|
|
ironmlh
Known Hero
|
posted September 04, 2002 08:45 PM |
|
|
bomb em
Quote:
What do you say?
2 words for ya..
BOMB EM!
____________
"Knowledge has discarded all biblical teachings"
|
|
Oh_Smeg
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2002 09:32 PM |
|
|
I think it comes down to a family thing.
The Bush's want to finish what they started with Desert Storm.
Also, there are a whole lotta sympathizers in the US government with the Jewish cause and the Jews know that as soon as any Arab state gets de bomb then it is all up with them as those crazy sobs will drop it.
I think it is gonna happen, just to keep any Arab state from even thinking about getting de bomb.
Really scary stuff...then ona brighter note there's the Pakistan - India thing.
____________
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted September 04, 2002 10:10 PM |
|
|
the strike to iraq will start in 10 days...( %20 chance delay for october)
spy128 
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2002 05:15 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 5 Sep 2002
|
Lews_Therin
IF you think global warming is a fact..could you please provide the conclusive evidence? You can’t…nobody can. The earth has always and will always have climate change…this is not horrific as environmental tree huggers would like us to believe. Please quit mimicking Chicken Little and crying that the sky is falling. Most people who are perpetuating this THEORY are in it for two reasons…power and money. Too bad you can’t realize it for what it is.
The pope caused millions to die from AIDS????….you know you are just one of the most incredibly ignorant people I have ever heard open their mouth. Also if you can’t discriminate between the huge difference between accidental and intentional death you are truly hopeless in your reasoning ability. If you want to argue using logic I am all for that…lets debate…but to spew the emotional, illogical, unreasonable rhetoric that you engage in just makes debate pointless.
Anti regime change crowd
To all who bring up this country and that country is more evil or worse than Iraq…you miss a huge point….Iraq is in direct violation of the terms of surrender. I guess if the Nazi party back in WWII decided to ignore all the terms of surrender and started building their regime again…you would of sat by the sidelines and pointed to all the other “bad” countries in the world as if that somehow nullifies any action whatsoever. Quit hiding behind your excuses…I would wager you don’t want people standing up against evil anywhere…well it is the world you create and hopefully there will be enough countries with virtue and courage who will take a stand against terrorism and those who violate the terms of their surrender.
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted September 05, 2002 09:35 AM |
|
|
I am all for standing up for what u believe in but then again its that kind of thinking is what encourages such erratic and not well planned things.
Now if i were bush i would just blow em all... to hell with morals and innocence... aint u glad i aint bush? thats what i thought.
I have a huge trouble argueing this since i am for and against attacking iraq. Its really quite annoying, As i said before i would wipe em out root and all but i dont have the power so i do not have the authority to do such things so my mind wanders down alternate ways of doin things.
In the end the situation is this damned if u do and damned if u dont.
Now here is the other mans shoes to them bush is evil and they are good. bushes eyes they are evil he is good. See the problem?
btw dargon I STRONGLY suggest u read a certain book even tho its not that factual or educational.
For the Love of Evil by Piers Anthony book 6 of the incarnations of immortality. I hope its not against ur religion to read books that have evil in the title 
The rest of the books are fantasy but this one has plenty of history up to 1939 so its not that bad.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2002 02:55 PM |
|
|
Dargon, your ignorant self-righteousness makes me laugh. You tell us that you worked as a psychatrists, but your ability to self-reflect seems on the level of a 5-year old.
Quote:
Most people who are perpetuating this THEORY are in it for two reasons…power and money. Too bad you can’t realize it for what it is.
Hmm, have I ever read anything more absurd and laughable? So all the other nations who ratify Kyoto are doing this for power and money reasons, driven by the mighty lobby of wind and sun energy. The US on the other hand are the only ones who recognize this evil power&money game for what it is, and refuse to support it. This has of course nothing to do with the fact that they coincidentally are responsible for more emissions than any two or three countries together. Dargon, even you should see that you are making a fool of yourself here.
Regarding the pope, as the voice of the catholic church, he tells people in Africa not to use condoms. This, in its consequences, is far worse than any damage Saddam and OBL together will ever be able to do.
Quote:
Also if you can’t discriminate between the huge difference between accidental and intentional death you are truly hopeless in your reasoning ability.
You are truly hopeless in your reasoning ability, when you apolegetically talk about "accidental deaths", in a war where such massive bomb attacks are flown for months. These people are sacrificed by American war mongers for supposed "greater good". Whose greater good"? Certainly not the ones´ who are killed, and their families´.
Besides, the US also tried to hunt and kill single suspected Al-Quaida members from the air. When there were informations that a suspected terrorist slept in a certain house, that house was bombed. I´ve read and article about one case where 48 innocents where killed this way, while the target person escaped.
Quote:
Iraq is in direct violation of the terms of surrender.
That would be a valid argument if the Bush administration would follow Powell´s course.
Quote:
... you don’t want people standing up against evil anywhere ...
Dargon, do you know what you have in common with these guys who crashed their planes into the WTC? The strong certainty that you and your purpose is good, while the enemy is all evil and must be destroyed. You fundamentalists are not that much different from each others, maybe you should try to become friends.
____________
|
|
Dajek
Known Hero
Psychedelic Knight
|
posted September 05, 2002 09:21 PM |
|
|
Iraq should not be attacked I think. It would release a REAL KILLER war.. And mass destruction weapons will be used and millions of innocent will die and snow like that. I don`t want that, even if Estonia will be left completely untouched (and it probably will...)
____________
________ _ _
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted September 05, 2002 11:24 PM |
|
|
ack back to religion
I probably gonna get scolded for this but to semily defend poor dargon(he can do by himself but i am postin anyway)
Dargon seems to me like a religious buff like a mormon but not as bad He sees things as black and white unfortunatly there are a BILLION(and i aint exagerating) shades of gray. This is how i see bush black and white no inbetween.
Heres another scary thought from me
maybe the world does need to be cleansed of the ursurpers
but then again world probably just be whiped out save a few mountains.(welcome to the planet mercury)
All are accountable every person... i hope some animals live they didn't do much to deserve this crap, other than crap on thier lawns and have buildings and highways put over their homes and had biological tests conducted on em.
|
|
Undead_Knight
Known Hero
Hero of Chaos
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 12:02 AM |
|
|
2 dargon : During attack on Afganistan for example on CNN was decided to not concetrate attention on civilians deaths in their reports because doing it will support Taliban. This is censorship if u didnt know  Also how much time on american TV had ppl that supposed that it wasnt Bin Laden who made terrorist action 11th september to explain their point of view to americans? How much were said about that need to prove that Bin Laden is guilty before bombing Afganistan? Was any proof that Ben Laden is guilty announced to public before starting of war?
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 12:06 AM |
|
Edited By: bort on 5 Sep 2002
|
The only thing the scientific community(of which I am a part) disagrees on with regard to global warming is how fast it's happening.
I would encourage you to read the following articles:
Global Warming Continues J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo Science 2002 January 11; 295: 275
Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming T. M. L. Wigley and S. C. B. Raper Science 2001 July 20; 293: 451-454.
Global Warming and Marine Carbon Cycle Feedbacks on Future Atmospheric CO2 Fortunat Joos, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Thomas F. Stocker, Olivier Marchal, and Andreas Schmittner Science 1999 April 16; 284: 464-467.
Simulation of Early 20th Century Global Warming Thomas L. Delworth and Thomas R. Knutson Science 2000 March 24; 287: 2246-2250.
Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years Thomas J. Crowley Science 2000 July 14; 289: 270-277.
(this one discounts all of that "volcano pollution" stuff)
Global warming and the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Nature 393, 325 - 332 (28 May 1998)
Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model Nature 408, 184 - 187 (09 Nov 2000)
As well as literally hundreds of articles in lesser or more specialized journals.
The only half way credible scientists arguing against global warming that I could find was:
The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming
by Patrick J. Michaels & Robert C. Balling
Cato Institute: 2000.
and even they admit that it's happening, they just claim that it's such a minor effect that it won't matter.
Now, I'm not willing to "take that risk" with regard to global warming since the risk is so catastrophic. This is not a freak conspiracy theory made up by some guy who lives in his parent's basement, it may be wrong on some points, but as a whole, it's almost certainly correct.
PS : I'm an American, and I'd just like it known that I, as well as a large number of other Americans strongly disagree with Bush's "environmental" policy.
Edit : This article is really funny, in a really dark sort of way : http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=585&e=2&cid=585&u=/nm/20020905/sc_nm/environment_summit_carbon_dc
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 12:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lews_Therin
IF you think global warming is a fact..could you please provide the conclusive evidence? You can’t…nobody can. The earth has always and will always have climate change…this is not horrific as environmental tree huggers would like us to believe. Please quit mimicking Chicken Little and crying that the sky is falling. Most people who are perpetuating this THEORY are in it for two reasons…power and money. Too bad you can’t realize it for what it is.
The pope caused millions to die from AIDS????….you know you are just one of the most incredibly ignorant people I have ever heard open their mouth. Also if you can’t discriminate between the huge difference between accidental and intentional death you are truly hopeless in your reasoning ability. If you want to argue using logic I am all for that…lets debate…but to spew the emotional, illogical, unreasonable rhetoric that you engage in just makes debate pointless.
Anti regime change crowd
To all who bring up this country and that country is more evil or worse than Iraq…you miss a huge point….Iraq is in direct violation of the terms of surrender. I guess if the Nazi party back in WWII decided to ignore all the terms of surrender and started building their regime again…you would of sat by the sidelines and pointed to all the other “bad” countries in the world as if that somehow nullifies any action whatsoever. Quit hiding behind your excuses…I would wager you don’t want people standing up against evil anywhere…well it is the world you create and hopefully there will be enough countries with virtue and courage who will take a stand against terrorism and those who violate the terms of their surrender.
Just quick post to say i agree with most of the posters on global warming, i just dont see the point in discussing it with someone that compares it to chicking licking (licking or little?)
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 01:46 AM |
|
|
|
Oh, Lews, I don't think that the Bengali cyclones are actually a result of global warming. They've been happening periodically since before the industrial era. The real problem with the cyclones is because so many people there live in really crappy (ie - corrugated aluminum w/ dirt floors) housing. Luckily, the 4 years I lived there was a no-super-cyclone window.
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 01:48 AM |
|
|
Yes.
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 02:25 AM |
|
|
And now, I'll respond to the actual question at hand : Attack Iraq?
Unfortunately, I don't have the information that the various governments of the world have, so I can only make arguments based on what little I know. However, Bush seems to be having trouble convincing congressional leaders and even his own cabinet that an attack on Iraq is necessary and presumably, they've been given the information that is needed to make an educated, informed decision.
I don't think an attack on Iraq should happen, but not for the reasons that most people seem to be giving. The original posts reasons of hypocrisy are irrelevant, I feel. If there really are compelling reasons for an attack, it should be done regardless of whether or not it may be hypocritical.
Okay, first - Saddam Hussein is a brutal, evil dictator and whatnot. In an ideal world, he would certainly not be in power and in an ideal world, we could remove him and replace him with Mr. or Ms. Wonderful and Visonary. However, in the real world, even if the US has a complete and utter victory, I find it hard to believe that the replacement would be any better. This is based on a random sampling of the types of nearby governments that are apparently okay - ie , Saudi Arabia's royal family. So basically what I'm saying is, I don't see how even a total victory in which not a single soldier or civilian dies would accomplish anything worthwhile.
Saddam Hussein is in violation of the surrender terms. Should that be enough to justify reopening hostilities (I believe that is the euphemism being used)? Quite possibly, except for one thing - although the US was the major force in the original gulf war, the surrender was not to the US, it was to the Coalition. Therefore, the only thing that has the right to enforce the surrender is the coalition. Now we probably don't need the entire coalition to be in on it, but at least a plurality would be nice. Therefore, as a justification for a unilateral attack, the violation of the surrender terms doesn't work.
Weapons of mass destruction? Well, of course this is bad for Iraq to have, but except in regards to the terms of the surrender, it's not inherently illegal for a country to possess these. So, see above for why this still isn't a valid reason for the US to attack.
The final reason - is Iraq harboring or aiding terrorists? If this is true, from my point of view, this allows the US to make an attack. IF it is true or there at least is credible evidence that suggests it is true. I understand that for reasons of national security, this may not be revealed to the public as a whole. However, it appears that it's also not being revealed to congress or else there would be no problem drumming up broad bipartisan support. Now I know you're going to say "well how come it's worth killing innocent civilians?" and throw out a statistic or two. I say, you're absolutely right and that is the position you should be taking. If you're not a target. I am a target by virtue of being american and living in New York. My girlfriend and brother are targets for the same reason. My parents live in DC and are targets as well. My dad even works in a federal building - you have no idea how scared I was when we still didn't know exactly what had happened and there were rumors about bombs at the State Department and the Reagan building and so on and so forth and the internet was cripplingly slow and all the phone lines were busy so we couldn't even check on people to find out if they were okay. So yes, an American life isn't worth more than an Iraqi life and since the Europeans don't appear to be targets of this particular group of terrorists, they should take the viewpoint that any attack is unjustified and they can take the more objective view. However, to me, my girlfriend's life is worth however many Iraqi lives can't be avoided and my parents' lives are worth all of the collateral damage in the Afghanistan action (although, I would like to point out that the war in Afghanistan was happening before the US got involved. All we really did was make sure it was the Northern Alliance and not the Taliban that won). That doesn't mean civilian casualties shouldn't be minimized, but if the decision was mine, and I had all the information I needed, I know what decision I'd make and I wouldn't look back. If anybody actually read this far, you're going to be mad at me for saying that I would sacrifice so many people to save a few lives that are important to me. You're right, but I don't think I'd be human if I honestly felt differently.
That, of course, only applies if Iraq actually is harboring terrorists.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 05:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If anybody actually read this far, you're going to be mad at me for saying that I would sacrifice so many people to save a few lives that are important to me.
Not at all, my girlfriend is much more important to me than any thousands of people that I don´t know, too. We´re talking about emotions here. From what you wrote, you made it very clear that you are not trying to be objective.
It´s a different matter though, when you actually are in power and kill these thousands of civilists, and even more when you label these actions as "good´s war against evil".
Besides, you know as well as I do, no matter if Saddam hides terrorists or not, that after such a bomb war against Iraq, there will be a lot more of them endangering your girlfriend´s and your family´s life than before.
edit: uhm, really needs to be edited after I´ve read your text again lol, but my nightly work is over here and I need to get home and to bed now .
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 05:54 AM |
|
|
Lews_Therin
First I never claimed to be a psychiatrist…that is an MD. I am psychotherapist.
Lad, My tendency to self-reflect is actually quite intensive…you don’t know me so don’t judge what you cannot even measure let alone know about someone else without being in their presence or mind. How would you even begin to know how much I reflect or not? Just because someone has a belief/opinion does not mean they have not reflected. Your narcissistic arrogance in such an accusation is readily apparent.
You earlier said and I quote “the pope who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Africans, by Aids. I suggest he’d be shot first.”
First what an incredibly inhuman and evil thought to begin with to suggest someone kill the pope. I can tell you are nothing but a hater. For the pope to be responsible for AIDS…well first he would have to create it…then he would have to intentionally infect others. Since neither of those statements are true..well you are as I said just a hater…and such unfounded hate is quite appalling.
Yes in your naive manner of thinking somehow humans have no choice but to screw any orifice they can find. The truth of the matter is that humans can transcend their passions…maybe you should examine that.
Do condoms help prevent AIDS…of course….but the only way to be free from AIDS (save children who are born with it) is 1. don’t use IV drugs 2. Remain monogamous 3. Make sure the blood supply is clean. The catholic churches stance on condoms I disagree with….but to blame them for AIDS is just insanity.
Your limited ability for logic in understanding war and terrorism is quite obvious so I won’t discuss that further. Your unfounded hatred for America is readily apparent…so again I find that you are but a hater…and there is no reasoning with a hater.
Yes our purpose is good and yes the terrorist are evil….and the point you are making is? Our purposes are not always good….that is of course a fact….but in rooting out a madman who is hell bent on destruction and has murdered over 1 million Muslims is of course an easy call for those with an ability to reason.
Learn from the lessons of history…think of all the people who looked the other way when Hitler was rising in power because they thought “at least its not against me”…and when people take no stand they are as evil as those who perpetrate evil. You are like people who sit around and watch a woman be raped and say…well its not my problem….or you know this rape really isnt’ that important whats really important is world hunger as you sit by and let evil be perpetrated upon the innocent.
Mad_Unicorn
I actually am quite well versed in ethics, morality, and religion. I know there are grey areas, just as readily as I know there are black and white areas. Only a fool would not know that both exist. I am sure you acknowledge this also, but just because someone has a strong conviction does not mean that they cannot entertain and consider various perspectives….that my friend is distorted logic.
Undead_Knight
You are right CNN did do that….I don’t like that they did that but that is their freedom of speech and press to do that. On the other hand that example would disprove an overall American censorship as our own press were the ones that reported that CNN did that.
Bort
Good to hear from you my friend. I was wondering when you would enter the debate.
Nice posts. Your statements about Iraq were well thought out…incorrect conclusions, but good
Regarding all the articles you found in responding to global warming…there are many more credible people who dispute “catastrophic” global warming then you seemed to have found. But I do appreciate the references you gave. In the end I believe and many others believe that it is a theory at this stage…no one knows what consequences will happen in the future of climate change. Much like the theory of evolution I don’t think catastrophic consequences will be proven one way or another.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 06:00 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 6 Sep 2002
|
Environment
Lets take a look at the supposed global warming crisis.
First off the earth is amazingly resilient.
Second we have only been measuring “global warming” since the 1950’s…we barely have a fraction of perspective given the totality of world existence.
Third take a look at volcanoes….they indeed prove the earth is not fragile. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cast forth more 1000 times the amount of ozone depleting chemicals than mankind has in its ENTIRE history. Its eruption led scientist to claim that 4-6% of the ozone could occur over the northern hemisphere. Now historically thousands of these volcanoes have erupted and guess what live still lives on the planet!
Fourth, scientists disagree with each other about catastrophic global warming.
Fifth, scientists are human and as such are prone to error and bias. Look at all the scientific facts we “prove” only to a few years later find they are not correct. One day coffee consumption and heart disease are linked….later they find no such link, etc., etc. Scientist like all of us are prone to the paradigms we live in….they are not unaffected objective observers as neither are you and I.
Sixth, the extremist environmentalist are prone to exaggeration and deceit. Remember when the gifted astrophysicist Carl Sagan predicted that when Saddam lit all the oil fields on fire it would take 5 years to put out all the fires and it would cause horrible environmental changes? Hmmm didn’t happen the way he said. The actor/activist Ted Danson claimed that “we only have 10 years to save this planet”….opps he said that in 1990…guess he was wrong. During the 1970’s first Earth day in America we heard “in ten years people in the city will need gas masks to breath”. They also went on to claim “In a decade Americans mighty rivers will have reached the boiling point”. Well I guess they were COMPLETELY WRONG. Guess what there big concern was at the first Earth Day here….global warming….nope….the opposite global cooling…lol...if that doesn’t say it all! University of California professor, Kenneth Watt in 1990 claimed that if present trends continued the global mean temperature will be about eleven degrees COLDER in 2000…opps guess he was wrong.
We have always and Chicken Littles…we have always had alarmist. Historically it was more from the religious community such as the 7th day Adventist selling all their possessions cause they knew Jesus was coming back on a certain day and the end of the world would come. Now we have extremist wackos such as Paul Ehrlich in 1968 who wrote The Population Bomb…barely anything he stated came to pass. At that time he predicted that in 10 years all sea life would be extinct….opps. It is always something with this crowd…overpopulation , dirty oceans, acid rain, destroying the rain forest, nuclear meltdown or war, global warming, etc., etc. etc. Despite all their rhetoric..we are still alive and pumping. The world has not come to an end. Look at what all the historic claims of these "false prophets" that did not come to pass. In American they decry that we are stripping away our forest despite the fact that we have never since the advent of the nation had as many trees as we have now….we have about 900 trees per every American in the US.
Seventh, Mankind does not have a huge impact on the environment especially given our technology in decreasing pollution and our technology to improve the environment. The earth naturally produces 96% of the so called green house gases.
Is there global warming of course….has there been periods of global cooling…of course. And guess what…both of these phenomenon’s were most likely around before the advent of modern man. I know environmental wackos would love to pin everything on evil man…but sorry.
Eighth, we could never completely destroy the ozone layer unless we destroyed the sun…why???....because the ozone is created by the sun.
There are four basic reasons and groups of environmentalists in my opinion:
Money and power are two of the main reasons that people perpetuate the hoax of catastrophic global warming. Liberals are into it for a power base. People turn to extremist environmental thinking to take the place of their big government and socialist leanings. What better way to increase spending, control people lives, seize their land….yes the politicians love that one. Some scientist have every reason to look towards the big buck…not all of course. NASA’s funding is down for space exploration…no huge interest in like in the past …well they find another thing they need millions of dollars to study. A government commission spent 500 million dollars and ten years studying acid rain and they concluded the problem was minor and correctable. That is a lot of money scientist are asking for…to solve problems we most likely don’t have.
Another group is the environmental religious fanatics. There god is the environment. Satan is mankind. Sin is anything humans do to progress. The ultimate sin is anything that has to do with capitalism. Salvation lies in putting “nature” (ironically they forget that people are part of nature) before mankind’s’ needs and progress. Their prophets are power hungry politicians, militent activists, and junk scientists. Their holy day is Earth day.
The last group of environmentally concerned people are people who do have integrity but are misguided and caught up in the latest “scientific” fad. If you have any doubt that there are scientific fads I would encourage you to study paradigms and how they shape our focus and experience of the world.
And lastly....am I the only politically conservative person who plays heroes???.....geez me against the world at this message board
|
|
andiangelsla...
Disgraceful
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 08:44 AM |
|
|
all i have to say is: what gives the US the right to act as a world police always?
attacking iraq? you guys must be kidding, you dont even know what this means, this can lead to terrible actions that follow, from a enormous terrorist activity to even a real war if everything goes wrong...remember this is all about weapons, money and oil, and that was always the reason for war.
you tossers think you ever saw a real war, you think that iraq attack 10 years ago was war? lol, no it was the US overruning a weaker country once again, you would be surprised what "war" really is once it comes to the US...
its laughable how the US cries about the 11.september, yes its a terrible act, but if it would have happened elsewhere than the US if would be no big deal...but it hit THE leading nation, and than they cry for war and wanna kill everyone that could be involved into this...
the US needs to wake up, you can never defeat terrorism, thats why its terrorism...it acts hidden how could you ever defeat that?
so to sum it up, yes i agree with the peeps that say the only real reason to attack the iraq would be to proove bushs strenght and money.
The US will pay for their actions sooner or later, and it will be much worse than the 11. september, if they go on acting like this...and no i dont wanna see that happen or would like it, thats just my oppinion.
about the global warming issue: the US does snow for the environment, all they care about is to be number 1, they have the biggest pollution of all countries by far.
as lews therin says, they should start worrying more about their internal problems than acting as the world police all the time.
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 01:49 PM |
|
|
Sadly, Andi is correct
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 03:59 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 6 Sep 2002
|
Okay, I'm going to make everybody mad by disagreeing with just about everybody.
Dargon -
The point you're missing is that most of the doomsayers you were talking about were saying "if nothing is done about it." Environmental groups have managed to get a number of changes made, such as emission standards and pollution clean up (think Lake Erie) and plant new trees when you log and things like that. (remember, even most of the "voluntary" industry changes wouldn't have happened without some pressure) Since some small things have been changed, the problem has been pushed back but not eliminated. Your argument is roughly the equivalent of somebody getting a vaccination, then complaining that they didn't need it because they never got the disease they were vaccinated against. Also, please don't quote Ted Danson unless you want me digging up Limbaugh quotes or something like that.
You are right that the earth has always been producing greenhouse gases and such, but the earth has also PREVIOUSLY been able to deal with it. For instance, CO2 emissions are fixed by photosynthesizing organisms - plants, photosynthetic bacteria. So what was happening for most of the Earth's history was a fragile equilibrium. What's happening now? Well, we are increasing CO2 emissions and that's a problem. However, the other side of that problem is that we are reducing the Earth's capacity to fix the CO2 - chopping down forest to put up suburban homes, dumping crap in the ocean and killing the phytoplankton and so on and so forth. What does that mean? An excess of greenhouse gasses which means that they build up which leads to the greenhouse effect.
The thing is, even without the greenhouse effect, the environment is still a major issue. Why are cases of asthma going up in kids? What about cancer? We need to get people to quit smoking since their inhaling all the smoke they ever need without ever lighting up! What happens when arsenic leeches into the groundwater? Or any chemical for that matter. We're not supposed to eat most of the bigger fish anymore because of all the mercury that's built up in their blood.
You want an economic argument? How much do public health issues directly or indirectly related to pollution cost? If you let a factory or chicken farm dump their waste into the ocean to save money, how much does it cost the fishermen whose fish you just killed?
The environmental argument goes far beyond just global warming.
Now, the other side of the coin is the "it's all the US's fault" argument that Andi so delightfully presented. The US needs to do more, but before you act all high and mighty, ask yourself which country is responsible for more carbon fixation, through a combination of protected forests and massive crop production? I'll give you a hint, it's not Germany. I do feel that countries should get credit for carbon fixation, less for the US benefit than for the benefit of countries like Brazil and Congo. If you're going to convince people to stop cutting down the rainforest, you've got to give them an incentive.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
