| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
bhikkhu 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
 Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:20 |
 TheProgtologist wrote:
When I came home from Desert Storm this is what I heard:
1)Did you kill anybody?
2)You guys messed up,you didn't get Saddam
My answer to the second one was always.."That wasn't the military objective,the liberation of Kuwait was".
So we invade Iraq and take out Saddam.A lot of people got what they were screaming for,and found it left a bad taste in their mouths. |
While I'm not a fan of war in any form, I could at least understand Desert Storm. As you said, that was about liberating Kuwait.
|
|
|
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:21 |
|
Not only that Jody, Bush Sr. was proven correct to pull out when he did, seems to me.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:56 |
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN> |
|
I was responding to your attitude during this discussion, and I might say I was proven correct. Let’s pass on personal salvos. I just asked a question and you treated me as though I am Bill O’Reilly. Did it really show my attitude? You mentioned that Bush is a figurehead. I’ve never said that. An American president is any president of the past 50 years or so. Would you agree that main pre-requisite for a president is being a mediocrity? If the man is too bright or too independent he’s perceived as dangerous, and they discredit and impeach him. To promote one’s personal interests on the level of US presidency, one has to have a very strong personality. In this sense, Mr. Bush is rather a typical president. So the personal interest as a cause of this war is a myth. That is correct, and why I said Republicans. My point was that these actions were far from some sense of responsibility to others in a foreign land. It was about seizing an opportunity, nothing more. Are you implying that our main goal was to seize the oilfields in Iraq? The industrial nations learnt their lesson back in the 60’s. It’s much cheaper to pay for oil than cling to the colonial rule. Oil was definitely the main factor, but the war wasn’t conceived as a potential occupation.
I would like to add that only recently has the media woken up, and started to be critical. For a while there it seemed as if the media was largely conservative.
The media is just obnoxious. But don't worry, there is still Fox News. I try not to watch either CNN or Fox. And please let’s stop these personal innuendo.
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:03 |
|
I really don't get how "the media" especially CNN is liberally biased. I think they often report on stupid, insignificant stuff, but not in overly liberal. I think Fox news is balanced in a way, but they seem to be catering to rich, comfortable, white men, and their headlines often have a condescending air about them that i find distasteful, as if they're saying, "Oh look at those bloody plebeians! What a nuisance; always begging for civil rights and whatnot. Oh well, lets draw the blinds and smoke some more cigars while are stocks soar...."
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:11 |
bhikkhu wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
When I came home from Desert Storm this is what I heard:
1)Did you kill anybody?
2)You guys messed up,you didn't get Saddam
My answer to the second one was always.."That wasn't the military objective,the liberation of Kuwait was".
So we invade Iraq and take out Saddam.A lot of people got what they were screaming for,and found it left a bad taste in their mouths. |
While I'm not a fan of war in any form, I could at least understand Desert Storm. As you said, that was about liberating Kuwait.
|
Sorry guys, it was about liberating Kuwaiti oil fields.
I remember well how Bush Sr was castigated for not going to Baghdad. The whimp bullsh*t was all over the place. As it turned out, his was a much better calculated approach. Saddam was left in power at the time because they thought he learned his lesson and would behave, i.e. he woudl keep Iraq in order and oil flowing. NObody could predict that Saddam took it personally. But as we all can see now, destroying a modern state is a much easier task than maintaining order in a tribal society living in its ruins. THat was a huge mistake. What puzzles me is the fact that a number of high level people in present administration knew the reasoning for the abrupt ending of the first war and didn't take it into consideration while conducting the second one.
Edited by IVNORD - June 19 2007 at 00:14
|
|
Forgotten Son
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:28 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism. |
Perhaps. That's not the reason that Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
TheProgtologist wrote:
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL. |
I agree. But he needed to be taken down by his people. The crippling sanctions imposed by the US and Britain were stopping that from happening.
bhikku wrote:
While I'm not a fan of war in any form, I could at least
understand Desert Storm. As you said, that was about liberating
Kuwait. |
That's what I used to think and technically it remains true. But Kuwait is a corrupt dictatorship, but a good one because it's friends with the West. The US originally gave the green light to Saddam to invade after Kuwait began stealing Iraqi oil. The problem came when Saddam went to far and took the whole of Kuwait rather than the oil fields in the north.
Edited by Forgotten Son - June 19 2007 at 00:31
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21195
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 02:57 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism.
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL. |
Of course there is some connection. But I still remember the presentation of "evidence" for Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in that UN session. Powell presented these satellite images of chemical weapon production sites, mobile production units etc. ... these were the reasons for the UN giving their permission for the war against Iraq, at least it's how I remember the situation. And from that perspective the war was not justified at all, because later none of these things could be found in Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Badabec
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 14 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1313
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 06:38 |
Forgotten Son wrote:
Perhaps. That's not the reason that
Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would
Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
|
You make an excellent point here, I could not agree more. 
|
|
Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor
- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74
|
|
Kid-A
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 613
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 08:13 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism.
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL. |
If it was some good will mission, why would Bush wait two years to start war? Why would they make up evidence? And who appointed the US and UK world police anyway? The UN didn't think there should be war.
Oh, and you know who else sponsored terrorism? The USA, remember the IRA who bombed the sh*t out of the UK in the 70s-90s? Who funded them? Oh yeah the USA who were interested in maintaining their high Irish population vote. So why didn't the UK go to war with the USA?
Edited by Kid-A - June 19 2007 at 08:47
|
|
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 09:15 |
thellama73 wrote:
I think it's funny that so many people are against us trying to help people in Iraq but then call us inhuman for not wanting to help people in Darfur.
Me, I don't think it's our responsibility to help anyone, and I believe the war in Iraqq is about terrorism, not freeing people/
|
Who's calling the USA inhumane?
|
|
|
|
TheProgtologist
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 09:20 |
Badabec wrote:
Forgotten Son wrote:
Perhaps. That's not the reason that Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
|
You make an excellent point here, I could not agree more.
|
Just my opinion here,and I am speaking as a regular forum member,I think it totally justifies invading Iraq.Forget weapons of MD,I think when evil rears it's head you chop it off.Call me warmonger,a brainwashed former soldier,whatever.I think when you see people in trouble you help them out.I know the US has other interests in this than just toppling a dictator and his corrupt regime,I am not blind or stupid,but I am speaking about MY feelings on this.I have put my life on the line for people I will never know and would do so again without hesitation,.
|
|
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 09:27 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
Badabec wrote:
Forgotten Son wrote:
Perhaps. That's not the reason that Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
|
You make an excellent point here, I could not agree more.
|
Just my opinion here,and I am speaking as a regular forum member,I think it totally justifies invading Iraq.Forget weapons of MD,I think when evil rears it's head you chop it off.Call me warmonger,a brainwashed former soldier,whatever.I think when you see people in trouble you help them out.I know the US has other interests in this than just toppling a dictator and his corrupt regime,I am not blind or stupid,but I am speaking about MY feelings on this.I have put my life on the line for people I will never know and would do so again without hesitation,.
|
But you can't change the reason after you've done it. The USA has more enemies now than before 911 thanks to the forceful ways of the Bush Administration. The complete and utter lack of respect for other allies position is that of a tyrant. Not to mention the lies about Iraq. He deceived the American public not mention Congress. His administration had a mission and was going to complete regardless of anyone else's input.
|
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20240
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 09:37 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism.
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL. |
Of course there is some connection. But I still remember the presentation of "evidence" for Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in that UN session. Powell presented these satellite images of chemical weapon production sites, mobile production units etc. ... these were the reasons for the UN giving their permission for the war against Iraq, at least it's how I remember the situation. And from that perspective the war was not justified at all, because later none of these things could be found in Iraq.
|
C'm on Mike, even you saw that these falsified proofs were the most unwelcomed comedy ever played; Even Powell didn't believe the BS he was dealing to the public. And if the actor doesn't believe in his own role, how do you expect anyone to believe it?
the whole planet knew there were no MDW in Iraq (and none were found) and the fabrication of proof was so evident , because there weren't any!! This is why wen asked to show them, it took US/Pentagon months to come up with the ideas on how to patent the fake proofs and fabricate the evidence.
The only reason for invading Irak was to appropriate themselves the Oil reserves, settle base camps and most likeky one day turn against the real terrorists supporters, the SAUDIS. They are the ones funding the Islamic extremists currents and terrorists group and they are doing it with the Western world's money too. This is where the Petrol magnate's enrichment is sickening >> high oil price not only make them richer, but it funds more terrorism.
StyLaZyn wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
Badabec wrote:
Forgotten Son wrote:
Perhaps. That's not the reason that Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
|
You make an excellent point here, I could not agree more. 
|
Just my opinion here,and I am speaking as a regular forum member,I think it totally justifies invading Iraq.Forget weapons of MD,I think when evil rears it's head you chop it off.Call me warmonger,a brainwashed former soldier,whatever.I think when you see people in trouble you help them out.I know the US has other interests in this than just toppling a dictator and his corrupt regime,I am not blind or stupid,but I am speaking about MY feelings on this.I have put my life on the line for people I will never know and would do so again without hesitation,.
|
But you can't change the reason after you've done it. The USA has more enemies now than before 911 thanks to the forceful ways of the Bush Administration. The complete and utter lack of respect for other allies position is that of a tyrant. Not to mention the lies about Iraq. He deceived the American public not mention Congress. His administration had a mission and was going to complete regardless of anyone else's input.
|
Even worse, Powell came to Brussels with Condi Rice and threatened to take away the NATO HQ from Brussels if Belgium did not participate. Little did they know is that most of Belgians woould actually be glad if NATO was to move away from Brussels (we expect enough missiles on out faces just from being Europe's capital and we actually need the space for the new countries). We held good, but lost 4000 jobs in a Ford plant in Genk two months later. Unfortuately NATO is still in Brussels.
Even worse, he forced Blair to become a liar to convince UK to meddle in Iraq, as prior to that Blair was still a good PM (probably the best they've had in the last 70 years), so the US forced their allies to be as corrupt as them
Edited by Sean Trane - June 19 2007 at 11:34
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 11:29 |
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN> |
|
I was responding to your attitude during this discussion, and I might say I was proven correct. <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#009900 size=2>Let’s pass on personal salvos. I just asked a question and you treated me as though I am Bill O’Reilly. Did it really show my attitude? You mentioned that Bush is a figurehead. <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#009900 size=2>I’ve never said that. An American president is any president of the past 50 years or so. Would you agree that main pre-requisite for a <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>president is being a <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>mediocrity? If the man is too bright or <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>too independent he’s perceived as dangerous, and they discredit and impeach him. To promote one’s personal interests on the level of US presidency, one has to have a very strong personality. In this sense, Mr. Bush is rather a typical president. So the personal interest as a cause of this war is a myth. That is correct, and why I said Republicans. My point was that these actions were far from some sense of responsibility to others in a foreign land. It was about seizing an opportunity, nothing more. <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#009900 size=2>Are you implying that our main goal was to seize the oilfields in Iraq? The industrial nations learnt their lesson back in the 60’s. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It’s much cheaper to pay for oil than cling to the colonial rule. Oil was definitely the main factor, but the war wasn’t conceived as a potential occupation.I would like to add that only recently has the media woken up, and started to be critical. For a while there it seemed as if the media was largely conservative.
<P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The media is just obnoxious. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But don't worry, there is still Fox News. <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#009900 size=2>I try not to watch either CNN or Fox. And please let’s stop these personal innuendo. |
|
I really don't want to continue this, but I had to point this out.
IVNORD wrote:
Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. |
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:02 |
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer. |
Let's be realistic. Can the US cut itself out of the global economy? And if so, what is that great cost? |
Obviously not completely for diplomatic reasons as well as a dependence on foreign nations for raw materials. However, there's a difference between isolationism and unbridle free trade. When we provide a tax incentive for industries to go overseas we shouldn't be suprised when we lose jobs. |
Way off topic now:
Economics is a huge behomoth of a study for anyone to fully understand, let alone try to participate in alone. Unbridled Free Trade is not a good thing, I agree.
When foriegn countries begin to offer something at a much cheaper price than that American made, your tariffs would need to be extraordinary to keep the price competitive and prevent the buyer in America from using it. Those high tariffs are what cause diplomatic stress. If we only supply ourselves with what we need, inflation would be out of control. I think the idea that Clinton had in mind was to provide a competitive edge in the future rather than wait for the world to not need us.
|
I'm not supporting protectionist economics. I'm was just stating some facts. |
THe US is the main pillar of global economy. Excluding ourselves from it is ridiculous. Blaming it for the loss of manufacturing jobs is even more ridiculous. Global economy is a self-regulating mechanism. THe process of globalisation is at leas 100 years old, they just didn't call it that way back then. Migration of jobs and entire industries began probably with the debasing of the steel manufacturing if not earlier. When it became economically profitable to produce steel closer to the sources of iron ore at much cheaper labor cost while the shipping costs declined. Textile, chemicals, agriculture and many more followed suit. 20 years ago engineering began its displacement. Nobody said a word. All this latest crap is pure politics. Manufacturing will not be spared. But eventually new jobs will be created as new technology will appear. And some old jobs will return to the US when the world salaries level off thanks to global economy. Right now we are simply priced out of some industries. |
Right now manufacturers are able to enjoy the booming American market without the burden of paying American taxes or labor. To say globalization is not the cause of the loss of manufacturing jobs is ridiculous. If we were to put protectionist policies in place producers would be forced to move their factories back to American to sell to the market that they depend on. I don't see how you can say otherwise.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:08 |
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
There's no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There's ample links between his regime and terrorism. I've actually never heard that denied before.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:16 |
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms. |
Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.
That point is contentious, obviously.
Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.
|
There's no serious evidence or even a concencous in the scientific warming that carbon emissions can cause a noticeable change in the atmosphere at their current rate.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:20 |
StyLaZyn wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms. |
Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.
That point is contentious, obviously.
Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.
|
Off Topic:
You have some American conservative types who will insist all the global warming is nothing more than false hype and is a natural progression of climate change. They maintain human related emissions have no effect on the climate. (I guess smog is our imagination)
Another recent thing I heard is the reference to Al Gore's movie as "A Convenient Lie".
In time, we will see the effects. I hope the predictions are wrong for the global sake of all of us and our children.
|
Nobody is denying the existance of smog. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with global warming. A causes B, so A must also cause C?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Kid-A
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 613
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:50 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms. |
Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.
That point is contentious, obviously.
Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.
|
There's no serious evidence or even a concencous in the scientific warming that carbon emissions can cause a noticeable change in the atmosphere at their current rate. |
Who the hell told you that? Fox news? That's completely false. World scientists are as good as agreed that there is an affect. Over 2000 recently signed an agreement saying humans were to blame. And it's not all about global temperature changes, you've got to look at local human effects, for example the rediculous levels of water pollution that threaten China due to the rapid industrialisation. And yeah I guess it can cause hazards, its something called 'el nino effect', and extreme climate conditions have increased in equatorial regions.
Summers coming two weeks early compared to ten years ago in the Arctic - that's rapid change. And don't try and say it's a natural cycle, it's a far more rapid change than any cycle in recent times. Glaciers around the world are in rapid retreat.
Edited by Kid-A - June 19 2007 at 16:05
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: June 19 2007 at 16:16 |
|
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is the USA a big bully these days?
