Page 55 of 111 FirstFirst ... 545505152535455565758596065105 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,100 of 2209
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1081  
    ^ Little Dickie Cheney? ... That you?
  2. #1082  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ^ Little Dickie Cheney? ... That you?
    Someone here is certainly deluded...
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1083  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    He DID say that there were WMD unaccounted for in 1998.
    5% unaccounted for which had a shelf-life of 5 years, reducing them to 'useless, harmless goo'. His summation was there were no viable WMD's in Iraq to cause justification for war going into 2003, since that was this Administration's first among many subsequent manipulative marketing plans.

    The last veil has been lifted. We now know better. Some of us are moving forward. Join us!

    I guess you never really have to admit that you made an absurdly false claim.
    I'll let you know when I make an absurdly false claim.

    The US did the deeds. We know the truth. The exploitive myths have been exposed. Time to pay the piper!
  4. #1084  
    1. There are several Iraq threads open for discussing WMD and the war in Iraq.
    2. Please use PM for private ping-pong rants
    3. No, I'm not a mod, but still...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #1085  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    5% unaccounted for which had a shelf-life of 5 years, reducing them to 'useless, harmless goo'. His summation was there were no viable WMD's in Iraq to cause justification for war going into 2003, since that was this Administration's first among many subsequent manipulative marketing plans.
    First, it was 5% to 10% of the WMD unaccounted for.
    Second, that goo quote applied to sarin and tabun, two chemical weapons, not to VX.
    And third, my point wasn't that this unaccounted for WMD was still around (even though he admitted VX could have been). My point was that you were wrong in claiming that he said there were no WMD in 2002. He did not say that. He couldn't because there was no way for him to know what happened between 1998 and 2002. He didn't even claim that there were no WMD in 1998. He said that there were 5% to 10% of the WMD still unaccounted for in 1998.


    The last veil has been lifted. We now know better. Some of us are moving forward. Join us!
    Nope. You said that Ritter claimed there were no WMD in 2002, and you still won't admit you're wrong.


    0 for 3.
  6. #1086  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    2. Please use PM for private ping-pong rants
    Please don't.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1087  
    ^ Wake up, Dorothy.
  8. #1088  
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/15/war....ap/index.html

    Ex-generals: Global warming threatens U.S. security

    POSTED: 10:27 a.m. EDT, April 15, 2007

    Story Highlights
    • Report predicts wars over water, hunger, displacement in the next 30-40 years
    • "Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," one author says
    • Gen. Zinni: We can pay with money now or with lives later to address problems


    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.

    The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts.

    "Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. "Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are."

    Gen. Anthony "Tony" Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy, says in the report: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."

    The report was issued by the Alexandria, Virginia-based, national security think-tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. They warn of a future of rampant disease, water shortages and flooding that will make already dicey areas -- such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa -- even worse.

    "Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the report says. "The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations."

    Joining calls already made by scientists and environmental activists, the retired U.S. military leaders call on the U.S. government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming.

    The Bush administration has declined mandatory emission cuts in favor of voluntary methods. Other nations have committed to required reductions that kick in within a few years.

    "We will pay for this one way or another," writes Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

    Top climate scientists said the report makes sense and increased national security risk is a legitimate global warming side-effect.

    The report is "pretty impressive," but may be too alarmist because it may take longer than 30 years for some of these things to happen, said Stanford scientist Terry Root, a co-author of this month's international scientific report on the effects of global warming on life on Earth.

    But the instability will happen sometime, Root agreed.

    "We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."

    University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver said the military officers were smart to highlight the issue of refugees who flee unstable areas because of global warming.

    "There will be tens of millions of people migrating, where are we going to put them?" Weaver said.

    Weaver said that over the past years, scientists, who by nature are cautious, have been attacked by conservative activists when warning about climate change. This shows that it's not a liberal-conservative issue, Weaver said.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #1089  
    I wonder how liberals will respond to this claim from General Zinni:
    "It's not hard to make the connection between... climate change and terrorism."
  10. #1090  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I wonder how liberals will respond to this claim from General Zinni:
    "It's not hard to make the connection between... climate change and terrorism."

    Here is the gist of the article from my vantage point:

    "Joining calls already made by scientists and environmental activists, the retired U.S. military leaders call on the U.S. government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming.

    The Bush administration has declined mandatory emission cuts in favor of voluntary methods. Other nations have committed to required reductions that kick in within a few years.

    "We will pay for this one way or another," writes Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."


    The truth of the matter is that we'll be fighting terrorism any way you cut it - it is yet another change in the evolution of modern warfare. If we do the right thing and lead the way to reducing our dependence on middle east oil we'll cause instability because the Saudi's won't love us anymore and their already-poor-people will become even more unstable. That said, I believe Zinni is correct - as the planet heats up and bad things start to happen it seems logical that terrorism will rise too.

    So my question is - what is the Bush strategy here? Is it to remain beholdent to foreign oil and those governments that sell it to us to quell terrorism?

    Is that the raw meat you're looking for?
  11. #1091  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    ........The truth of the matter is that we'll be fighting terrorism any way you cut it - it is yet another change in the evolution of modern warfare. If we do the right thing and lead the way to reducing our dependence on middle east oil we'll cause instability because the Saudi's won't love us anymore and their already-poor-people will become even more unstable. That said, I believe Zinni is correct - as the planet heats up and bad things start to happen it seems logical that terrorism will rise too..........
    Zinni has a point. The report suggests that climate change will be accompanied by massive migration from the equatorial regions to the more moderate ones. This will cause further instability.

    We are already experiencing, and reacting negatively to, migration from Mexico north. Global warming can only exacerbate that. Vigilantes are already resisting this migration. Are we ready for another war with Mexico?

    Who else will be ready for war to stem mass migrations into their space?

    War is only one way that we will pay for global warming. Time is not on our side.
    Last edited by whmurray; 04/16/2007 at 04:41 PM.
  12. #1092  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    The truth of the matter is that we'll be fighting terrorism any way you cut it - it is yet another change in the evolution of modern warfare. If we do the right thing and lead the way to reducing our dependence on middle east oil we'll cause instability because the Saudi's won't love us anymore and their already-poor-people will become even more unstable. That said, I believe Zinni is correct - as the planet heats up and bad things start to happen it seems logical that terrorism will rise too.
    I don't like this recent trend of interchanging "terrorism" with "war" and "violence." Terrorism, the kind that is a threat to us, is fueled by a belief system, not by general strife in the populace.

    So my question is - what is the Bush strategy here? Is it to remain beholdent to foreign oil and those governments that sell it to us to quell terrorism?
    Be careful when you rally behind the flag of oil independence because there are ways of reducing our dependence that don't help the climate change problem. Drilling in Alaska or in the Gulf would be in our national security interest, but many are opposed to them. There's also Shell's new shale extraction process which may allow us to get vast amounts of oil cheaply from domestic sources.
  13. #1093  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Zinni has a point. The report suggests that climate change will be accompanied by massive migration from the equatorial regions to the more moderate ones. This will cause further instability.

    We are already experiencing, reacting negatively, to migration from Mexico north. Global warming can only exacerbate that. Vigilantes are already resisting this migration. Are we ready for another war with Mexico?

    Who else will be ready for war to stem mass migrations into their space?

    War is only one way that we will pay for global warming. Time is not on our side.
    Why is war always the answer to everything? Why do you have such little faith that the world will be able to solve these problems diplomatically?
  14. #1094  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I don't like this recent trend of interchanging "terrorism" with "war" and "violence." Terrorism, the kind that is a threat to us, is fueled by a belief system, not by general strife in the populace.
    Surely you aren't suggesting there haven't wars in world history fueled by different belief systems now are you? That said, I get what you are driving at and agree that the rhetoric of calling our recent struggles with religious fundamentalist "the war on terror" isn't really accurate.

    Be careful when you rally behind the flag of oil independence because there are ways of reducing our dependence that don't help the climate change problem. Drilling in Alaska or in the Gulf would be in our national security interest, but many are opposed to them. There's also Shell's new shale extraction process which may allow us to get vast amounts of oil cheaply from domestic sources.
    Thanks, but I think I'll go ahead and keep rallying. If Brazil can do it so can we. Fossil fuels need to go and we need someone with the leadership and vision to push our country and the world forward. Sadly neither party seems to be offering a candidate that has convinced me they could be "the one".
  15. #1095  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Surely you aren't suggesting there haven't wars in world history fueled by different belief systems now are you? That said, I get what you are driving at and agree that the rhetoric of calling our recent struggles with religious fundamentalist "the war on terror" isn't really accurate.
    I'm not suggesting anything about wars in history.

    And when you send troops to kill and die, it's a war. I was talking about the habit of calling every enemy a terrorist.
  16. #1096  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Why is war always the answer to everything? Why do you have such little faith that the world will be able to solve these problems diplomatically?
    Did not intend to do so. However, history suggests that mass migrations are resisted, at least in part, by war.

    I am still waiting to here hopeful scenarios. This weekend I did hear an environmentalist from Australia with some hopeful proposals but even he was not hopeful that his proposals would be adopted or even effective if adopted.

    One proposal that I liked was to pay the equatorial countries for reforestation, not in advance but, for CO2 actually sequestered in trees. He suggested that the forests be metered, the payment be based on the meter, and the meter be available to the citizens on Internet.
  17. #1097  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Why is war always the answer to everything? Why do you have such little faith that the world will be able to solve these problems diplomatically?
    I do not suggest that it is an answer to anything. I do suggest that it will be one response to migration and that migration will be at least one response to climate change.
  18. #1098  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm not suggesting anything about wars in history.

    And when you send troops to kill and die, it's a war. I was talking about the habit of calling every enemy a terrorist.
    Still it is better to call terrorists terrorists than "Jihadists," which they take to be a compliment and a justification. "One man's terrorist is another's freedom-fighter, patriot, or martyr."

    I do not like "war on terror" because I think that it inflates the threat to equality with thermo-nuclear war. However terrible the acts of the terrorist, they simply lack the capacity to project power on a level with war.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1099  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I do not like "war on terror" because I think that it inflates the threat to equality with thermo-nuclear war. However terrible the acts of the terrorist, they simply lack the capacity to project power on a level with war.
    The war on terror is just another shortsighted marketing slogan akin to the war on drugs or the war on sex tourism. The real war against terror hasn't even begun and can only have any hope of being won when the US comprehends and takes appropriate responsibility for why it has its enemies.
  20. #1100  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Still it is better to call terrorists terrorists than "Jihadists," which they take to be a compliment and a justification. "One man's terrorist is another's freedom-fighter, patriot, or martyr."
    Terrorists target civilians. Bad guys who target our uniformed troops with IEDs aren't terrorists. They're just using guerilla tactics.

    I do not like "war on terror" because I think that it inflates the threat to equality with thermo-nuclear war. However terrible the acts of the terrorist, they simply lack the capacity to project power on a level with war.
    Until they get their hands on WMD.

    But the "war on terror" label describes our actions, not theirs. The military is playing a major role in this war, even outside Iraq.

Posting Permissions