Well obviously your view of this depends on you accepting global warming. If you don't believe in it, then this is just fearmongering. If you do believe in it, this is clearly quite true.
That's because we are getting off our ass to minimize the long term threat of terrorism
You cannot accept global warming? gimme a break, it is beginning to happen all over the world, its hard to fight against clear hard facts... Do you also deny evolution?
To ivan, yes, it is also funny that more people innocent people die by muggings every year than had died in the world trade centers... every year 25 million die of starvation, and yet it makes front page news when a 14 year old girl is kidnapped...
You see, the media wont give news coverage of threats unless it is scandalous,bloody, and appalling.
1> Prove Global Warming to me then :) Helly, Prove Evolution as well! Just because you believe it, doesn't mean everyone does. What is fantastic, is the scientist developing these theories admit just that....they are THEORIES. Somehow, layman like yourself make the law.
2> Maybe we should just turn our attention to muggings then! We'll stop that, and just let the planes continute to fly into buildings?
The difference is, showing starvation on Television doesn't do anything to fix it. Showing a girl who was JUST kidnapped in an attempt to save her life DOES.
3> So the continued coverage of the democrats' race is in that category? Perhaps then you are explaining that things aren't so bad in Iraq, but the Media is simply showing things that only fit in that category?
Ofcourse nothing is fact, but we should be so indecisive in our thoughts that nothing ever gets done? Evolution isnt 'fact' the but thought of following anything else right now is FOOLISH. Give me another theory which is better, yea, I didnt think so.
Ill repeat, nothing is fact, but it is our job, as leaders, to use discretion in choosing which theory to follow, (evolution being the strongest of them) and to make judgement calls to the best of our ability.
So, lets wait and see if global warming is true shall we? Lets wait until millions die from global warming compounded with malthusian prophecys. Lets!
ORRRRRRR, we can use the STRONG EVIDENCE that we have right now and make the BEST JUDGEMENT CALL possible.
Would you like some charts of this evidence????, because i have plenty.
How come since Bush started his "war on terror" has the terrorist threat to the world never been greater then? As well as it seems to be growing at a greater rate than it ever has done.
In reality, global warming is the generally accepted scientific principle, and the majority of people against it have financial incentive to do so. In addition, the greenhouse gasses are also responsible to general pollution hazards, and should be restricted anyway.
I would much rather let planes fly into buildings on a small scale then to allow other more important domestic values be washed down the drain.
I guess we have different ideas of cost/effect. Your idea is that we should go to war and spend billions in tax money, hundreds of american lives, and wear out international support, then to address domestic handicaps which can be fixed, in my opinion, more easily.
You come here and talk to me about this election year? HAHAHA, when was the last time an election was about the issues?!?!?! The media smears commercialism all over democracy, and you call that quality?
Terrorist threat never been greater? Show me evidence of the subjective statement you just made.
"Seems to be growing" - again, show me this!
1> That's a pretty been step you just made from rationalizing that we are wasting time on terrorism because muggings are a greater threat. Try to keep on track here and not start changing your original point.
2> Nice job putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort, and you are simply jumping to conclusions. Believe it or not, I agree that we have domestic issues to take care of, but do you just rationalize a problem away by pointing at other problems too? Iraq has many more implications than just the direct threat of Saddam personally launching an attack anywhere.
3>I have no clue what this is in reference to. Is this about the media? Stop changing your point. You set out a list of criteria that I questioned you about. You still didn't answer with anything more than rheroric.
I've already asked for them.
This may be true, but much of the theory was flawed and has been adapted to fit our current model. How much further does it need to be adjusted to be proven is one question.
Another questions is that of solutions. Things like forcing countries to plant X number of trees based upon output is worthless.
Thus far, all solutions to a theory that hasn't remained consistent on the scientific front are arbitrary to say the least.
As for financial incentive, we are those people. THE UNITED STATES is those people. Include developing nations in a global pact for pollution control and you will have cooperation. The unfair act of penalizing only those that are arbitrarily decided to be "developed" is a major hold up for me supporting any such bill.
This I do agree with. The pollution hazards would be a perfectly fine candidate for people to look to. Unfortunately, instead we put forward an evolving theory of something that MIGHT happen to SOME places between now and the next 10,000 years. This isn't the kind of 'proof' that gets action ;)
1>Well that changes things, since you just said it was clear hard facts.
Evolution is proven no further than scientology's assessment that we were put here by aliens. In fact, I'm just going to outright say that it is more likely aliens brought us here, than evolution happening. Afterall, aliens would explain all gaps in our history of the world :)
I guess I'm just 'FOOLISH' for not following anything you say.
2>I'm glad you repeat that again :)
3>Or we can assume global warming is true, and that it IS manmade, and that if we go back to living like cavemen it'll all be fixed. Sure would be a shame if that weren't the case.
4>Why is the best judgement call all of the mainstream solutions for dealing with global warming? (ie, the kyoto agreement)
1. The example i pointed out was only an example. I was getting at the root of the problem, which is that the media gives very off-value reports of what is a threat to the american people.
That is a whole other debate...
3. You implied that the media covers something other than scandalous, bloody, or appalling events, and I then stated that the election coverage performed by the media has nothing to do with the issues anymore, showing that the paticular instance of something outside of the scandalous, bloody, and appalling was still far short of quality.
But your right, lets stick with global warming here, out of a variety of solutions, 2 have emerged to be agreed on. First, move to alternative sources of energy. Denmark derives 13% of its energy from alt. energy, primarily wind. Dupont has agreed to by the year 2010 achieve 10% of its power from alternative sources.
Second, pump liquid/solid carbon dioxide into carbon sinks(depleted natural gas cavities in the earths surface) which would then sit in the ground for millions of years without causing any environmental problems at all.
Both are costly, but the kyoto accords are in the proccess of being passed which mandates that every developed country in the world reduce its C02 emmisions by x% of its Gross Domestic Product. It is likely that the Bush administration will sign it, and if not, the next administration will.
In conclusion, nations are prepared to confront this issue and pay the cost, but the question now is if it is too late. Polar bear populations are already declining because the ice no longer freezes during the winter which inhibits the bears from traveling to hunting grounds. The predicted rise in tempereture of the world in the last century has been just over 1 degree, and im sure you have all heard about the iceberg the size of new jersey cracking off of antarctica.
Hate to burst your bubble,but Bush is the one who removed us from the protocol,and without Russia signing, we can't be forced into it.
This is, unless you know something about this recently that I don't, and then could you link me so I can read??
Secondly, do you not believe that countries like China, that are considered developing, get a unfair handicap to compete against us? With the exception of human rights, they ARE a developed nation.
No, you arent foolish because you disagree with what I say, you are foolish because you disagree with overwhelming circumstancial evidence that has been presented to the debate.
bed time now, ill give you your evidence later, sorry i have to leave....
Why not? It is the logical consequence of bombings, increased American presense, and the removal of the stabilizing factor in Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
You obviously aren't too familiar with how science works. Plus, you seem to think that anyone should care about the economics first, which is what we expect from you, but it is still wrong.
Is this entire sentence pertaining to just Iraq?
Firstly, the statement was about the world. If you consider Iraq to be the make or break terrorist catalyst, then we've got a whole new problem.
With such media attention, I suggest that it is easy to view the world as riddled with more terrorism than ever before. With focus on an issue, rather than a blind eye, I also suggest that it's easy to feel as if there's a larger terrorist threat than before. However, I have seen no such numbers showing that this is the case.
The "war on terror" started technically just after 9/11.
Since then, we have seen the following notable attacks (obviously pipe bombs are going off somewhere in the world and not making news):
Japanese fire bombing on the train.
Kenyan Hotel Bombings
Israeli suicide attacks
Iraqi car bombs
Afganistan Car bombs
misc rebels throughout the rest of the world
Now, I could pull up numbers for each of those to gain the number of bombings, but I don't think that is neeeded.
I'll start with this list.
That is simply major attacks on United States interests!! Not even the world.
The implication in the original post, Zero, was that Bush's war on terror was INCREASING terror. We can obviously remove the Kenyan HOtel Bombings and Israeli suicide atttacks from our criteria then. They are all directed at Israel, and are not even at their highest points ever (once can conclude they are not caused by Bush, but rather the Israel/Palestine conflict). The rebels were fighting before and after 9/11 and are still fighting for the same causes. You can't just unload rebel groups onto Bush.
That leaves us with the remainder of the list as possible results of engaging terrorism.
This is where I hand the ball off to the rest of you for 3 answers:
1>How do we know these are a result of Bush and not 9/11 acting as a catalyst for festering extremist islam?
2>Show me that these attacks are more numerous than any other 2.5 year period before (the 80's alone were a very interesting time)
3>Show me where the terrorist threat is growing,and how that is directyl related to Bush and not other countries lack of action in their own backyards.
I'm quite familiar with how science works. My point is that implementing costly, worthless programs before picking a cause (and how that cause actually can be effected) is just what I said.....worthless.
The Global warming models spread entirely too far to pick a direction and run with it right now. We need a global direction that works - unlike the hilarious tree planting routine of the late 90's.
Secondly, you are wrong. I care about the ability to continue life first. Following that, I care about the best course of action to do that, without putting my lifestyle, or my childrens, in a lower than needed state to accompolish that goal.
I will not sacrifice all that we have built for whim of a solution that is not exacted evenly across the world.
I thought shortly after putting my post up I'd get asked that question.
I've seen good evidence supporting what I said, give me a little time to find it.
But by all means is there any proof Bush's actions is solving the problem?
I'd appreciate you doing that
Very fair question - personally, I do believe that more needs to be done. The simple fact that leaders of terrorist groups ARE being captured, says that something is being done in the right direction.
I would like to see better diplomacy with getting other nations on board..... If we had a longer timeline I'd be better able to answer the question. We've had 2.5 years of no attacks causing a loss of life on our soil since the anthrax attacks (another thread, but does anyone have up to date info on this??). If in the end we manage to get a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, we have made progress. If not, history will show the failure this all was.
If Saddam was single-handedly flying planes into tall buildings, then I would agree. But instead, this reminds me of Vietnam-esque kill ratios all over again.
There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that the strategy of force is effective in decreasing terrorist activity. Historically, such an exercise has never succeeded, and according to intelligence agencies, the threat from terrorism has in fact increased in Israel, Iraq, the UK, the US, Russia and so on where such a strategy has been employed. Intelligence is also clear that a decrease in US activity is due to an effort on the side of the terrorists to consolidate support amongst external populations. And people are as scared as before. Something is being done, definitely. But there is nothing at all to suggest that it is in the correct direction.
Separate names with a comma.