead saying Bush allowed it to happen to bolster his presidency. Are you taking a crack at me or the American public, as a whole, thinking are in a complete state of panic, thus feel must support their president. Are you saying that Bush is constantly trying to drum up fear to keep the public in a confused state. Since I'm unsure I'll have to take them all on.
I guess I'll start with the Bush Theories. So, Bush is putting on this world wide play with the help of the media just to hope that most of the U.S citizens are panicked into being loyal. Is he also hiring groups around the world to cause trouble just so he can talk tuff about them? Another logical theory, tommy. And one hell of a gamble if true, that could back fire in an instant, especially if we keep getting scared after almost six years of being informed that the terrorist are still out there trying to kill us. And all this master planning from the person you consider a complete idiot. Will you invite me inside your bubble one day? It seems like a fascinating place to live.
The American public or myself is too panicked to think for themselves and must be loyal to the current president which is Bush? Well, I can't speak for everyone but it is not fear that motivates me. My decisions are based on what I think is best for the U.S. and the world and the human species. And having groups causing unfettered death and chaos around the world with dreams of an Islamic super state is not the best thing for human progress. Seems to me the majority of Americans are the ones acting decisively and not fozen into inaction due to fear.
If anything, I'm upset with Bush for taking a too light handed approach to the matter. But maybe bush is smarter than me because it seems to be working out as good as can be expected.
Whoops! I accidentally deleted my prior post. I was doing several things at once and wanted to delete my current post I posted prematurely. Is there any way to get it back. I doubt it. It went something like this. I mention that bush letting the towers fall just to declare war on Iraq and get the oil for the Bushies was a illogical theory and that terrorist gathering nuke tech would create and more abrupt catastrophe than global warming and a detonation would cause pollution.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Jun 20, 2006 15:11:30 GMT -5
I don't have any "Bush theories" or any other nonsense, because quite frankly I think he and his administration lack the intelligence for such a thing. Ever since that moron has been in the white house, he's acted like "a bull in a china shop" overseas. I don't know what kind of moron would think that dealing with Iraq would solve more problems than it will cause. If the Muslim fundamentalists didn't hate us before (thank you Reagan), then they absolutely despise us now.
To me it's obvious that a different strategy is required to deal with these people, because every time we kill one, three more take his place.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 21, 2006 1:40:39 GMT -5
I notice zzZhenon likes throwing out phrases with absolutely no explanation. Looks like another playbook parrot, just mimicking some catch phrases he heard, trying to sound important. How do you expect to convince anyone you have any idea what you're talking about and bring them to your way of thinking.
Or maybe you liberals are afraid if you actually explained yourself it would turn people off even more. I almost never here a liberal say what we should do, only what he defines as something done wrong or what action shouldn't be taken. Libs other tactic is to sit back pray something goes wrong and then nitpick the event. Openly hoping for a American defeat and being the party of obstruction hasn't, and will not win the democrats elections. Keep it up and my prediction is a stronger Republican majority in 2006, barring some catastrophe.(which I am sure you're wishing)
Back to my point of throwing out phrases without explaining. Your quote " I think he and his administration lack the intelligence for such a thing. Ever since that moron has been in the white house, he's acted like "a bull in a china shop" overseas". I've heard this several times before but would like to understand just which part seems like destroying china. Is it just the Iraq invasion that bothers you or are you upset by any use of American force around the world? Was declaring war on Afghanistan the proper thing? Is it just you think Bush talks to forcefully to other nations? Did it bother you when Clinton Launch cruise missiles into Iraq 1998, I think. Or when Clinton tried to pass a resolution in 1996 to overthrow Saddam? Do you feel America is wrong every time it doesn't go along with what France and Germany would like. Please, let us all know exactly where you stand.
Your quote"If the Muslim fundamentalists didn't hate us before (thank you Reagan), then they absolutely despise us now." What did Reagan do? The things, IMO, that Reagan did wrong was to leave Beirut after the barracks were bombed and dealings with the contras. It left a long lasting message that the Americans will turn tail if the going gets too tuff and Americans can't stomach bloodshed and will cut a deal to get out. That didn't make the fundamentalist hate us, it made them not respect us, causing them now to try to draw as much blood as possible hoping the American public will falter.
Your quote"To me it's obvious that a different strategy is required to deal with these people, because every time we kill one, three more take his place." It would be nice to hear what you think that is. But we never will from the party of inaction and obstruction. Get ready for another loss of congressional seats in 2006 my Friend.
P.S. Condi Rice president 2008!!!with strong majority congress is a done deal as things look now. Don't change your stripes libs, you doing great.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jun 21, 2006 17:28:59 GMT -5
One comment on Elledge. If you know about it doesn't that, by default, make it, that they were able to report the negatives. Also most major news organization are no longer, if ever were, unbiased and have agendas. I can no longer watch the news. It's all dumbed down fluff and garbage. No. I'm talking about this CBS story, which aired as a 60 Minutes report a few months ago. The article does a fair job of summarizing it. I have no idea what the internal motivations for the Iraq War are. All I know is that they need a hell of a reason in my book to spend, what, $300 billion and 2500 American lives? and come out with the matter of "is Iraq better off than before we got there?" still in open debate, and I sure haven't seen that kind of reason.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 22, 2006 0:29:29 GMT -5
Is Iraq better off now than before the invasion still open for debate? Really?
I just have one question for you Elledge. Now you must bare with me, for to answer my question, the constraints of time must be overlooked and we would have to assume a god-like entity was forcing you to make a decision. Here it goes. You have to live in Iraq and your only options are to live there in the year 1996 or 2 years in the future, 2008, which would you pick?
Now be honest and please don't duck the scenario, it's a simple multiple choice question. Having your answer ASAP for discussion would be appreciated. Or I would also invite any self proclaimed liberal to answer this question.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jun 22, 2006 7:55:21 GMT -5
Necro, I don't have a clue when I would like to live there, because I don't live in Iraq and I've never been to Iraq. But I was under the impression that Iraqis, who would be the people to ask, are pretty divided at best. The most recent data I can dig up is from December 2005, which is admittedly old; if you can find anything newer I'd be interested to see it. This ORI poll indicates that out of 1711 polled throughout the country, 786 said things in Iraq were either "somewhat better" or "much better" than in spring 2003 before the war; 663 said things were either "somewhat worse" or "much worse" and 262 said things were "about the same" or "difficult to say". Look, suppose I have a hole in my pants. Let's call the hole Saddam. So I stitch up the hole with some nutsty thread that doesn't really match the pants. Now the pants look like nuts, but the hole is fixed. That's a little better, right, maybe not much better but it's better? OK, now suppose it cost me 300 billion dollars tp buy the thread and tens of thousands of people had to die in order to sew the hole. I'll just leave the hole in it for now.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Jun 22, 2006 14:18:58 GMT -5
I notice zzZhenon likes throwing out phrases with absolutely no explanation. Looks like another playbook parrot, just mimicking some catch phrases he heard, trying to sound important. How do you expect to convince anyone you have any idea what you're talking about and bring them to your way of thinking. Or maybe you liberals are afraid if you actually explained yourself it would turn people off even more. I almost never here a liberal say what we should do, only what he defines as something done wrong or what action shouldn't be taken. Libs other tactic is to sit back pray something goes wrong and then nitpick the event. Openly hoping for a American defeat and being the party of obstruction hasn't, and will not win the democrats elections. Keep it up and my prediction is a stronger Republican majority in 2006, barring some catastrophe.(which I am sure you're wishing) Back to my point of throwing out phrases without explaining. Your quote " I think he and his administration lack the intelligence for such a thing. Ever since that moron has been in the white house, he's acted like "a bull in a china shop" overseas". I've heard this several times before but would like to understand just which part seems like destroying china. Is it just the Iraq invasion that bothers you or are you upset by any use of American force around the world? Was declaring war on Afghanistan the proper thing? Is it just you think Bush talks to forcefully to other nations? Did it bother you when Clinton Launch cruise missiles into Iraq 1998, I think. Or when Clinton tried to pass a resolution in 1996 to overthrow Saddam? Do you feel America is wrong every time it doesn't go along with what France and Germany would like. Please, let us all know exactly where you stand. Your quote" If the Muslim fundamentalists didn't hate us before (thank you Reagan), then they absolutely despise us now." What did Reagan do? The things, IMO, that Reagan did wrong was to leave Beirut after the barracks were bombed and dealings with the contras. It left a long lasting message that the Americans will turn tail if the going gets too tuff and Americans can't stomach bloodshed and will cut a deal to get out. That didn't make the fundamentalist hate us, it made them not respect us, causing them now to try to draw as much blood as possible hoping the American public will falter. Your quote" To me it's obvious that a different strategy is required to deal with these people, because every time we kill one, three more take his place." It would be nice to hear what you think that is. But we never will from the party of inaction and obstruction. Get ready for another loss of congressional seats in 2006 my Friend. P.S. Condi Rice president 2008!!!with strong majority congress is a done deal as things look now. Don't change your stripes libs, you doing great. LOL who sounds like the parrot? I wasn't making any personal attack against you Necro, I was simply stating what I thought about Bush. You, like so many others, just love to label everyone that disagrees with you as liberals. I love the neo-McCarthyism you practice. As far as explanations is concerned, I could quote to you many, many newspaper articles, prominent politicians, etc etc, but then you'll call my sources unreliable, then show your own sources, then I'll call them unreliable until we're left with a pointless debate. So let's use our critical thinking skills. Why do I think Bush has acted like "a bull in a china shop?" 1. Increased Terror threat after Iraq. 2. Alienation of our closest allies. 3. Failure to get UN support for war against Iraq. No it's common political practice, it was done when Clinton was in the White House too. As far as winning elections is concerned, I think you ought to recall that Gore won the popular election, Bush won the Electoral College election. The '08 election will be damned close I think. The Afghanistan invasion was necessary to remove Osama-sheltering Taliban government. The Iraq invasion is the issue. I think perhaps that Bush should have followed Clinton and launched more cruise missiles. He should have used precision air strikes, or other "high-tech" means to cripple Saddam. Why invade? No seriously... why an actual invasion? I know you've heard this one several times, but not even Bush Senior was willing to invade Iraq. I don't have a problem with us using our military abroad. I just think we should use it more to help, for example, countries in Africa, where some Intelligence gathering and air strikes could help them when they ask it. I think all HUMAN BEINGS deserve justice, not just Americans. The UN doesn't do enough. Reagan (and the UN) allowed Saddam to overthrow the Iraqi monarchy and install his dictatorship. Reagan then supported Saddam Hussein with satellite surveillance for his invasion of Iran. Iran's military was losing badly, but the theocratic state raised an army of zealot citizens and not only pushed him out of Iran but began invading Iraq. Saddam "had no choice" but to use the highly illegal mustard gas to prevent them from overrunning his newly acquired country. Around this time, the Kurds saw the perfect opportunity to secede for independence. But of course, that was quashed by mustard gas as well. Hey I wonder why Iran hates us so much? Hmm maybe it was Reagan's reenactment of the Bay of Pigs, lol I hope I got my history right. Please feel free to read up on the history of Saddam, I think more "conservatives" (since you like to label everyone that disagrees with you as liberals) should do so.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jun 22, 2006 16:38:02 GMT -5
its iran next perhaps? now that would be dumb
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 22, 2006 23:47:26 GMT -5
That's much better zzZhenon. Now we have a much better idea of how you think. For the record I don't label everyone but by your post it is just so obvious that you have a very left leaning liberal mind set. Can you honestly tell me you are not. And why do you find it insulting that I would call you that? Do you consider the words libs and dems offensive things to be called?
Ok-doe-k, I'm going to try to tackle all three post with my one here.
Bush alienated our closest allies? By that I suppose you mean France and Germany.(I'm still having to guess at your generalizations, so your post could still be more detailed.) IMO they alienated us by not supporting the U.S. and it's even more disturbing when the reasons why were discovered. So many French companies were dealing with the Iraq government and getting kickbacks for the oil for food program. With Saddam gone that honey pot doesn't keep refilling.
Bush didn't get U.N. support? I thought in the end the U.N. security council passed a resolution that sanctioned force against Iraq. The Bush administration warned Saddam for almost a year to get his act together and went to the U.N countless times. This didn't happen over night. You just must feel he should have went back one more time, I guess.
Also the U.S. congress passed a resolution to allow force against Saddam. I know now many democratic(I hope I'm not insulting the senators by calling the dems)senators say they voted wrong or that they only voted that way to give Bush leverage and didn't think Bush would be crazy enough to actually do what he said he was going to do. That's the one I love. I guess democrats figure all people are like them and just talk and talk and sign a few documents and then never end up following through by doing what they say.
Bush increased terror alert after Iraq. I don't know what that has to do with Bushes diplomacy skills.
At the time Reagan was in office Saddam was considered to be a possible secular government to ally with to counter the Iranian mullahs. Are we better off or not for what Reagan did? Hard to say but there is the possibility the Iran could be a much more powerful force in the middle east if that action was not taken by Reagan.
Here are my reason for Iraq invasion in no particular order of importance.
1. Don't f :ock with the U.S.. When that is done there will be world changing events put into motion, so see to it that this slumbering giants' alarm not go off.
2.Saddam signed a treaty that he constantly broke or maneuvered around to exploit it. That can not be allowed if expect other nations to respect you as a world power.
3.Some say Iran was a bigger threat. I say you have to start somewhere. Iraq made itself a target but it also comes with great pluses in dealing with Iran and Syria. If need be we are now in a country that borders both nations and makes it a great location to keep tabs on both dangerous nations, not to mention we can keep in closer contact with our "friend" Saudi Arabia. Having military bases close by is leverage in the diplomatic discussions with Iran. And if diplomacy breaks down, they will come in even more handy.(Does that cover your response Bantams)
4.With the U.S. military in the region it is guaranteed to become more stable over time, which is needed to help insure world stability. It's a shame the U.S. has to do 95% of the heavy lifting in the area for all the worlds benefit but I guess thats just the price you pay for being a hyper-power, as some call us.
5.The U.S. gets to choose the battle field. The terrorist are forced to make a choice, either forfeit the middle east to U.S. dominance or use resources to fight over the prize, which then can't be used to prepare attacks against the homeland. I would rather put the extremist on the defense then to hang back and hope to stop all attempts against America. This makes the U.S. a safer place to live. I know this may seem selfish to some but I can't feel to guilty since the Iraqis get something out of the deal as well, it's called a hopeful and prosperous future.
6.Weapons of mass destruction. Did he have them? Yes, there have been many siren gas missiles and other WMD's found. Would Saddam have been able to produce a mushroom cloud anytime soon? I doubt it. But now there is zero chance of that happening and the possibility is nipped in the bud.
7.A democratically elected Iraqi government. The main reason for the invasion was to meet the terrorist before they get to reach us but stable improving democratic government, with at least 3 different religious sects, in the heart of the middle east sure is a wonderful byproduct. Of course there is a lot of work to be done in this area, but if we keep our presence there, it will happen. And democracies have an amazing way of spreading once others notice how beneficial they are to the citizens.
All this for the low price of 300 billion dollars(your number that I haven't verified but sounds about right), what a bargain.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jun 23, 2006 0:13:23 GMT -5
Isn't it weird we got so off topic. This was started to discuss Gore's movie. I notice a lot of people say that Iraq is not important and that we should focus on health care and eduction and global warming or whatever else but all debates seem to end up back on the Iraq subject and the war on terror.
|
|
|
Post by Gogf on Jun 25, 2006 16:57:46 GMT -5
I feel that global warming is a logical theory. We are putting things into the environment that wouldn't be there naturally, and there is no reason not to invest in technologies that produce less polution. If someone can please explain to me why we should not be wary of releasing pollutants into the environment, that might clarify your case.
|
|