|
On August 30 2011 12:17 Senorcuidado wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 12:04 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 12:02 Senorcuidado wrote:global cooling. This website doesn't exactly sound like a scientific journal but hey. www.isthereglobalcooling.comA scientist who agrees: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/A 1975 article on the topic from Newsweek: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htmwikipedia on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coolingAccording to NASA, recent years have been breaking records. Measurements only go back to 1880, but the warmest years on record, in order, are 2010, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.htmlmore cool graphs from NASA to illustrate temperature trends: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Interesting stuff. There is some conflicting data, although both sides seem to think we are screwed O.o 1975 newspaper, Fox News, "welcome to my website" isthereglobalcooling.com vs NASA Both sides? What? Oh dear Jesus our generation doesn't understand graphs or proper sources. whoa whoa whoa, I wasn't backing up global cooling. Obviously the fact that there is conflicting data doesn't override what I said in my previous post about the scientific consensus on global warming. There are at least one or two legitimate scientists that work for the IPCC who believe in global cooling but they are very outnumbered and the credible sources you find when searching for it are quite slim. I was trying to keep my tone neutral, and it is true that both sides think we're screwed 
Fair nuff. The problem is most people don't see that. They see "one or two legitimate scientist that work for the IPCC who believe in global cooling" as enough to denounce the consensus. Providing "balance" only makes sense when the two views have enough doubt that either could be reasonable. The fact that there is a consensus and has been for some time suggests this is not the case. More importantly the data supplied to counter the consensus is not sufficient to change it. By its nature science is sceptical. It takes robust and convincing evidence before an opinion is accepted. It then takes robst and convincing evidence to change that opinion. Thus providing "balance" give undue weight to the minority. It gives the impression of large dissent which is not the case.
|
On August 30 2011 12:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 11:48 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 11:32 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 11:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 11:01 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions. First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend." ![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/2w7i8mt.gif) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/This one? Is the best our lawyer has cherry picking start dates? I like this one better because it shows an alarmists' predictions versus what actually happened: ![[image loading]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hansen_predictions.jpg) But that's all besides the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend, or at the very least, that global temperatures have inexplicably stabilized despite what's been predicted. Whether the temperature goes back up or keeps going down doesn't really prove anything anyway. The temperature is always changing. The real issues are whether mankind is significantly contributing to it and whether we can stop it. ??? You are blatantly cherry picking the start dates. You could go back to 1990, point to that low, and declare the warming is over. OOPS! Not true! There is a reason people use averages. Edit: rofl the "Actual" number points to the lowest point on the recent graph, while the projections are all averages further in the future where it is expected to be warmer. This is worse than I thought. Tisk, tisk. I'm not picking dates or mispresenting what's going on. It is what it is: Here's one for 2002-2011: Here's another one that goes back 130 years: None of these graphs really mean dick because they don't prove anything in terms of the extent of mankind's contribution to climate change.
![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/2iqnvo0.jpg)
You just said you weren't cherry picking and then posted a graph of only 9 years. I can ignore that, because we have somewhere to go.
We are taking a trip to 1985.
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wLSIT_ku3Uc/TkedWkh-NcI/AAAAAAAAAdI/kHhdV-EF2Z8/s1600/delorean_01.jpg)
Fasten your seat belts! We will be there in no time. Lessons need to be learned about picking data sets and properly interpreting graphs.
Ah, here we are! Help me out of the car lad!
![[image loading]](http://www.brooklynvegan.com/img/music2/deloreancar.jpg)
Well, well. Now that we are here I have something to show you:
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/2rxgz2t.gif)
Aha! See! By properly selecting our data, we can show we are now in an age of global cooling in 1985. Look, boy! It mellowed off. Those alarmists can't possibly be right with their consensus, models, and peer-reviewed literature; I've got poor graphical analytical skills and cherry picked data. That funny business about using averages and using long-term number sets is just a ploy. They really haven't got the faintest idea what they are on about.
|
Canada11354 Posts
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican.
edit:
er, that was directed at Probulous.
Although I feel like I'm interrupting a Climate Change debate??
|
On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican.
Obama is much stronger than Republicans on military issues. Bush used to capture and torture terrorists, Obama just assassinates them with special forces and Predator drone strikes while constantly stepping up spending.
That probably won't stop Republicans for hammering him for being weak on defense because he is a Democrat, though.
|
On August 30 2011 06:24 TigerKarl wrote:
I guess people outside the US will never understand how anybody could vote for the Repubicans.
I dont hate all republicans ever, but whether it be he PITIFUL line-up of candidates they have this election or the stances they are taking... I can only amount voting for republicans to be delusional. To be honest the only reason ANY of the republican candidates should have a sliver of a chance is because obama is really just ineffective. But its sad that we have to choose between crazy psychopaths spewing bullshit or an ineffective leader...
Actually the only reasonable person i can think of is ron paul simply because he stands for things I dont really agree with, but at least he wants to straighten out the defense budget among other things and seems somewhat reasonable. Again I dont agree with him at all though...
|
Canada11354 Posts
Yeah, I think on paper at least, Obama's military record looks pretty solid. They pulled out of Iraq like he said and it's relatively stable. They've stepped up Afghanistan like he said and they took out bin Ladin like everyone wanted to do. Libya was probably one of the bigger balancing acts done by a president recently. He was really looking to no over-commit, but come in at the right time. Back a possible democratic movement (maybe), but not lose too many American lives, which would quickly kill public opinion on it.
Vietnam has become the war to avoid and the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) the war to emulate- spend enough money and overwhelm them with technology and firepower and you don't have to lose men or public opinion.
But as you say, simply being Democrat makes him 'weak on defence.' Only Nixon could go to China to talk to the commy's- any Democrat would've been labelled a Red and succumbing to the enemy.
|
On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican. edit: er, that was directed at Probulous. Although I feel like I'm interrupting a Climate Change debate??
Thanks for getting us back on topic
I would imagine the economy will the be the battleground. It has to be when unemployment in real terms is so very high. Your point about rocking the ship seems logical, assuming people buy that what he is doing is beneficial. The biggest issue I see for him is being able to cut through to those that don't enage widely enough to make up their own opinions. His record in office is not going to ignite his base the same way the tea party has for the republicans. His promise was always going to outstrip his performance which leads inevitably to disappointment. He needs the centre. Now how do you excite the independents when the economy is in the toilet?
To me that is the big question. Republicans have chosen their ground and are mobilising the base. How does Obama sell his concessional approach in the current climate? His base thinks he gives up too much and the republicans think he doesn't give at all. If the economy doesn't pick up, the reps will hang it around his neck regardless of whether he is responsible or not...
|
Uh, yeah. I posted two graphs. One showing a close up of the past decade, and another showing the past 130 years. In fact, the 130 year graph shows an increase in global temperatures, but whatever. I'm not sure what you want. I haven't said temperatures haven't changed, and I haven't even denied that they've gone up. In fact, I haven't even argued that the global warming alarmists are absolutely wrong *GASP*. All that I have said is that there isn't enough evidence or information to support the emissions-cutting programs that these alarmists propose. I'm not sure why you're in such a hurry to live a crappier lifestyle than what we live now.
|
On August 30 2011 12:36 Goshdarnit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:24 TigerKarl wrote:
I guess people outside the US will never understand how anybody could vote for the Repubicans. I dont hate all republicans ever, but whether it be he PITIFUL line-up of candidates they have this election or the stances they are taking... I can only amount voting for republicans to be delusional. To be honest the only reason ANY of the republican candidates should have a sliver of a chance is because obama is really just ineffective. But its sad that we have to choose between crazy psychopaths spewing bullshit or an ineffective leader... Actually the only reasonable person i can think of is ron paul simply because he stands for things I dont really agree with, but at least he wants to straighten out the defense budget among other things and seems somewhat reasonable. Again I dont agree with him at all though...
Not totally accurate. Republicans have a chance for a few reasons
-They've tricked a lot of people in the lower/middle class into thinking that their policies would actually be good for them and that small government=winrar
-They're tied into Christianity(near fanatic-like Christianity in some cases) and since America has a vast Christian majority, particularly in the south(where republicans are strongest), this gets them many votes to those opposed to things like gay marriage, abortions etc. People in the south have, throughout American History been the last ones to adopt civil rights-just like they had segregation/slavery much longer than the North, they're going to have gay marriage banned for much longer, as northern states are beginning to legalize them like NY recently.
Religion is probably the bigger reason why they get votes
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 30 2011 12:43 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican. edit: er, that was directed at Probulous. Although I feel like I'm interrupting a Climate Change debate?? Thanks for getting us back on topic I would imagine the economy will the be the battleground. It has to be when unemployment in real terms is so very high. Your point about rocking the ship seems logical, assuming people buy that what he is doing is beneficial. The biggest issue I see for him is being able to cut through to those that don't enage widely enough to make up their own opinions. His record in office is not going to ignite his base the same way the tea party has for the republicans. His promise was always going to outstrip his performance which leads inevitably to disappointment. He needs the centre. Now how do you excite the independents when the economy is in the toilet? To me that is the big question. Republicans have chosen their ground and are mobilising the base. How does Obama sell his concessional approach in the current climate? His base thinks he gives up too much and the republicans think he doesn't give at all. If the economy doesn't pick up, the reps will hang it around his neck regardless of whether he is responsible or not...
"The buck stops here." Regardless of whether he's at fault, he'll be blamed. That said, I think if he wanted to, he could run a campaign of "I'm not a nutcase" (in nicer terms of course) and win. All he really has to do is repeatedly mention voting records, although the democrats tend to play too nice and don't bother with facts.
As for the way the republican party functions, it's fairly simple: They appeal to the ignorant, and to stay in power, they do the best they can to keep people ignorant. It's disgusting, but there you have it.
|
i think a palin/bachman ticket would solve most of the problems in the US
|
Canada11354 Posts
Ah the centre. Who knows? My theory is Obama has to come across as the pragmatist, willing to make changes to get things done. This can back-fire into the waffling, flip-flopper or the conniving manipulator. But if played right it could attract the centre. The Republicans have drawn their line in the sand with such positions of never raising taxes, never touching the military budget, and only going after 'entitlement programs' like medicare/medicaid. Obama will never be seen as a pragmatist by these people, but if the Republicans continue playing hardball, the contrast might attract the centre.
The problem is as much as being the great compromiser is necessary for politics, how it is received depends on whose political narrative takes hold of public opinion.
But he might need to get a little tougher. The Republicans tend to say all sorts of strange things and rarely get called on it. I don't know if Biden will run again, but Obama could use a bit of a bull-dog to shut down the silly arguments.
|
On August 30 2011 12:48 xDaunt wrote:
Uh, yeah. I posted two graphs. One showing a close up of the past decade, and another showing the past 130 years. In fact, the 130 year graph shows an increase in global temperatures, but whatever. I'm not sure what you want. I haven't said temperatures haven't changed, and I haven't even denied that they've gone up. In fact, I haven't even argued that the global warming alarmists are absolutely wrong *GASP*. All that I have said is that there isn't enough evidence or information to support the emissions-cutting programs that these alarmists propose. I'm not sure why you're in such a hurry to live a crappier lifestyle than what we live now.
Well the point is that if you accept that this is happening, you have to consider what happens if it continues. The predicted outcome of an increase of more than 2C by 2050 is catastrophic. So the question then becomes why is this happening and how can we mitigate or prevent the damage. There is no point predicting a change and then doing nothing about it.
The way I see it, you either accept the premise that there is warming and the only reasonable explanation is that it anthropogenic or you don't. If you do then there is an imperative to do something about it. If you see a train coming, you step off the tracks, or you put on the emergency brakes. It is the same here, if you leave the problem till later the costs are much much greater.
The problem with waiting for "enough evidence or information to support the emissions-cutting programs" is two fold.
First, there are major tipping points that become self-reinforcing cycles. The thawing of the Artic permafrost would be one such point. The loss of artic ice cover would be another. By waiting for absolute concrete proof you run a very large risk that you cross these points of no return. It is like waiting for the train to hit you. It is is simply too late.
The second problem is what constitutes enough evidence? Again, if the scientific community is prepared to risk its reputation as a politicially independent insitution by supporting their research there must be something serious happening. There have been many reports, committees and vast volumes of data which point to this being anthropogenic warming. If this is not sufficient, what is? Science is perhaps the most sceptical industry in the world. They don't take controversial positions lightly. Why put your opinion above those of the scientific community? Why is this a reasonable position to take?
Your point of economic costs is moot, the costs affect everyone. Scientists included.
|
On August 30 2011 12:33 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican. Obama is much stronger than Republicans on military issues. Bush used to capture and torture terrorists, Obama just assassinates them with special forces and Predator drone strikes while constantly stepping up spending. That probably won't stop Republicans for hammering him for being weak on defense because he is a Democrat, though.
This is the garbage I was talking about earlier.
Bush was a horrible president with foreign policy and national security and the liberals hated him. Now Obama is in office and instead of expecting him to behave he gets a pass because afterall ... Bush got away it so why shouldn't he.. Granted a lot of republicans who call him out are hypocrites but that is reality, probably most democrats and republicans are hypocrites.
Instead of worrying about whether or not the people who are calling him out are hypocrites lets start worrying about the shit he is doing and put a stop to it.
|
On August 30 2011 14:02 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 12:33 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican. Obama is much stronger than Republicans on military issues. Bush used to capture and torture terrorists, Obama just assassinates them with special forces and Predator drone strikes while constantly stepping up spending. That probably won't stop Republicans for hammering him for being weak on defense because he is a Democrat, though. This is the garbage I was talking about earlier. Bush was a horrible president with foreign policy and national security and the liberals hated him. Now Obama is in office and instead of expecting him to behave he gets a pass because afterall ... Bush got away it so why shouldn't he.. Granted a lot of republicans who call him out are hypocrites but that is reality, probably most democrats and republicans are hypocrites. Instead of worrying about whether or not the people who are calling him out are hypocrites lets start worrying about the shit he is doing and put a stop to it.
Such as...
He pulled troops out of Iraq in a relatively safe manner. He sent more troops to Afghanistan for the surge based on the advice of his military commanders on the condition that there is a definite withdrawal timetable which is rapidly approaching. He saw the opportunity in supporting the UN regarding Libya and did so in the smallest way possible. A very much push from behind manner. His approach to foreign policy particulary with regards to arab nations has been subtle and in keeping with the feeling on the ground. This alone is a security success, when the arab world is in revolt you want a calm leader.
What exactly is the "shit he is doing" so we can "put a stop to it."?
|
On August 30 2011 13:11 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 12:48 xDaunt wrote:
Uh, yeah. I posted two graphs. One showing a close up of the past decade, and another showing the past 130 years. In fact, the 130 year graph shows an increase in global temperatures, but whatever. I'm not sure what you want. I haven't said temperatures haven't changed, and I haven't even denied that they've gone up. In fact, I haven't even argued that the global warming alarmists are absolutely wrong *GASP*. All that I have said is that there isn't enough evidence or information to support the emissions-cutting programs that these alarmists propose. I'm not sure why you're in such a hurry to live a crappier lifestyle than what we live now. Well the point is that if you accept that this is happening, you have to consider what happens if it continues. The predicted outcome of an increase of more than 2C by 2050 is catastrophic. So the question then becomes why is this happening and how can we mitigate or prevent the damage. There is no point predicting a change and then doing nothing about it. The way I see it, you either accept the premise that there is warming and the only reasonable explanation is that it anthropogenic or you don't. If you do then there is an imperative to do something about it. If you see a train coming, you step off the tracks, or you put on the emergency brakes. It is the same here, if you leave the problem till later the costs are much much greater. The problem with waiting for "enough evidence or information to support the emissions-cutting programs" is two fold. First, there are major tipping points that become self-reinforcing cycles. The thawing of the Artic permafrost would be one such point. The loss of artic ice cover would be another. By waiting for absolute concrete proof you run a very large risk that you cross these points of no return. It is like waiting for the train to hit you. It is is simply too late. The second problem is what constitutes enough evidence? Again, if the scientific community is prepared to risk its reputation as a politicially independent insitution by supporting their research there must be something serious happening. There have been many reports, committees and vast volumes of data which point to this being anthropogenic warming. If this is not sufficient, what is? Science is perhaps the most sceptical industry in the world. They don't take controversial positions lightly. Why put your opinion above those of the scientific community? Why is this a reasonable position to take? Your point of economic costs is moot, the costs affect everyone. Scientists included.
Well you say they are a politically independent institution but I don't really even believe that they are. There are too many dollar bills, and too many livelihoods at stake. Governments and big corporations fund most research and in order to keep the money flowing you have to show results. Who do you have to please to get money from the government...the politicians who want issues that they can use to pander for votes. From a purely scientific point of view having no positive results is fine but you can't ask a researcher to go out and prove that humans aren't causing global warming, you ask them to go out and find proof that they are. So they look and what happens if there isn't sufficient proof...well it proves nothing really so they would just have to keep looking but how do you keep asking for more money when you aren't providing anything that will lead to either profits or votes?
I don't suspect scientists as individuals its just that if you are trying to get a phd in a science then you need stuff to research and you need a source of income so you can earn enough to get by while studying. Then when you have the phd you want to keep working in the field so what do you do, you get hired to do research but you can only get hired to do research for people who want the research and are paying for it otherwise you have to come up with your own money to support your research...good luck with that.
I know I'm making it sound crazy like they are just lying and conspiring. I don't think it is like that at all. I'm sure they are all honest genuine scientists as individuals but when you have a big political issue like global warming and you get a bunch of scientists being paid to research global warming to find possible human causes...well yeah I'm skeptical. And take into account human nature and the way organizations tend to work, and intra office politics etc. Scientists, doctors, dentists, engineers, all genuinely good, professional and well meaning people but you get political pressure from your bosses who are getting pressure from their bosses, and you endorse this or that and avoid conflict, please someone important, keep a job.
|
On August 30 2011 14:18 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 13:11 Probulous wrote:On August 30 2011 12:48 xDaunt wrote:
Uh, yeah. I posted two graphs. One showing a close up of the past decade, and another showing the past 130 years. In fact, the 130 year graph shows an increase in global temperatures, but whatever. I'm not sure what you want. I haven't said temperatures haven't changed, and I haven't even denied that they've gone up. In fact, I haven't even argued that the global warming alarmists are absolutely wrong *GASP*. All that I have said is that there isn't enough evidence or information to support the emissions-cutting programs that these alarmists propose. I'm not sure why you're in such a hurry to live a crappier lifestyle than what we live now. Well the point is that if you accept that this is happening, you have to consider what happens if it continues. The predicted outcome of an increase of more than 2C by 2050 is catastrophic. So the question then becomes why is this happening and how can we mitigate or prevent the damage. There is no point predicting a change and then doing nothing about it. The way I see it, you either accept the premise that there is warming and the only reasonable explanation is that it anthropogenic or you don't. If you do then there is an imperative to do something about it. If you see a train coming, you step off the tracks, or you put on the emergency brakes. It is the same here, if you leave the problem till later the costs are much much greater. The problem with waiting for "enough evidence or information to support the emissions-cutting programs" is two fold. First, there are major tipping points that become self-reinforcing cycles. The thawing of the Artic permafrost would be one such point. The loss of artic ice cover would be another. By waiting for absolute concrete proof you run a very large risk that you cross these points of no return. It is like waiting for the train to hit you. It is is simply too late. The second problem is what constitutes enough evidence? Again, if the scientific community is prepared to risk its reputation as a politicially independent insitution by supporting their research there must be something serious happening. There have been many reports, committees and vast volumes of data which point to this being anthropogenic warming. If this is not sufficient, what is? Science is perhaps the most sceptical industry in the world. They don't take controversial positions lightly. Why put your opinion above those of the scientific community? Why is this a reasonable position to take? Your point of economic costs is moot, the costs affect everyone. Scientists included. Well you say they are a politically independent institution but I don't really even believe that they are. There are too many dollar bills, and too many livelihoods at stake. Governments and big corporations fund most research and in order to keep the money flowing you have to show results. Who do you have to please to get money from the government...the politicians who want issues that they can use to pander for votes. From a purely scientific point of view having no positive results is fine but you can't ask a researcher to go out and prove that humans aren't causing global warming, you ask them to go out and find proof that they are. So they look and what happens if there isn't sufficient proof...well it proves nothing really so they would just have to keep looking but how do you keep asking for more money when you aren't providing anything that will lead to either profits or votes? I don't suspect scientists as individuals its just that if you are trying to get a phd in a science then you need stuff to research and you need a source of income so you can earn enough to get by while studying. Then when you have the phd you want to keep working in the field so what do you do, you get hired to do research but you can only get hired to do research for people who want the research and are paying for it otherwise you have to come up with your own money to support your research...good luck with that. I know I'm making it sound crazy like they are just lying and conspiring. I don't think it is like that at all. I'm sure they are all honest genuine scientists as individuals but when you have a big political issue like global warming and you get a bunch of scientists being paid to research global warming to find possible human causes...well yeah I'm skeptical. And take into account human nature and the way organizations tend to work, and intra office politics etc. Scientists, doctors, dentists, engineers, all genuinely good, professional and well meaning people but you get political pressure from your bosses who are getting pressure from their bosses, and you endorse this or that and avoid conflict, please someone important, keep a job.
This is an interesting viewpoint and to some scientists they may feel this way...
Ultimately it comes down to data. The data that has been collected does not support any other explanation. Here are two interesting pages
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
and a listing of prominent scientists who disagree with anthropogenic climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Note that their issues are on the specifics of the models. They all accept climate change is at least partially anthropogenic in nature, it is the extent of the effects that they disagree with. These are the opposition to the global warming fraternity. On the topic of whether science has been compromised by politics I would like to point out that these sceptics are government sponsored scientists.
There are also large funding sources available for those trying to discredit climate change. See Exonmobil
There are reasonable sceptics out there. They have reasonable doubts but they don't doubt the basic premise. Scientists are inherently sceptical and if the data doesn't support a position, they won't. I see no reason to doubt them.
|
On August 30 2011 14:13 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 14:02 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 12:33 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican. Obama is much stronger than Republicans on military issues. Bush used to capture and torture terrorists, Obama just assassinates them with special forces and Predator drone strikes while constantly stepping up spending. That probably won't stop Republicans for hammering him for being weak on defense because he is a Democrat, though. This is the garbage I was talking about earlier. Bush was a horrible president with foreign policy and national security and the liberals hated him. Now Obama is in office and instead of expecting him to behave he gets a pass because afterall ... Bush got away it so why shouldn't he.. Granted a lot of republicans who call him out are hypocrites but that is reality, probably most democrats and republicans are hypocrites. Instead of worrying about whether or not the people who are calling him out are hypocrites lets start worrying about the shit he is doing and put a stop to it. Such as... He pulled troops out of Iraq in a relatively safe manner. He sent more troops to Afghanistan for the surge based on the advice of his military commanders on the condition that there is a definite withdrawal timetable which is rapidly approaching. He saw the opportunity in supporting the UN regarding Libya and did so in the smallest way possible. A very much push from behind manner. His approach to foreign policy particulary with regards to arab nations has been subtle and in keeping with the feeling on the ground. This alone is a security success, when the arab world is in revolt you want a calm leader. What exactly is the "shit he is doing" so we can "put a stop to it."?
The shit he is doing is sending another 30k troops to that useless wasteland when he should have pulled them all out immediately. The notion that it would take so long to "safely" withdraw is bogus. Safe for who?..they are not talking about American's whose lives are the only ones I'm concerned with. We should just wave and say "goodbye" and "sorry for the mess, have whatever government you want but if you harbor terrorists who attack us we will blow you up, that is all ktxbye".
Seriously the whole reason given for invading them was because they were supposedly harboring Al Qaeda. If Bush was being sincere then if they had handed over the terrorists we wouldn't have attacked them at all. So how do we suddenly become responsible for them having a democracy that they neither want nor have the capability of maintaining?
Obama just picked up Bush's football and ran with it, nothing changed and yet the liberals are silent because their team is in power. Same goes for the republicans who are suddenly mad, its only because its the other team in office that they are upset.
Obama is flying drones over sovereign nations, dropping bombs on people, killing civilians.
And don't kid yourself, we are absolutely 100% still torturing terrorists. You would have to be so naive to think they would actually stop that practice.
Have we closed any of our bases in the middle east?...you know the thing that the warlords and dictators use to scape goat us and rally their people behind them..people who can now blame their misfortunes on us rather than their own leaders who are responsible. Nope Obama changed nothing.
Libya...we have no right to go there, just like we had no right to mess with Kosovo in the 90's...yet again a liberal in power so the anti war leftists were no where to be found and the republicans were yelling and screaming.
Are you foolish enough to actually think we did a good deed by interfering in Libya. Does the fact that it was handled by NATO (which is really just the USA don't kid yourself) make intervention ok? All we hear are stupid emotional buzzwords like democracy. Democracy is only what people make of it, I personally hate democracy because it is just a vehicle for tyranny of the majority. Maybe in another 10 or 20 years we will be going to Libya to take out the evil government that will arise from this mess... And what if they democratically vote for a government which will keep women as second class citizens, and maybe christians, jews and atheists as well. Is that still good just because its "democracy"?
Obama took the patriot act and ran with it. How about the TSA? and didn't Obama defend FISA once he became president? This administration is still rattling sabers at Iran and Syria just like the last...
Think about it, you actually affirmed everything Bush did in office with respect to national security. You claimed Obama is actually stronger than Bush on national security and compared his actions to Bush's. He did what Bush did and took things a step further with the drone attacks. Your premise was basically that Bush was strong on national security and so republicans can't legitimately criticize Obama since he is along the same lines as Bush.
I would say that both Bush and Obama are weak on national security. Both are making us less safe in the world. Both are bankrupting us with their foreign policy. Both are wasting the lives of our young men in places where it would become more valuable after you shit on it.
If we had a president who wanted to make us more secure he would tell the U.K., France, Germany, Australia and frankly all of Europe that they can cut their social programs and pay for their military if they want to police the world. We will use ours for defense and for the defense of them if they are ever attacked which is all the alliance requires. We can also assist with diplomacy and logistics. Then we can start a gradual and long term process of closing our overseas bases.
|
On August 30 2011 14:57 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 14:13 Probulous wrote:On August 30 2011 14:02 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 12:33 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican. Obama is much stronger than Republicans on military issues. Bush used to capture and torture terrorists, Obama just assassinates them with special forces and Predator drone strikes while constantly stepping up spending. That probably won't stop Republicans for hammering him for being weak on defense because he is a Democrat, though. This is the garbage I was talking about earlier. Bush was a horrible president with foreign policy and national security and the liberals hated him. Now Obama is in office and instead of expecting him to behave he gets a pass because afterall ... Bush got away it so why shouldn't he.. Granted a lot of republicans who call him out are hypocrites but that is reality, probably most democrats and republicans are hypocrites. Instead of worrying about whether or not the people who are calling him out are hypocrites lets start worrying about the shit he is doing and put a stop to it. Such as... He pulled troops out of Iraq in a relatively safe manner. He sent more troops to Afghanistan for the surge based on the advice of his military commanders on the condition that there is a definite withdrawal timetable which is rapidly approaching. He saw the opportunity in supporting the UN regarding Libya and did so in the smallest way possible. A very much push from behind manner. His approach to foreign policy particulary with regards to arab nations has been subtle and in keeping with the feeling on the ground. This alone is a security success, when the arab world is in revolt you want a calm leader. What exactly is the "shit he is doing" so we can "put a stop to it."?
Alright, thanks for replying and outlining exactly what you think the “shit” is. I will do the same with your post.
The shit he is doing is sending another 30k troops to that useless wasteland when he should have pulled them all out immediately. The notion that it would take so long to "safely" withdraw is bogus. Safe for who?..they are not talking about American's whose lives are the only ones I'm concerned with. We should just wave and say "goodbye" and "sorry for the mess, have whatever government you want but if you harbor terrorists who attack us we will blow you up, that is all ktxbye".
It seems timely given the 10th anniversary is approaching to re-examine exactly why Bin Laden attacked the US. His hatred of the US and his main resource for recruitments was the US support of Israel and the abandonment of the mujahedeen after the soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. The US trained him and his fighters to fight a proxy war against the soviets. When the US abandoned them because the soviets withdrawal, the loss of support created resentment to the US (see Senate report on 9/11).
If the US just pulls out right now in exactly the same manner, what is there to stop the same thing happening with someone else? A relatively stable Afghanistan is the best form of fighting terrorism. Besides, you don’t barge into a country destroy it and then leave when you feel like it. The US is paying the price for not having a coherent strategy to begin with.
Seriously the whole reason given for invading them was because they were supposedly harboring Al Qaeda. If Bush was being sincere then if they had handed over the terrorists we wouldn't have attacked them at all.
Which they didn’t. In addition the failing of Bush have been listed many many times. Finally after the tragedy of 9/11 the public was baying for blood. Oh and relevance?
So how do we suddenly become responsible for them having a democracy that they neither want nor have the capability of maintaining? See above.
Obama just picked up Bush's football and ran with it, nothing changed and yet the liberals are silent because their team is in power. Same goes for the republicans who are suddenly mad, its only because its the other team in office that they are upset.
Actually a lot changed. A hell of a lot. The US pulled out of Iraq and upped the anti in Afghanistan. Isn’t that what you’re upset about?
Obama is flying drones over sovereign nations, dropping bombs on people, killing civilians. True, but at least he isn’t invading countries. I don’t like it either but if the Pakistani government isn’t going to cooperate how do you achieve your target?
And don't kid yourself, we are absolutely 100% still torturing terrorists. You would have to be so naive to think they would actually stop that practice. Speculation at best. How exactly does one prove or disprove this statement?
Have we closed any of our bases in the middle east?...you know the thing that the warlords and dictators use to scape goat us and rally their people behind them..people who can now blame their misfortunes on us rather than their own leaders who are responsible. Nope Obama changed nothing.
True. He has not lowered the number of military bases in the Middle East. I would argue that people are not blaming Obama for their misfortunes, rather their leaders. See the ex-leaders of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Sure he could close them down but this hardly game changing when compared to the other military commitments.
Libya...we have no right to go there, just like we had no right to mess with Kosovo is the 90's...yet again a liberal in power so the anti war leftists were no where to be found and the republicans were yelling and screaming.
Well the fact that the Arab league and the UN supported the action and you didn’t actually “go there” I would say you are wrong. The choice was simple, support an action by the people who are advocating the principles by which the US is governed, or support a tyrant. The US is much better served by a democratic Libya then a Khadaffi lead one.
Are you foolish enough to actually think we did a good deed by interfering in Libya. Does the fact that it was handled by NATO (which is really just the USA don't kid yourself) make intervention ok? In a word, yes.
All we hear are stupid emotional buzzwords like democracy. Democracy is only what people make of it, That is the point.
I personally hate democracy because it is just a vehicle for tyranny of the majority. As opposed to the tyranny of the few?
Maybe in another 10 or 20 years we will be going to Libya to take out the evil government that will arise from this mess... And what if they democratically vote for a government which will keep women as second class citizens, and maybe christians, jews and atheists as well. Is that still good just because its "democracy". WTF 
Obama took the patriot act and ran with it. How about the TSA? and didn't Obama defend FISA once he became president? Fair point, I don’t agree with that either.
This administration is still rattling sabers at Iran and Syria just like the last... Hardly the same situation. Obama criticizes Syria because it is slaughtering its own people. Obama has been much quieter on Iran than Bush was.
Think about it, you actually affirmed everything Bush did in office with respect to national security. You claimed Obama is actually stronger than Bush on national security and compared his actions to Bush's. He did what Bush did and took things a step further with the drone attacks. Your premise was basically that Bush was strong on national security and so republicans can't legitimately criticize Obama since he is along the same lines as Bush. I did nothing of the sort. Read again my friend.
I would say that both Bush and Obama are weak on national security. Both are making us less safe in the world. Both are bankrupting us with their foreign policy. Both are wasting the lives of our young men in places where it would become more valuable after you shit on it. Nice opinion, can I have one too?
If we had a president who wanted to make us more secure he would tell the U.K., France, Germany, Australia and frankly all of Europe that they can cut their social programs and pay for their military if they want to police the world. We will use ours for defense and for the defense of them if they are ever attacked which is all the alliance requires. We can also assist with diplomacy and logistics. Then we can start a gradual and long term process of closing our overseas bases. Fair nuff. I would argue that Obama at least went part of the way by requiring the ONE action he chose to enter (Libya), be run first and foremost by other nations. Sure there was military support, but very very very limited.
I can see you are angry at Obama, but given the circumstances he has certainly been less aggressive than his predecessor and has a much better way of dealing with foreign nations. He isn’t perfect but he isn’t the antichrist either.
Finally this is way 
|
On August 30 2011 15:35 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 14:57 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:13 Probulous wrote:On August 30 2011 14:02 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 12:33 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican. Obama is much stronger than Republicans on military issues. Bush used to capture and torture terrorists, Obama just assassinates them with special forces and Predator drone strikes while constantly stepping up spending. That probably won't stop Republicans for hammering him for being weak on defense because he is a Democrat, though. This is the garbage I was talking about earlier. Bush was a horrible president with foreign policy and national security and the liberals hated him. Now Obama is in office and instead of expecting him to behave he gets a pass because afterall ... Bush got away it so why shouldn't he.. Granted a lot of republicans who call him out are hypocrites but that is reality, probably most democrats and republicans are hypocrites. Instead of worrying about whether or not the people who are calling him out are hypocrites lets start worrying about the shit he is doing and put a stop to it. Such as... He pulled troops out of Iraq in a relatively safe manner. He sent more troops to Afghanistan for the surge based on the advice of his military commanders on the condition that there is a definite withdrawal timetable which is rapidly approaching. He saw the opportunity in supporting the UN regarding Libya and did so in the smallest way possible. A very much push from behind manner. His approach to foreign policy particulary with regards to arab nations has been subtle and in keeping with the feeling on the ground. This alone is a security success, when the arab world is in revolt you want a calm leader. What exactly is the "shit he is doing" so we can "put a stop to it."? Alright, thanks for replying and outlining exactly what you think the “shit” is. I will do the same with your post. Show nested quote +The shit he is doing is sending another 30k troops to that useless wasteland when he should have pulled them all out immediately. The notion that it would take so long to "safely" withdraw is bogus. Safe for who?..they are not talking about American's whose lives are the only ones I'm concerned with. We should just wave and say "goodbye" and "sorry for the mess, have whatever government you want but if you harbor terrorists who attack us we will blow you up, that is all ktxbye". It seems timely given the 10th anniversary is approaching to re-examine exactly why Bin Laden attacked the US. His hatred of the US and his main resource for recruitments was the US support of Israel and the abandonment of the mujahedeen after the soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. The US trained him and his fighters to fight a proxy war against the soviets. When the US abandoned them because the soviets withdrawal, the loss of support created resentment to the US (see Senate report on 9/11). If the US just pulls out right now in exactly the same manner, what is there to stop the same thing happening with someone else? A relatively stable Afghanistan is the best form of fighting terrorism. Besides, you don’t barge into a country destroy it and then leave when you feel like it. The US is paying the price for not having a coherent strategy to begin with. Show nested quote +Seriously the whole reason given for invading them was because they were supposedly harboring Al Qaeda. If Bush was being sincere then if they had handed over the terrorists we wouldn't have attacked them at all. Which they didn’t. In addition the failing of Bush have been listed many many times. Finally after the tragedy of 9/11 the public was baying for blood. Oh and relevance? Show nested quote +So how do we suddenly become responsible for them having a democracy that they neither want nor have the capability of maintaining? See above. Show nested quote +Obama just picked up Bush's football and ran with it, nothing changed and yet the liberals are silent because their team is in power. Same goes for the republicans who are suddenly mad, its only because its the other team in office that they are upset. Actually a lot changed. A hell of a lot. The US pulled out of Iraq and upped the anti in Afghanistan. Isn’t that what you’re upset about? Show nested quote +Obama is flying drones over sovereign nations, dropping bombs on people, killing civilians. True, but at least he isn’t invading countries. I don’t like it either but if the Pakistani government isn’t going to cooperate how do you achieve your target? Show nested quote +And don't kid yourself, we are absolutely 100% still torturing terrorists. You would have to be so naive to think they would actually stop that practice. Speculation at best. How exactly does one prove or disprove this statement? Show nested quote +Have we closed any of our bases in the middle east?...you know the thing that the warlords and dictators use to scape goat us and rally their people behind them..people who can now blame their misfortunes on us rather than their own leaders who are responsible. Nope Obama changed nothing. True. He has not lowered the number of military bases in the Middle East. I would argue that people are not blaming Obama for their misfortunes, rather their leaders. See the ex-leaders of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Sure he could close them down but this hardly game changing when compared to the other military commitments. Show nested quote +Libya...we have no right to go there, just like we had no right to mess with Kosovo is the 90's...yet again a liberal in power so the anti war leftists were no where to be found and the republicans were yelling and screaming. Well the fact that the Arab league and the UN supported the action and you didn’t actually “go there” I would say you are wrong. The choice was simple, support an action by the people who are advocating the principles by which the US is governed, or support a tyrant. The US is much better served by a democratic Libya then a Khadaffi lead one. Show nested quote +Are you foolish enough to actually think we did a good deed by interfering in Libya. Does the fact that it was handled by NATO (which is really just the USA don't kid yourself) make intervention ok? In a word, yes. Show nested quote +All we hear are stupid emotional buzzwords like democracy. Democracy is only what people make of it, That is the point. Show nested quote +I personally hate democracy because it is just a vehicle for tyranny of the majority. As opposed to the tyranny of the few? Show nested quote +Maybe in another 10 or 20 years we will be going to Libya to take out the evil government that will arise from this mess... And what if they democratically vote for a government which will keep women as second class citizens, and maybe christians, jews and atheists as well. Is that still good just because its "democracy". WTF Show nested quote +Obama took the patriot act and ran with it. How about the TSA? and didn't Obama defend FISA once he became president? Fair point, I don’t agree with that either. Show nested quote +This administration is still rattling sabers at Iran and Syria just like the last... Hardly the same situation. Obama criticizes Syria because it is slaughtering its own people. Obama has been much quieter on Iran than Bush was. Show nested quote +Think about it, you actually affirmed everything Bush did in office with respect to national security. You claimed Obama is actually stronger than Bush on national security and compared his actions to Bush's. He did what Bush did and took things a step further with the drone attacks. Your premise was basically that Bush was strong on national security and so republicans can't legitimately criticize Obama since he is along the same lines as Bush. I did nothing of the sort. Read again my friend. Show nested quote +I would say that both Bush and Obama are weak on national security. Both are making us less safe in the world. Both are bankrupting us with their foreign policy. Both are wasting the lives of our young men in places where it would become more valuable after you shit on it. Nice opinion, can I have one too? Show nested quote +If we had a president who wanted to make us more secure he would tell the U.K., France, Germany, Australia and frankly all of Europe that they can cut their social programs and pay for their military if they want to police the world. We will use ours for defense and for the defense of them if they are ever attacked which is all the alliance requires. We can also assist with diplomacy and logistics. Then we can start a gradual and long term process of closing our overseas bases. Fair nuff. I would argue that Obama at least went part of the way by requiring the ONE action he chose to enter (Libya), be run first and foremost by other nations. Sure there was military support, but very very very limited. I can see you are angry at Obama, but given the circumstances he has certainly been less aggressive than his predecessor and has a much better way of dealing with foreign nations. He isn’t perfect but he isn’t the antichrist either. Finally this is way
The Afghan stuff is relevent because it would be far cheaper in terms of money, American lives and Afghan lives if we just destroyed the taliban and left. I don't care what kind of government they have. It could be an islamic oriented dictatorship, a western democracy, anarchy, they could kill each other and leave the country uninhabited. It is their nation and it is their problem, not ours.
I believe aggression is only permitted for self defense. I like the slogan walk softly and carry a big stick. Our only business and only legitimate goal in Afghanistan was destroying the Taliban who was supposedly harboring terrorists who attacked us. If they remake the Taliban and start harboring terrorists again then we can just destroy it again. Then we are only being reactionary and not aggressive. If it happens over and over eventually the people there will befearing for their own lives and well being and will implement a government that will not harbor terrorists. but if they do so what, we can just destroy them again. It would be far cheaper than occupying them for so long.
Bin Laden has also stated that he is opposed to our overall presence in the middle east, and Saudi Arabia in particular. So its more than just our activity with respect to Israel and Afghanistan. Iran is now using our presence as propaganda to churn up ill will against us.
Consider yourself being an arab or persian. You probably haven't been well educated and you just want to live your life in peace and comfort like everyone else on the planet. You have a government that is corrupt and unjust which prevents you from being happy. It also happens that the United States is surrounding your country with its massive military. Your leaders tell you that they are repsonsible for your plight. If only we could destroy them we would be wealthy and happy and have peace and prosperity. Eventually you will consider the U.S. as the enemy and when you see your kid's with no future you will hate the United States and you might even consider sacrificing yourself in the name of destroying this great enemy.
I firmly believe that our presence over there is what lead to 9/11, and it is and will continue to result in them hating us and blaming us for their problems. Yes there are uprisings going on now but that isn't going to make those people like us even if we help them now. New leaders will gain power, and their countries will still be garbage, and power will still corrupt, and so they will have the perfect opportunity to either ask us for permanent aid or else blame our abandonment of them on their countries' never ending miserable state..
We have no idea what will turn out in Libya or Egypt, and we had no right to intervene. If they revolt and create a western style democracy that is great but it probably wont happen anyways. Risking blow back, violence, future enemy regimes...all in the name of spreading democracy and acting like an empire trying to push our way of doing things onto others. Yes tyranny of the minority is bad, tyranny of the majority is bad....I don't care what they have as long as we aren't involved. I would like to know every human in the world is doing great but my only concern is American lives and our allies. The reason I pointed out the potential flaws of democracy is not to compare it to dictatorship but to show that it is stupid to interfere just for the sake of promoting a system of government which may or may not promote freedom which is what the west really values, not democracy which we don't even have. The brilliance of the founders of the United States was to recognize the dangers of democracy and shun it in favor of a republican form of government.
You responded to my comments about possibly needing to take out the Libyan and Egyptian governments in 20 years with "WTF" as if this isn't what we have been dealing with for 60 years now. Why is Iran our enemy..because we replace one leader with another for our convenience and we create the next generation's enemy regime. I would not be surprised at all if the Libyan government is opposed to us 10 years from now. Maybe it will be because we helped them out and then decided to leave and they will get resentful, maybe they will not like us right off the bat, who knows. Unless of course we stay involved in their politics for eternity which would mean the don't even have sovereignty at all. Like when we applaud the phony elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. We act like they have democracy now and are ruling themselves and yet we forced a constitution on them which flies in the face of their religious and cultural values. And women have to make up a certain % of positions in government..well what if the people there don't want that? They have no rights and their voting is just for show so we can feel good about ourselves and pretend we did something nice.
We have no right to interfere in Syria regardless of what they are doing to their own people. I don't like the idea of them killing their people but it is their concern and not ours. Why is it western countries were able to engage in self determination and create their governments and law and order and yet these countries can't manage to do it? Then at the same time to be politically correct we have to pretend that our culture is not superior to theirs, no no no...its global politics that is keeping them down...we need to interfere and help them. Bullcrap. Let them control their own government and take care of themselves.
And why does going into a another nation under the flag of the United States vs the U.N. or NATO make so much difference to liberals? It is an unjust war of aggression on our part. We are the defacto leaders of the U.N. and NATO. Take all of NATO and then take the United States out..what is left? Stop pretending it was an international effort. It was the United States providing the munitions and firepower while others lobbed a few missiles here and there. It is as if our same involvement under United States leadership would be bad but we put our men and gear under the leadership of a European and suddenly its all ok. I think it is even worse. These alliances should be for mutual defense, not to give up our national sovereignty to foreigners so they can use our blood and money to police the world.
And am I very angry at Obama? I don't know if I would say angry. Disappointed in some ways and eager to replace him for sure. I was hoping he would not continue the Bush foreign policy or the domestic national security nonsense. That was a bust. I knew I wouldn't like his domestic policy so I'm not angry. I didn't like Bush's either. He expanded government like crazy, then Obama took that crazy and quadrupled it...it is just amazing how the 2 party system works.
Anyways I genuinely enjoy debating these types of things but I can't respond anymore. It is after 3 am and I need to sleep. I'll see which rail this thread has gone down by tomorrow lol.
gn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
