Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Unconfirmed: Al Gore doesn't pay for his own carbon credits??

Global Warming Al Gore Carbon Footprint 2007

  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#41 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 11:41 AM

^ Actually, what makes the Bush Administration hypocrites is that America's huge appetite for oil drives up oil prices, thereby financing countries like Iran. If Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, oil revenue is a primary source of its funding. Iran also funnels oil money into organizations the Bush Administration classifies as terrorist -- most noticeably the Hezbollah guerilla group that caused Israel so much grief several months ago. Bush could take strong leadership to encourage and help fund the development of alternative energy sources. Also, Bush and the Republicans in Congress could have increased fuel economy standards for American cars and trucks. China has tougher fuel economy standards than America does. Did Bush take any of these measures? No. Would increasing fuel economy standards and switching to alternative fuels reduce our dependence on foreign oil and need to secure our oil supply by meddling in the Middle East? Yup. If we stopped meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, propping up strongmen in the region, transgressing on Muslim Holy sites, and doing lovely things such as the ones on this list (no reason to hate us there, nope, nope), the Bush Administration would slash the terrorists' base of angry, resentful potential recruits.

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 11:46 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#42 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:00 PM

Quote

Add in the fact that global warming deniers and skeptics cannot answer the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting global warming
Most of the skeptics I've seen aren't climate change "deniers" at all. They just haven't embraced the idea than humankind is, or even can be, responsible for it. As for not being able to answer the "end is near" sandwich board crowd...it seems to me they've been doing little else.

BTW the idea of carbon offsets/credits seems a little ridiculous. Kinda like burning down your ex-girlfriend's house, then beating the rap because you donated money to a local firefighter's charity. You're either contributing to our impending doom, or you're not. If Gore is going to set himself up as our lord and savior, he'd better walk the walk 100% of the damn time, or prepared to catch grief.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#43 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:24 PM

Quote

Actually, what makes the Bush Administration hypocrites is that America's huge appetite for oil drives up oil prices, thereby financing countries like Iran. If Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, oil revenue is a primary source of its funding. Iran also funnels oil money into organizations the Bush Administration classifies as terrorist -- most noticeably the Hezbollah guerilla group that caused Israel so much grief several months ago. Bush could take strong leadership to encourage and help fund the development of alternative energy sources. Also, Bush and the Republicans in Congress could have increased fuel economy standards for American cars and trucks. China has tougher fuel economy standards than America does. Did Bush take any of these measures? No. Would increasing fuel economy standards and switching to alternative fuels reduce our dependence on foreign oil and need to secure our oil supply by meddling in the Middle East? Yup.
Fretting about reliance on Middle Eastern oil, never translates into support for expanded U.S. oil exploration I've noticed. Not surprising when expanded "Socialism" is the only solution certain minds can wrap themselves around. BTW it is not just the dreaded Bush Administration that classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist group. 241 dead U.S. Marines, sailors and soldiers, testifies to the fact pretty convincingly.

Quote

If we stopped meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, propping up strongmen in the region, transgressing on Muslim Holy sites, and doing lovely things such as the ones on this list (no reason to hate us there, nope, nope), the Bush Administration would slash the terrorists' base of angry, resentful potential recruits.
It might also be helpful if people like yourself didn't gleefully feed their propaganda mill, with anti-American absurdity like the above. You sound like a potential recruit yourself Windy. Maybe you should attend a seminar. An explosive corset might look very becoming on you.

-scherzo

Edited by scherzo, 09 March 2007 - 12:24 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#44 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:29 PM

View PostSolar Wind, on Mar 9 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

^ Actually, what makes the Bush Administration hypocrites is that America's huge appetite for oil drives up oil prices, thereby financing countries like Iran. If Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, oil revenue is a primary source of its funding. Iran also funnels oil money into organizations the Bush Administration classifies as terrorist -- most noticeably the Hezbollah guerilla group that caused Israel so much grief several months ago. Bush could take strong leadership to encourage and help fund the development of alternative energy sources. Also, Bush and the Republicans in Congress could have increased fuel economy standards for American cars and trucks. China has tougher fuel economy standards than America does. Did Bush take any of these measures? No. Would increasing fuel economy standards and switching to alternative fuels reduce our dependence on foreign oil and need to secure our oil supply by meddling in the Middle East? Yup. If we stopped meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, propping up strongmen in the region, transgressing on Muslim Holy sites, and doing lovely things such as the ones on this list (no reason to hate us there, nope, nope), the Bush Administration would slash the terrorists' base of angry, resentful potential recruits.



Yet another reason we shouldn't be in Iraq. We have a real threat in Iran, but all we could do about it would be to Nuke them first, since the military is now to tied up to handle another front.

And no one mentions, or folks tend to forget, that all but two or three of the 911 attackers, came from Saudi Arabia. But we can't fight the Bush family friends.
Can't Touch This!!

#45 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:41 PM

Quote

It might also be helpful if people like yourself didn't gleefully feed their propaganda mill, with anti-American absurdity like the above. You sound like a potential recruit yourself Windy. Maybe you should attend a seminar. An explosive corset might look very becoming on you.

-scherzo

Eveything Solar Wind said was true. We have stepped all over the region, and tried to inset the "American Way", but we are seeing that "Democracy by Force" doesn't work, and all we are doing is getting a lot of innocent people killed on all sides. We will resove nothing by being in Iraq. Our focus should have stayed in Afganistan untill the job was finished, but by splitting up our forces, and sending them into different fronts, the Administration is forgetting everything anyone ever learned about fighting a war, and how to win a fight. There is no way to win in Iraq. We don't have Osma Bin Ladin six years after the attack, and the Taliban have returned to Afganistan in large numbers.

Everything the administration has done in the middle east, under theis administration, has been a complete and utter failier, costing far to many American lives, and hunders of thousands of innocent Arabs lives.



It is not anti American to point out the truth, or to point out what we as a country are doing wrong. It is every Americans duty to hold the governments feet to the fire.
Can't Touch This!!

#46 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:46 PM

schwerzo, an example of carbon offsetting would be funding the restoration of enough rainforest to absorb X number of tons of carbon emissions.

Also, I did distinguish between global warming skeptics and deniers.;) I actually prefer the outright deniers since that position requires them to offer counterevidence. I suspect most skeptics are actually closet deniers who find it easier to try to confuse the issue.

Oil companies are expanding oil exploration in the deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico. We've pretty much used up the oil that's in easy to get at places.

Regarding Hezbollah and the Marine barracks bombing, I'd definitely rather they hadn't done that, but I don't regard it as terrorism to attack a military target.

Specifically, what absurd anti-American comments have I made?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#47 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:39 PM

This is an official Cool It. Posters are reminded to keep discussion about the posts, not the poster. This thread is currently under discussion in the Staff Lounge. Thanks,

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#48 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:49 PM

I don't understand the concept of people being unable or unwilling to embrace theidea that they are or can be a cause of changes in climate.  It is (or should be) obvious that human beings have been impacting their environment from the get go.
Posted Image

#49 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 02:02 PM

Quote

Eveything Solar Wind said was true.
Ok. Tell me is Jalal Talabani a propped up US "strongman"? Does "transgressing on Muslim Holy sites", include the targeted destruction of mosques that is more or less a specialty of Islamic terror groups in Iraq?

You're right...it's not anti American to point out the truth...so here it is: Placing the blame for Muslim terrorism at the feet of the United States, requires both a pathological determination to do so, and a spectacular departure from reality. What I'd really love is to see is a permanent end to the idea that this self flagellation, is the height of sophisticated thinking.

Quote

This is an official Cool It.
I'm beyond cool.  :cool:

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#50 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 02:20 PM

View Postscherzo, on Mar 9 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

Quote

Eveything Solar Wind said was true.
Ok. Tell me is Jalal Talabani a propped up US "strongman"?
No. Being a strongman requires strength. Jalal Talabani's control over Iraq is marginal at best.


Quote

Does "transgressing on Muslim Holy sites", include the targeted destruction of mosques that is more or less a specialty of Islamic terror groups in Iraq?
If you're referring to the Sunni and Shia attacking each other's mosques, then the answer is "yes."


Quote

Placing the blame for Muslim terrorism at the feet of the United States, requires both a pathological determination to do so, and a spectacular departure from reality.
Oh, I blame the Muslim terrorists too. But if someone sees a nest of hornets and does things likely to piss them off, he can blame the hornets all he wants when he gets stung, but it would be wise for him not to stir up the hornets needlessly.

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 02:21 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#51 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 02:21 PM

Quote

Regarding Hezbollah and the Marine barracks bombing, I'd definitely rather they hadn't done that, but I don't regard it as terrorism to attack a military target.
Hezbollah's track record is easily researched. I get that our Marine barracks were fair game in your estimation, but maybe you'll find something on their hit list at least marginally troubling if you search hard enough.

-scherzo(was beyond cool...but now warming due to human activity :blink: )
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#52 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 02:37 PM

^ I find it troubling when the US is attacked, whether the targets are military or not. Nice try though ;)

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 02:39 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#53 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 04:48 PM

View Postscherzo, on Mar 9 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

Quote

Eveything Solar Wind said was true.
Ok. Tell me is Jalal Talabani a propped up US "strongman"? Does "transgressing on Muslim Holy sites", include the targeted destruction of mosques that is more or less a specialty of Islamic terror groups in Iraq?

You're right...it's not anti American to point out the truth...so here it is: Placing the blame for Muslim terrorism at the feet of the United States, requires both a pathological determination to do so, and a spectacular departure from reality. What I'd really love is to see is a permanent end to the idea that this self flagellation, is the height of sophisticated thinking.

Quote

This is an official Cool It.
I'm beyond cool.  :cool:

-scherzo


Jalal Talabani remains to be seen. If he is still in power when and if we leave Iraq. I was thinking more of the Shah of Iran, and Sadam. We supported him in the begining.
Can't Touch This!!

#54 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 04:54 PM

Quote

BTW it is not just the dreaded Bush Administration that classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist group. 241 dead U.S. Marines, sailors and soldiers, testifies to the fact pretty convincingly.

I had a friend who's brother was there. He didn't know if he was dead or alive for a few days, then saw him on TV. I was at the house when he came home. there was much celebrating, we all drank a lot that night. The guy is dead now. Killed himself over another matter, but I'll never forget him.
Can't Touch This!!

#55 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:29 PM

Quote

No. Being a strongman requires strength. Jalal Talabani's control over Iraq is marginal at best.
I have to wonder how and why you think this response supports your original contention. So who are the propped up Middle Eastern strongmen Kosh is so convinced you're right about? Hamid Karzai? Crown Prince Abdallah? Magneto? I don't remember reading in Al Quaeda's "gripes de jour" anything about propped up US strongmen, so I'm really fascinated to know who you believe they are, and just how they're encouraging terrorism.

Quote

If you're referring to the Sunni and Shia attacking each other's mosques, then the answer is "yes."
And yet you sincerely believe WE should have more reverence for Muslim holy sites....than Muslims. To the extent where you're comfortable handing us a big heaping helping of grief for allegedly "transgressing" on their sacred trappings. Charges of anti-Americanism arrive when people like yourself step over and around swaths of inexcusable behavior, to find culpability in the only "enemy" you've ever felt comfortable openly criticizing.

Quote

Oh, I blame the Muslim terrorists too. But if someone sees a nest of hornets and does things likely to piss them off, he can blame the hornets all he wants when he gets stung, but it would be wise for him not to stir up the hornets needlessly.
Good time to be a hornet way I see it. The endless haranguing of this country by various elements throughout the world isn't doing anything to discourage their sting-alicious agenda. I guess the problem for the hornets will be, once all other forms of life are extinguished, they'll only have each other left to destroy.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#56 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 06:15 PM

^ The Shia and Sunni hate each other's guts; Sunni mosques aren't Shia mosques and vice versa. Sunnis respect Sunni mosques, and Shias respect Shia mosques. Kosh already answered your question about strongmen. IIRC, bin Laden's primary reason for hating the US was the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, which he regarded as a violation of sacred Muslim territory. I listed the propping up of strongmen as one thing that angered Muslims that terrorist organizations recruited from; it wasn't the only item I listed. I explicitly listed violation of Muslim Holy sites and violation of Holy land is quite similar.

To return to my main point in the post that sparked this offshoot in the thread, if the US switched from oil bought on the global markets to alternative fuels, the price Iran could get for its oil would collapse, and its government would be in no situation to be lavishing money on terrorist groups.

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 06:18 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#57 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 06:23 PM

The United States does not buy oil from Iran nor has it done so since roughly 1979. The US hasn't had any economic activity at all with Iran in decades. Iran's main oil buyers are in Europe, the PRC and Japan. The US hasn't been doing any propping up of Iran since the revolution. The United States did also not buy oil from Libya or Syria or any of the other nations on the lists of official state supporters of terrorism.
So the US not buying foriegn oil would have no effect on Iran at all since Iran makes its oil revenues from nations other than the United States. It would take actions in nations beyond the US for Iran to be particularly bothered like China switching to another oil supplier.
As for Al-Queda its stated reasons for attacking the US and Western powers are being on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia and supporting Isreal.

Quote

[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.[
translated text of the 1998 fatwa from wikipedia.
Here is a link to the original text in translation,
http://www.fas.org/i...80223-fatwa.htm

Edited by tennyson, 09 March 2007 - 06:25 PM.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#58 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 06:34 PM

^ I know that the US doesn't buy oil from Iran. However, the oil markets are interrelated and so the US importing lots of oil from countries that aren't Iran still drives up the price Iran can get for its oil. If the price of a barrel of light sweet crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange is driven up by strong demand to $65 per barrel, the prices on the other exchanges will move to reflect this because one barrel of oil of a given quality is interchangeable with another of the same quality. In the unlikely event that traders allowed a huge price difference between exchanges to develop, traders would start buying oil from the exchange where it's cheaper and selling it on the exchange where it's a lot more expensive because they'd make a huge profit with little risk.

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 06:39 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#59 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 07:56 PM

Looks like a good place to repost this link that Solar Wind provided on page one:

http://money.cnn.com...nergy/index.htm

Quote

Ex-CIA chief spooked by fossil fuels
R. James Woolsey says the switch to renewables must be made to head off global warming and terrorism.

Quote

Speaking at a reception at a renewable energy conference in Las Vegas co-hosted by the American Council on Renewable Energy, Woolsey told an attentive crowd that the country's heavy reliance on oil has the two-pronged effect of contributing to global warming and helping to finance global terrorism.


"We have risks to our infrastructure and our lives," said Woolsey, who sits on the advisory board of the renewable energy council.

He said of the billions of dollars Saudi Arabia gets from U.S. oil purchases, millions find their way to terrorist organizations within the Middle Eastern country.
Woolsey said an attack last year on an oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia was the work of al Qaeda, and if successful would have knocked out 7 to 8 million barrels of oil exports a day for over a year, most likely causing the price of crude to jump to over $100 a barrel.

"We have to move toward renewables, in the interest of averting global warming and our terrorist problem," he said.

He's right.

And someone probably needs to fit me for "an explosive corset" because I think Solar Wind is right.  (I like to wear my explosive corsets baggy, so I'd prefer an XL.)

Quote

Solar Wind: Would increasing fuel economy standards and switching to alternative fuels reduce our dependence on foreign oil and need to secure our oil supply by meddling in the Middle East? Yup.


Double yup. And if we actually developed new technologies to make us less dependent on fossil fuels in general, we'd have new industries and new jobs. In the meantime, demand for oil would drop worldwide--as would the price. The sheiks could use the oil on their salads for all we'd care. Which would lead to this:

Quote

If we stopped meddling in Middle Eastern affairs,

And we sure have meddled. Why? To spread democracy? Hardly. We need their oil.

Quote

propping up strongmen in the region,

As Kosh said, the former Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein come immediately to mind. And the Saudis. Face it, the region is run by "strongmen." When they're on our side, they're cool as far as we're concerned. We helped to reinstall the Shah in the 50's and supported SAVAK, his very brutal secret police, to insure he stayed in power until enough hatred swelled in Iran that all Khomeini had to do was ride it like a monster wave. Saddam? He was fine as long as he was our monster. When he invaded Kuwait, it was clear that he was a loose canon--a particularly dangerous one. In Afghanistan, Karzai is hardly a "strongman," but then his reach doesn't really extend beyond Kabul. And his government relies on the cooperation of various regional warlords who must be bought off. In short, if a region relies upon strongmen as leaders, we've tried to put as many as possible in our pockets. It's just been the only way to exert influence and get what we want: oil.


Quote

transgressing on Muslim Holy sites,



In their view, yes. As Solar Wind points out, Bin Laden was particularly pissed off that we kept a base in Saudi Arabia and in th 90's often railed against the "infidels" (us) who were defiling the land by our presence. Why were we there? Oil.

Quote

and doing lovely things such as the ones on this list (no reason to hate us there, nope, nope)
,

I know that it's really bad form in some circles to try to see us through our enemies' eyes. Doing so is often taken as being sympathetic to their point of view. In reality, unless we know why they hate us, we risk making them hate us more. We can say we don't care why they hate us and puff out our chests and say "bring 'em on!" but we've seen what good that does us. Iraq is now the biggest recruiting tool Al Qaeda has.

Quote

the Bush Administration would slash the terrorists' base of angry, resentful potential recruits.

Absolutely. But that won't happen. Bush still has to hold on to the support of the 30% or so who still think he's brilliant. And those folks are pretty much of the "let's nuke those ragheads" mentality. Or there's the schizophrenic "let's blast hell outta them and bring 'em freedom and democracy."

The terrible reality is that the U.S. has engaged in some pretty nasty behavior in the Mideast and in Latinamerica--installing dictators and overthrowing democratically elected governments--to protect our economic interests. The result has been generations of resentment and ill will toward the U.S. One day I worry that we'll face a serious terrorist threat from our neighbors to the South. And when we do, it will be because of the same dynamic that we've played out in the Mideast: propping up dictators for our economic interests on the one hand while we wave the banner of democracy with the other.

Let me make it clear that I do not hate America. I love America. I think the American people are generally fine people. Unfortunately, most of us have no idea what our government has done in the name of "democracy" in other countries, and we just assume that other people don't like us because they're "jealous." That's really not the case. Our government has done some pretty crappy things or looked the other way while our "friends" have. As a result the children and grandchildren of the victims of "strongmen" resent the hell out of us. And unless we are willing to face that reality, we'll just keep repeating the errors.

But back to the Mideast and oil. At this point, I don't think there's a damned thing we can do to make the Mideast more Western-friendly. If anything, it's moving the other direction. But I do know that if we didn't need the oil, we would no longer have the need to meddle, as Solar Wind says. Energy independence is really the only solution. We are way past diplomacy and realpolitik at this point, and if we choose to stay on the warpath, we can expect to stick to it for generations, either until mushroom clouds bloom all over the Mideast and the U.S. or until we collapse from the costs like the former Soviet Union did thanks in part to its war in Afghanistan. And I love this country enough not to see any of those things happen.

Edited by Spectacles, 09 March 2007 - 08:00 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#60 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 08:27 PM

^What Specs said (and Solar Wind).
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Global Warming, Al Gore, Carbon Footprint, 2007

1 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users