On 2002-03-22 09:52, TraceyX wrote:

On 2002-03-18 21:44, Barbara wrote:
If anyone's still interested: I received today an email reply from Dr. Hanson to my email inquiry of him as to his birthdate. It is September 5, 1953. I included the link to here, also, in case he wanted to lurk or comment in person. Wonder if he looked. His reply was short and sweet, but he still responded. I thought it pretty nice. :smile:

I'm wondering, Barb: in your e-mail to Dr. Hanson, did you mention the saeculum at all? I'm guessing you didn't say much at all about the theory, but if you did, I'm wondering if you mentioned the saeculum. Since he is a classicist, he might have already heard of it.

TraceyX, sorry for the delay in replying. Just got back from chaperoning a teenage church youth group on Spring Break at Snow Mountain Ranch, Winter Park. Burrrrr!

I requested his d.o.b. in regards to curiosity as to whether he was civic, adaptive, prophet, or nomad, along the lines of S&H theory. I included the link to this forum thread topic, but he replied with nothing but his date of birth. Like I'd said, I was impressed he replied at all. So, who knows if he popped over to lurk.....

Marc, I am very curious as to the "never mind" details behind your comments on Bush "failing the test", etc. I remember your displeasure over his campaign finance reform position. Did this ever leave you?

Are you disillusioned or enlightened now? What do you want him to be doing? Taking out Saddam ("Feb. 91") right now? Doesn't that have to wait until... oh, 9/11/04? Horrid horrid thought, maybe, maybe not? Surely, not on the exact same day. Would AVOT condone it?

And, if Bush is not doing what you want, then what IS he doing during his turn at the wheel?

On 2002-03-25 22:24, Justin '77 wrote:
Wow. You know that guy really well. Is he destroying the ozone layer and shooting puppies, too?

Even Saddam has his limits, however we need to take him out. Also Saddam has been diverting money meant for food and medicine on his palaces and weapons of mass destruction.

Might I mention testimony from UN weapons inspector Richard Butler on Saddam's burning desire to get weapons of Mass destruction. Also there is reason to believe that Saddam's regime is cohorts with Al Queda.

The only reason to fight Iraq is so Bush can keep his popularity ratings up. We in America seem incredibly naive and arrogant to think we can start a war with a country that has not attacked us or our allies, and in spite of the fact that all other countries would not support our actions. This would be what in the days of Bismarck would be called a "preventive war." In essence that's what World War I was. Totally unnecessary, and it screwed up a whole century.

Unless we know that he is supplying weapons of mass Destruction to terrorists who are targeting the USA, the USA has no right to "take Saddam out."

Meanwhile, noone seems to notice the real crisis. It was there in plain sight on the evening news. An ice shelf that big hasn't broken off of Antarctica since before the last ice age. Climate change is upon us, and Bush is accelerating it. He is causing the Crisis, and it's too late; it will happen.

On 2002-03-26 02:35, Eric A Meece wrote:

Meanwhile, noone seems to notice the real crisis. It was there in plain sight on the evening news. An ice shelf that big hasn't broken off of Antarctica since before the last ice age. Climate change is upon us, and Bush is accelerating it. He is causing the Crisis, and it's too late; it will happen.

What do you make of the report that Mars is allegedly heating up as well? If true, then we are dealing with the sun going through its normal cycles or a change of some sort. In any case, climate change here would not be man's fault. Do you have an opinion about this?

On 2002-03-26 02:35, Eric A Meece wrote:
The only reason to fight Iraq is so Bush can keep his popularity ratings up. We in America seem incredibly naive and arrogant to think we can start a war with a country that has not attacked us or our allies, and in spite of the fact that all other countries would not support our actions. This would be what in the days of Bismarck would be called a "preventive war." In essence that's what World War I was. Totally unnecessary, and it screwed up a whole century.

Unlike WW1 which Austria and Germany started as a war of agression to wipe out old enemies. The USA is fighting the war aganist Iraq to liberate it's people from a opressive dicatorship. Anyway I predict the war in Iraq will be over 2 weeks after it starts.

Also this war is self-defense, Saddam has proven himself time and again to be a threat to the security of the Middle East, if not the world.

Unless we know that he is supplying weapons of mass Destruction to terrorists who are targeting the USA, the USA has no right to "take Saddam out."

Eric,

We do not know Saddam has been supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. However Iraqi intellegence agents have met with Al Queda operatives, they are aiding and abetting an enemy.

That alone is grounds for declaring war, not to mention the other acts Hussein has done.

Meanwhile, noone seems to notice the real crisis. It was there in plain sight on the evening news. An ice shelf that big hasn't broken off of Antarctica since before the last ice age. Climate change is upon us, and Bush is accelerating it. He is causing the Crisis, and it's too late; it will happen.

Come on Eric, Earth's climate has changed radically without human intervention before.

Earth's climate warmed up in 20 years when the last ice age ended to temperatures around today's levels.

Anyway it has not been proven that increasing co2 levels are the cause of climate change.

_________________
One man's terrorist is an another man's freedom fighter.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-03-26 03:11 ]</font>

On 2002-03-25 18:26, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Check the daily talking points. Is Saddam a "Hitler" again today or is he back to harmless tinhorn dictator? It is rather difficult to stay current with the propaganda. There ought to be a continually displayed inset window on all news networks reading alternately "Hitler" and "Tinhorn" as our rulers' mood changes. That way we could all stay on the same card and communicate effectively.

This is the type of very weak, nit-picking argument typical of those who have no real argument.

Of COURSE America's foreign policy changes from time-to-time. We are a democracy after all. Duhh!

Even Hitler went through the "tinhorn" phase.

On 2002-03-26 02:35, Eric A Meece wrote:
An ice shelf that big hasn't broken off of Antarctica since before the last ice age.

True. Were the actions of us primitive hunter-gatherers responsible back then as well, are was THAT climate change a natural phenomenon?

On 2002-03-26 02:48, Stonewall Patton wrote:
What do you make of the report that Mars is allegedly heating up as well? If true, then we are dealing with the sun going through its normal cycles or a change of some sort. In any case, climate change here would not be man's fault. Do you have an opinion about this?

Bravo, Stonewall!

I'll admit to suspecting that greenhouse gases may be one factor, but since the Earth has been a lot hotter in the past at times (as well as a lot colder at times), it is difficult to know for sure. Our science has limits, and we don't yet know enough to accurately model the climate. The climate models being used have glaring defects, like failing to take into effect water molecules in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, proposals like Kyoto are only expected to mitigate climate change by a small amount, at a huge cost. There are ethical problems with using such a huge amount of money to have such a tiny effect, rather than using it to, say, eliminate hunger or something.

Movements are afoot in the economy to limit our reliance on fossil fuels, even without Kyoto. Most major car manufacturers are coming out with more gas/electric vehicles. There has possibly been a breakthrough in using sonoluminescence to cause fusion on a small scale. Etc, etc.

On 2002-03-26 04:14, TraceyX wrote:

On 2002-03-25 18:26, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Check the daily talking points. Is Saddam a "Hitler" again today or is he back to harmless tinhorn dictator? It is rather difficult to stay current with the propaganda. There ought to be a continually displayed inset window on all news networks reading alternately "Hitler" and "Tinhorn" as our rulers' mood changes. That way we could all stay on the same card and communicate effectively.

This is the type of very weak, nit-picking argument typical of those who have no real argument.

Of COURSE America's foreign policy changes from time-to-time. We are a democracy after all. Duhh!

Even Hitler went through the "tinhorn" phase.

I'll respond to your response by quoting you:

This is the type of very weak, nit-picking argument typical of those who have no real argument.

Hitler at first was not taken seriously. Then he eventually was, at which time he was removed. The same is not true of Saddam. Saddam was first our ally and then later called a "Hitler" to boost support for the Gulf War (which I supported at the time). This "Hitler" was not removed during that war so he quite obviously was not a "Hitler" after all. Even the rhetoric promptly changed in official circles such that Saddam was not called a "Hitler" anymore. Now, when the administration needs an excuse to go to war again, Saddam is suddenly a "Hitler" again.

Sorry, but any four year old has sufficient life experience to smell the rat here.

A rebuttal to a standard component of propaganda (read lying) from both Bush administrations:

(For info and discussion)

http://supplysideinvestor.com/showar...articleid=1920

Memo on the Margin

March 25, 2002
Send to a Colleague

Bush & Cheney Are Misinformed

Memo To: Karl Rove, President?s political counselor
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Saddam Did Not Gas the Kurds

I have not been bothering you much with these open memos, Karl, but I have to do so today, as I?ve spent the weekend watching both President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney saying over and over again that we have to get rid of Saddam Hussein because he has killed his own people with poison gas. President Bush cited last week?s New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg, which gives an account of the 1988 gassings based on 14-year-old hearsay. On three different Sunday talk shows, Cheney repeated the charge that Saddam killed as many as 100,000 Iraqi Kurds, in this manner. What I am telling you publicly, Karl, is that this DID NOT HAPPEN. The reason I am addressing this information to you is that you are the only member of President Bush?s inner circle whose total responsibility is his political success. That means you want him to be the best informed man in his own administration, for if he acts on misinformation, he can make enormous errors that will damage him with the electorate. So I tell you, Karl, that he is misinformed on this issue, as is the VP. There is no possibility that Saddam gassed his own people and no evidence that he did. None. Forget Iraq?s protests that he never did, as I would not base any conclusion on ?not guilty? pleas from Saddam or his team. But all the evidence is that whatever bad stuff he has done as Iraq?s political leader, he has never presided over troops who dropped poison gas on his own Iraqi citizens.

There are other issues involving Saddam that clearly cause concern to our government, and to the governments just visited by Cheney, but this is the one that connects when we think of Saddam as being the embodiment of evil. Hey, I remember being tear gassed by the police at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, 1968, when I was a reporter for the National Observer. I could understand why the police gassed the anti-war demonstrators. I could never have understood if the police had used poison gas. There is no report in the history of the world of a political leader using poison gas against his own people in an open field for no reason. Adolf Hitler rounded Jews up and gassed them because he believed them to be subhuman. Saddam did not do anything like this and a little bit of effort on your part will persuade you, the President and the Vice President, that it did not happen. If it had, why does Saddam get along as well as he is these days with the Kurds? And can you imagine the Iraqi general who supposedly supervised the gassing of 100,000 Kurds defecting from Iraq and being spirited to England by the Kurds. Can you imagine Ariel Sharon helping Herman Goering make his way out of Germany to Argentina? And when the general gets there, he announces that he did not use poison gas on Iraqis. I?m afraid the President has been briefed with selective information, Karl.

You should first pitch out the New Yorker report by Jeffrey Goldberg, who offers no evidence, only quotes from various Kurds who seem to remember gas being used. My big problem with Goldberg is that he told me three years ago that he had served in the Israeli army, which made him a dual citizen of the United States and Israel. I read his long article and can tell you it is worthless as ?evidence.? Even at the time, Turkey said it could not tell whether Kurds showing up on its side of the border had been gassed or were victims of malnutrition. Not that Goldberg is malicious, only that he had a serious bias going into the assignment and there is no evidence he made any attempt to test his own initial hypothesis. Having a dual citizenship with the U.S. and Israel might be okay in ordinary times, but when push comes to shove, you cannot serve two masters. Goldberg has thrown in with Richard Perle?s team, and as you can readily see in his article, he quotes Jim Woolsey, who is Perle?s agent. Even before the article hit the newsstands, Woolsey was on national tv telling audiences to rush out and buy the New Yorker to read it.

Go to Amazon.com, Karl, and look for the author Stephen Pelletiere. His book is entitled Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf , published in 2001 by Praeger. It is $70 and worth the money. Pelletiere is also the author of the 1990 report I have previously cited that exonerated Iraq from the gassing at Halabja. It is listed by Amazon but is "out of print ." I believe it was the report Jim Baker cited with Tariq Aziz in their 1990 Geneva meeting, telling Aziz he did not believe the story of Iraq gassing the Kurds.

Pelletiere is retired at age 70 and living in central Pennsylvania. He is a Ph.D. in political science and was the chief of the CIA Iraq desk at Langley in the 1980s. He left the CIA in 1987 to become a lecturer at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., and was sent in 1988 to investigate Halabja. He based his conclusions that the "several hundred Kurds" who died at Halabja must have been killed by Iranians, because the deaths were caused by cyanide gas, which Iraq had not used in the war against Iran (they used mustard gas), and which, says Pelletiere, they had no ability to produce. He says the Iranians blamed the deaths on the Iraqis and won the public-relations war that followed, even though journalists at Halabja could see the symptoms being caused by cyanide gas. In his new book, Pelletiere again addresses the question of the alleged gassing later in 1988, which Secretary of State George Shultz at the time said resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Kurds. Pelletiere argues that story was a complete fabrication, and that to this day no bodies were ever found. His account is consistent with the account of the Iraqi government, but as time goes on, the Shultz account still winds up being accepted by our press corps.... and our President.

I?ll return to this issue again and again, Karl, until the President and Vice President give some indication they have been correctly informed on it. Following is Dr. Pelletiere?s brief account of Halabja. I spoke to him last week by telephone and he told me: ?You are on solid ground in saying Saddam did not gas his own people.?

* * * * *


HALABJA

On March 16, 1988, at Halabja, an Iraqi Kurdish city near Baghdad, the Iraqis and the Iranians both used gas. The Iranians, it seemed, had come to see the advantages of chemical warfare under circumstances advantageous to them - not mustard gas, the persistent agent that the Iraqis used, but non-persistent forms that disorient the enemy but then are quickly dissipated, allowing the human wave attacks to pour through.

At Halabja the action developed like this. The rebel Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani, facilitated the introduction of Iranian forces into Halabja by night so that the Iraqi commander was unaware of the penetration. In the morning, the Iranians burst from hiding, overwhelmed the Iraqi garrison, and drove it from the city.

The Iraqi commander, in an attempt to regain possession, called in a chemical barrage (of mustard gas). This had the effect of disconcerting the Iranians, which allowed the Iraqis to regain possession. The Iranians now sprang their surprise, as they dumped a blood agent on the reoccupying Iraqis.

Mustard gas from the Iraqi side, cyanide-based gas from the Iranian side -- and the citizens of Halabja caught in the middle. Several hundred Kurdish civilians were killed during these successive attacks.

However, when the Iranians took back the city, they photographed the dead Kurds and subsequently publicized the deaths, making out that Iraqi gas had killed the civilians and denying that they had used gas as well.

Reporters let into the city to inspect the devastation noted, however, that most of the dead Kurds were blue in their extremities, implying that they had been killed by a blood agent, a chemical that Iraq did not use and, at this time, lacked the capacity to produce. This fact was noted in the press accounts and also by officials of several nongovernmental agencies called to inspect the scene.

Later, the U.S. government confirmed the fact that both sides had used gas and averred that, in all likelihood, Iranian gas killed the Kurds; however, this new information was not revealed until 1990, so the impression remained in the public mind that the Iraqis alone were responsible for the gassings.

* * * * *

[Tomorrow: An Iraqi expatriate writes about Halabja from the U.K.]

Bill (buuurrrrppppp) Bennett receives a response:

(For info and discussion)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/bottoms2.html

An Open Letter to Bill Bennett

by John Bottoms

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. "

~ Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

~ William O. Douglas

"All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships. "

~ George Bernard Shaw

<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/avoi.gif> TO: William J. Bennett, AVOT

FR: John Bottoms, Chairman AVOI

RE: Americans for Victory Over Intimidation (AVOI), a project of EMPEROR.org

DATE: March 23, 2002

Mr. Bennett chairs the newly-formed "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism" (AVOT), which recently published an open letter describing the rationale and goals for their organization. In response to AVOT?s strong-arm tactics of intimidation, I hereby call into being "Americans for Victory Over Intimidation" (AVOI)

Background

The American government has always attempted to suppress dissent during times of war. During the Civil War, Lincoln illegally detained thousands of journalists who dared to speak out against his war on the Confederacy. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson imprisoned public opponents, and even had the US Post Office deny service to newspapers that didn?t tow the party line. The Cold War is famous for government intimidation of any who suggested that Joseph McCarthy and his crowd were using the threat of communism as a tool to grab power.

During each of these periods, Americans endured the exponential growth of The State at the expense of their freedom, security and well-being. In each case, wealth and power was transferred from private, free-market hands to those interlocked with authority and violence, exemplified by the growth of the Military Industrial Complex since World War II.

But always, vocal groups of writers, scholars and journalists have refused to be intimidated by heavy-handed blackmail and extortion. It took great courage and intellectual firepower to provide the public with much-needed information and inspiration during previous crises, and our current war will require nothing less.

Rationale

The threat to our freedom by the government in Washington and its hired intimidators at AVOT knows no bounds and is targeted directly at our lives and our institutions, starting with the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. They are using the terror attacks of 9/11, which were brought upon us by decades of arrogance and foreign policy mismanagement, as an excuse to pursue their bankrupt ideology of empire and censorship. We freedom-writers "are simply in the way" and a major annoyance as we expose their plans for defacto world conquest. Mr. Bennett is preparing for a long war, but so are we.

Public support for the war effort has been high because it was seen as an effort to wipe out a band of criminals which had murdered thousands of innocent Americans. But as mission creep takes over and US forces are sent on far-flung duty in countries which are no real threat to the American homeland, Mr. Bennett fears that support may wane as Americans figure out that these wars only weaken our nation. He knows that public opinion must be continually reinforced, and that dissent will undermine his objectives. He even tries to manipulate us with fear, using the incredible claim that anything less than unconditional support for the government?s wars will bring about more attacks against America. Quite the contrary, it is their present and future wars which make us targets of renewed terrorism.

Mr. Bennett makes clear that he considers dissent an internal threat to the US, equal in importance to those who would violently attack America; that dissenters are promulgating their "blame America first" ideology. In fact, ours is a "blame government first" attitude, and history as well as current events backs up our position that The State is at the heart of all of today?s public crises. Only when government ceases its murderous overseas military adventures will terrorists will lose interest in attacking us. It is worth noting that it is only Americans like Mr. Bennett who are still pushing the "they hate us because we?re free" line. Muslims, and others worldwide, invariably condemn US foreign policy.

Mr. Bennett?s AVOT hopes to intimidate into silence those who don?t buy the party line, or if necessary "eradicate" them and their dangerous ideologies. We at AVOI refuse to be intimidated. Our goal is to eradicate Mr. Bennett?s dangerous and self-defeating ideology of empire, an ideology which got us into this mess and is now threatening to make it worse.

We must devote attention to the definition and shape of our victory in the ongoing battle against intimidation and censorship. In the long run, fortitude or hesitation about our principles will determine victory or defeat. We shall work to fortify public opinion by argument and use of mass communication.

Ongoing Activities

AVOI will:

* educate the public about the nature and threat of government intimidation and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution;
* educate the public about the threat of radical empire-building ideologies;
* help articulate true American ideals in schools and on campuses;
* expose government propaganda and disseminate the truth; and
* take to task those groups and individuals who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict we are facing.

March 26, 2002

On 2002-03-25 18:26, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-03-25 16:59, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

But were we not dealing with Iraq as they killed a million Iranians with our help, when we sold them stuffs on credit {thanks greatly to some solon that lately sold us Pepsi and Viagra}, when we were indiffernet to their murder of the Kurds, when we refused to stop the slaughter of the Marsh Shia after we stirred up their revolt [ditto the Kurds] {informing the Socialist Progressive leader of the Iraq governments that no-fly did NOT apply to helicopter gunships as they were "tanks with wings".

I agree with Mr. Hanson's no more but would apply it elsewhere and elsewhen. HTH

Check the daily talking points. Is Saddam a "Hitler" again today or is he back to harmless tinhorn dictator? It is rather difficult to stay current with the propaganda. There ought to be a continually displayed inset window on all news networks reading alternately "Hitler" and "Tinhorn" as our rulers' mood changes. That way we could all stay on the same card and communicate effectively.

Perhaps we might have a color coded set of circles for our less than democratic foreign leaders as was proposed for Terror Alerts. Something on the order of Blue for "tinhorn" (all those new found friends in the "Stans") to Red for "Hitler". It would save us all a lot of thinking and we wouldn't want too much of that in the WOT. HTH

On 2002-03-26 06:51, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

Perhaps we might have a color coded set of circles for our less than democratic foreign leaders as was proposed for Terror Alerts. Something on the order of Blue for "tinhorn" (all those new found friends in the "Stans") to Red for "Hitler". It would save us all a lot of thinking and we wouldn't want too much of that in the WOT. HTH

I was kind of hoping that Regis Philbin would host a drawing every evening on national television to determine our official stance toward Saddam for the following day.

On 2002-03-26 05:04, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I'll respond to your response by quoting you:

This is the type of very weak, nit-picking argument typical of those who have no real argument.

Hitler at first was not taken seriously. Then he eventually was, at which time he was removed. The same is not true of Saddam. Saddam was first our ally and then later called a "Hitler" to boost support for the Gulf War (which I supported at the time). This "Hitler" was not removed during that war so he quite obviously was not a "Hitler" after all. Even the rhetoric promptly changed in official circles such that Saddam was not called a "Hitler" anymore. Now, when the administration needs an excuse to go to war again, Saddam is suddenly a "Hitler" again.

Sorry, but any four year old has sufficient life experience to smell the rat here.

Actually, your response was to merely restate your weak, nit-picking argument a second time.

After reading it a second time, it is still a weak, nit-picking argument.

The fact is, Saddam has been consistenly compared to Hitler by people in an out of every administration in over twelve years. He was not removed from power because of arguments by PEOPLE LIKE YOU who feared we would be overstepping our mandate.

It is natural and proper for democracies to have internal debates about the nature of foriegn regimes. In such debates, a foreign regime is described in one light by some, and then another light by others. Sometimes, the same people change their minds about the nature of a regime. This process is called "thinking".

For you now to point out this variability as a detraction is nit-picking. You could make the same sort of argument about any subject.

Barbara writes,
"Marc, I am very curious as to the 'never mind' details behind your comments on Bush 'failing the test', etc.?"


As far as Marc Lamb is concerned, Bush, like Jeffers before him, has gone over to the other side. He has joined the Democrats in attacking our most cherished freedom in this country: Political Free Speech.

It is my opinion that the only thing that has kept this country from becoming like that of a banana republic is the respect and reverence Americans have always had for the First Amendment.

I can no longer support a man who, for political reasons (or is just plain stupid), would even consider signing CFR as it is written today.

The language cannot be any clearer, Congress shall make no law...

On 2002-03-26 07:07, TraceyX wrote:

The fact is, Saddam has been consistenly compared to Hitler by people in an out of every administration in over twelve years. He was not removed from power because of arguments by PEOPLE LIKE YOU who feared we would be overstepping our mandate.

People like me? I am a Reagan Republican (and a military veteran for that matter) and, for the second time, I supported the war and I, like most Americans, believed the propaganda that Saddam was a "Hitler." Since he was a "Hitler" and a "threat to the survival of Western Civilization" with all his biological agents and "weapons of mass destruction," we were obviously going to remove him. We did nothing of the kind. The troops were halted on the road to Bagdad and we all went "huh?" Obviously, he had never been a "Hitler" and this great danger to us all or he would have been removed. We were lied to. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The rest of your post is repetitive and evasive gibberish so no response is warranted. But I am not and have never been one of "those people" you referenced. I was a Republican when the Republican Party actually stood for something...that is, something other than elitism, power, and control over people's lives.

Since you have insisted on being personally insulting for two posts in a row now, let me respond in kind by recommending that you quietly ask around your neighborhood for information on the next neocon cell meeting. I hear the Rouladen they serve is exceptional and I know you will thoroughly enjoy attending. Why? Because they are PEOPLE LIKE YOU. :lol:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-03-26 08:12 ]</font>

So which is it, Stonewall?

Should we now depose Saddam? But we couldn't do that, because we didn't do it before, so therefore he must not be a Hitler, and we mustn't depose him, lest (God forbid!) Stonewall find our actions inconsistent!

So, we should change our mind and leave Saddam in place. He's a Tinhorn. Oh, my! That would be another switcheroo, wouldn't it? That would be worse! We must depose Saddam, lest Stonewall (Heaven help us!) find our actions inconsistent!

Stonewall, I have yet to insult you. You are doing a good enough job by yourself.

Let me do your job by stating your position clearly. You believe that the Bushes change their stance on Saddam depending on what will give them access to oil.

But history disproves this.

Our access to oil would have been presumably been improved if we had deposed Saddam in 1991 and installed a friendlier regime. You yourself are arguing that this is true, because you say that is why we want to depose Saddam now.

If access to oil was the only motivation, why would the Bush's stance change at any time? Is the oil moving around under the earth, Stonewall? Oops, it moved again! The war's off!

Your argument makes no sense.

Apparently, we did not depose Saddam in 1991 for the some other reason. (Remember that little issue of "freeing Kuwait"?)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TraceyX on 2002-03-26 09:28 ]</font>

On 2002-03-26 04:39, firemind wrote:

On 2002-03-26 02:35, Eric A Meece wrote:
An ice shelf that big hasn't broken off of Antarctica since before the last ice age.

True. Were the actions of us primitive hunter-gatherers responsible back then as well, are was THAT climate change a natural phenomenon?

FWIW, it matters not a whit. You are absolutely correct that climatic change can and has been caused by natural phenomena, but that doesn't make the prospects of another age of climatic extreme any more desirable.

firemind continues:

On 2002-03-26 02:48, Stonewall Patton wrote:
What do you make of the report that Mars is allegedly heating up as well? If true, then we are dealing with the sun going through its normal cycles or a change of some sort. In any case, climate change here would not be man's fault. Do you have an opinion about this?

Bravo, Stonewall!

I'll admit to suspecting that greenhouse gases may be one factor, but since the Earth has been a lot hotter in the past at times (as well as a lot colder at times), it is difficult to know for sure. Our science has limits, and we don't yet know enough to accurately model the climate. The climate models being used have glaring defects, like failing to take into effect water molecules in the atmosphere.

Given the FACT (unless you consider this opinion) that the return of either a thermal maximum or an ice age would reek havoc on the world as we know it, and the relatively minor costs involved in removing the human component to exacerbating it, why would anyone in their right mind think that inaction was justified?

Oh, you think the cost is major.

Furthermore, proposals like Kyoto are only expected to mitigate climate change by a small amount, at a huge cost. There are ethical problems with using such a huge amount of money to have such a tiny effect, rather than using it to, say, eliminate hunger or something.

Let's look at your HUGE cost, and compare it to reality. I'll pick two examples, and leave it at that:

• MOTOR FUELS: First, why is reducing the wasteful consumption of motor fuels a HUGE cost? If, and these are big ifs: CAFE standards rose to ~40 MPG and applied to light trucks and SUVs as well as cars, and, coincidentally, the tax on motor fuels rose $0.25(US)/gallon, the automobile industry would make a fortune building in-demand fuel effecient cars - cars they know how to build today.
• ELECTRIC UTILITIES: There is no reason to allow acid rain producing power plants to spew this garbage without restriction, when the cost to reduce it is relatively low. I'll admit to living in a low-cost area for electricity, due to the prevalence of these outdated coal-fired dinosaurs. But I'm convinced that the benefits I receive are more than offset by the costs inflicted on others. In other words, fixing this is probably a wash. It only hurts a different group.

I should also note that I'm pro nuclear power. The permitting process needs to be streamlined and long-term storage finally settled, but that can be done if the will to do it is there. I give George Bush decent marks in this area - a rare consession from me.

Movements are afoot in the economy to limit our reliance on fossil fuels, even without Kyoto. Most major car manufacturers are coming out with more gas/electric vehicles. There has possibly been a breakthrough in using sonoluminescence to cause fusion on a small scale. Etc, etc.

I hope you aren't serious. The only motivator for producing electric or hybrid vehicles is the possibility (probability, in the longer term) that CAFE standards will move dramatically higher. Without the threat of government action, none of this work would be on-going, because the potential for return on investment just wouldn't be there. And remember, it isn't just the US that creates a market. Unlike our head-in-the-sand energy policies, other advance economies are applying the cattle prod - and bravo to them for doing it!

Here's a short quote from an article published in Atlantic MOnthly, written by William Calvin, a theoretical neuro-physiologist. Why he writes on climatology is a mystery, but his comments are interesting, nonetheless. Take it as you will:
"A slightly exaggerated version of our present know-something-do-nothing state of affairs is know-nothing-do-nothing: a reduction in science-as-usual, further limiting our chances of discovering a way out. History is full of withdrawals from knowledge-seeking, whether for reasons of fundamentalism, fatalism, or "government lite" economics. This scenario does not require that the shortsighted be in charge, only that they have enough influence to put the relevant science agencies on starvation budgets and to send recommendations back for yet another commission report due five years hence."

... and finally, some poetry:

"Those who will not reason
Perish in the act:
Those who will not act
Perish for that reason.

? W. H. Auden, 1907-1973
[from Collected Shorter Poems]

On 2002-03-26 07:31, Marc Lamb wrote:
I can no longer support a man who, for political reasons (or is just plain stupid), would even consider signing CFR as it is written today.

Marc, are you saying that if Bush signs this bill, you will jump ship and support someone else in 2004?

Does anyone on this forum plan to vote for Bush in 2004?

On 2002-03-26 07:52, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I am a Reagan Republican

No, you are not, Stonewall. Perhaps you used to be, but long ago you were brainwashed by another faction. Perhaps in ten years, you'll be a neocon!

There seems to be a consensus that Bush in not a visionary Gray Champion. So if one comes along why vote for Bush?

On 2002-03-26 08:55, Tim Walker wrote:
There seems to be a consensus that Bush in not a visionary Gray Champion. So if one comes along why vote for Bush?

Considering that Marc has long argued that GC's can be clueless guys who make things worse, one answer might be "to keep the GC out of power".

On 2002-03-26 07:52, Stonewall Patton wrote:

People like me? I am a Reagan Republican (and a military veteran for that matter) and, for the second time, I supported the war and I, like most Americans, believed the propaganda that Saddam was a "Hitler." Since he was a "Hitler" and a "threat to the survival of Western Civilization" with all his biological agents and "weapons of mass destruction," we were obviously going to remove him.

Saddam is no Hitler, however he is pretty bad. I personally thought that Iraq should have been invaded, however Bush senior chicken out, arrgh!

While I think it a righteous thing, Ms. Kiff, to defend one's self against "evil ones" that have made it clear they wish to enslave you, I also wonder what's the point, when your own leaders seek to do the very same thing by making it illegal to openly criticize incumbent politicans sixty days before an election?

I have also made it clear that I believe the Bush is much closer to Mr. "normalcy," Warren Harding, than to FDR as well, Ms/Mr. Tracey.


p.s. I would like to add that voting for someone running for President of the United States of America can be much like kissing your sister, or even worse hugging your enemy: By the nature and scope of the job, it's usually is a choice of the lesser of two, three, or maybe even four evils.

But I voted for Bush because I really liked and admired the man. But he has lied to the American people. :evil: And on a scale that dwarfs his own father's "read my lips," fiasco in 1990.

But like his father, I really don't think Bush understands how much this thing is going to hurt him with his base supporters.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-26 10:00 ]</font>

On 2002-03-26 00:39, Tristan Jones wrote:

Might I mention testimony from UN weapons inspector Richard Butler on Saddam's burning desire to get weapons of Mass destruction. Also there is reason to believe that Saddam's regime is cohorts with Al Queda.

I'll have to rebut with numerous statements from a former head in the weapons inspection program, Scott Ritter.

See: this interview.
Or: this article.
Or: this article.