I have an open mind JB:
I just don’t agree with any of the poster so far. As to changing my mind, I certainly did that twice after some careful thought. I did a complete volte face about gay marriage and I also did a complete mea culpa on admitting that we might not find wmds three weeks into the conflict and that it would be a big PR nightmare for us. Other than that…
OK, having finally picked myself up from the floor due to laughing so hard at the above statement.
This from a man that:
[quote=“fred smith”]I do not believe in global warming or that its causes can be traced to human activity and therefore do not support the Kyoto protocol. I find the Kyoto protocol too expensive for the measly results that it delivers. I trust in mankind to come up with new technology to deal with the problem faster and more efficiently if in fact it is a serious problem.
BUT all terrorists are bad and all of them have been Muslim so… [/quote]
Delusional at best on both counts. So the IRA partly funded by Americans were all Muslim, the Red Brigade were all Muslim, ETA are all muslim, wake up you sad sod and join the real world.
Whilst we are all entitled to our views, however idiotic and zealous they might be, i do not see why i should have to have them rammed down my throat by some buffoon who judging by the amount of time spent on here cant work, spoilt rich kid are we ?
[quote=“Traveller”]As usual, your assumptions are not necessarily correct. Who says I am European, and what makes you think I am an English teacher ? Your stereotyping is about as pathetic as your attempts to make everyone see the world through the great American light.
Suggest you go join your pal FS where you both belong. Communicating with people like you two makes me realise why i left in the first place.[/quote]
The constant “bloody” this and “bloody” that make you sound like Andy Capp. 
With language like that you’d be a lousy kiddie teacher. So tell me, how does it feel having to run and get coffee for the krauts?
Fair enough Traveller:
But I do have reasons for my views. I think I may have expressed two of them badly so some rephrasing.
There have been so many changes in what’s going on in the environment that I do not believe that anyone really knows what is going on with the environment and certainly cannot prove that it is madmade. Hence I recall with amusement that merely 15 years ago, we were moving into a new Ice Age and yes scientists were as sure about this as we were about wmds in Iraq. So sorry I am skeptical. And at least Saddam gave us proof that he had them by using them previously and I was quite frankly sick of his antics.
As to terrorism, let me rephrase that I mean now and I mean worldwide. There are examples of intranational terrorism certainly and I have already posted regarding about US involvement in supporting and financing IRA terrorism so get off my back on that one. Back to you.
The spoilt rich kid with too much time on his hands
P.S. Also, with regard to Kyoto my understanding is that it would cost the economy a lot and only stave off global warming by six years in the next 100. Also, is it not true that very few if any nations that signed on are actually MEETING their targets. Any further info on this would be most appreciated, but come on lighten up a bit. Neither blueface and I are that bad. If you get exasperated and upset, I am sure that you will actually be making blueface even happier. So it’s your choice. I really was trying to accomplish something with the objectives and that goal was to spell out some basic political stances so that we would not get ridiculous moral twisting to suit specific desires to criticize one or the other of the presidential candidates or among world leaders. I believe that this is happening now but it works both ways. If we commit our views, then it makes it easier for others to call us on inconsistent stances too, right? Get it RIGHT?
Blueface, trust a jackass like you to go around posting personal details just to try and prove a point.
So now you have your moment of crowning glory, if nothing else it should prove to your partner in crime, that i am not - as always aluded to - an english teacher.
As for running to get coffee for the krauts as you put it, then your selective memory forgets that it was a merger between a German company ( Daimler Benz) and an American one (Chrysler Corp.), at least on paper. Perhaps we should have just let it flounder and see Chrysler go bust eventually, would that serve you better, another load of americans out of work, no thought not.
But that of course would not suit your pro USA anti Europe bashing role would it !!!
I don’t think objective standards is the correct term. To me, it sounds like responive reading.
I see you got the memo.
Richard:
Kyoto will stave off global warming by six years in the next 100 at great economic cost and there is no proof that we can do anything about it anyway. Besides, should we just pull a France, sign on and then have no intention of actually trying to meet those goals? Just curious is honest but noncooperative worse than being hypocritical?
Sorry…but you first posted your details, not me. I was just refreshing your memory. I’m curious why you seem so …(how should I say it?) skittish? coy? about revealing your nationality…are you embarrassed your are a Brit? If so, why? And why are you so upset about Americans? Did some WWII American GI trade a candybar and a pair of stockings to someone in your family? Hmmmmm? Are you even now trying to trace your roots? Why don’t you try looking in those “boondocks” you’re always talking about? :upyours:
Fred
Glad to see some humour.
Surely as an American, the USA as the current economic powerhouse of the world and self appointed policeman, should be leading by example, not using the reluctance or antics of other nations, however disgraceful, as an excuse as to why not to do something.
The US is one of the leading producers of gases attributed to Global warming, the potential impact on human life were this allowed to continue unabated is likely to be the end of life as we currently know it, though not necessarily the end of human life. Surely any measure whatever the cost to try and reduce / stop this from happening is worth it ?
And to achieve those aims we should shut down the International Political Forum first? :s
[quote=“fred smith”]Richard:
Kyoto will stave off global warming by six years in the next 100 at great economic cost and there is no proof that we can do anything about it anyway. [/quote]
How can you argue that Kyoto will stave off for six years something you deny is in existence? Your profound illogic astounds me.
Sorry if I put that badly Richard:
I do not believe that global warming has been proven AND for those that want to do something about it (not necessarily me, understand?) the goals that they have outlined will come at great cost to their economies and stave off global warming by six years. That is what I meant.
To try and keep vaguely on-topic in this thread. looked at objectively, we have the twin concerns of reducing pollution and promoting economic growth. Everyone is entitled to try and eliminate poverty and to try and minimise pollution.
Is the US a big culprit or a model to follow, though? Of course the US is one of the biggest producers of these gases - because it is one of the most developed countries. Yet, it is also one of the most efficient - so its output per level of pollution is fairly high. You don’t want to force the production overseas to less efficient producers because that might raise pollution for a given level of output.
The world is going to become a dirtier place in the short term. Principally that will be because China and India will grow quickly. In the process, millions of people will be lifted out of poverty. What is the trade-off between growth and pollution? Best to let India and China decide what they can live with. Over time, pollution levels tend to come under control as countries get more efficient. It will take time before this happens globally, though. There is still Africa to drag out of poverty, yet.
I think, from my understanding of Kyoto, it failed to meet some of these issues. It had flaws. Whether Bush’s rejection was really because he wants a better treaty or he is simply hiding behind these concerns as an excuse… i don’t know. You decide.
[quote=“fred smith”]
I do not believe that global warming has been proven[/quote]
And the reason you do not believe it is because?
A. You have done the scientific research.
B. You disagree with mainstream science and think those “egg head” scientists don’t have a clue.
or
C. That’s what the memo said to say.
Blueface,
The fact that i posted my contact details on another thread where it was called for, should not mean that they are fair game to be inappropriately used whenever somebody feels like it.
I am a naturalised Brit, not born one, and no i am not embarrassed by my current nationality. Just because i dont wear my nationality on my sleeve, and ram it down everybody’s throat, does not mean i am embarrassed about it.
The only thing to be embarrassed about is the idiotic following of the US administration that our current government is taking, Blair may well as be given US citizenship, with any luck, his stewardship of the country like that of GWB will be shortlived as both face elections in the not to distant future.
The reasoning of how and why we went to war will come back to haunt both of them i feel, as well it should. It will be a sad day if either or both of them get re-elected.
But this is also getting off topic !!!
Richard:
Because that’s what the memo said. I have already explained that scientists were “sure” merely 15 years ago that we were entering a New Ice Age. It is possible. When there are hard facts that prove that we can do something about reducing global warming (if it is really a problem, might be good for Russia for example) and that its costs are reasonable, then fine. Until then, sign me not losing any sleep over the issue. Besides I hate penguins.
Traveller:
Well this why I wanted to get these issues out here. Richard is flabbergasted that I cannot see the dangers of global warming. I am flabbergasted that neither you nor he seems to realize the threat that Saddam posed so either we are all crazy or just you and Richard are! haha
Fred
I THINK that most people could see the potential danger that Saddam posed, what is being debated is the action taken to resolve that issue. WMD were the focal point of this, and as such their lack of existence so far is fairly damning. Either the Intelligence forces were incompetent or falsified evidence to get what was required. IF there was pressure from the Administration to provide evidence so that they could justify the resulting action then heads should roll, however high they might be.
The one real danger that has come out of the decision to invade is that a very dangerous precedent has been set. For many years a number of countries have behind the scenes being messing with the internal affairs of another nation, but this action was an open agression upon another nation. What would the US be able to say if China decided that it was time to resolve the Taiwan issue forcibly, leaving aside the TRA and SFPT for the moment.
As for its success, yes it removed Saddam, long term i do not think it will be shown to be a success, opnion back in the US will gradually move to pulling the troopps out, particularly if there are many more Fallujah type incidents. If this is done to soon as it was in Afghanistan, then there is a very real danger that Iraq will go back to its old tribal conflicts, and plunge the entire area into even more chaos, destabilising an already highly charged area of the world.
This action has only served to heighten anti american feelings in the area and will undoubtedly lead to more acts of terrorism against US property or personnel, a reaction that the american people have probably yet to really understand, just ask Israel for proof of what i mean.
You shouldn’t mind me Mr. Smith. I think I had too much coffee today.
But I have to say that the assertion that scientists were predicting an ice age 15 years ago is certainly not true, and just another propaganda ploy to prey on the ill-informed.
Oh I get it Traveller:
I just do not believe giving in is the answer. If it is a choice between democracy, human rights etc. and some religious fanatics who want to go back to the 7th century (or am I missing something here) then guess what, as far as I am concerned it’s war and I think that not only do we have something worth fighting for but many of their so called adherents might secretly want us to win.
Finally, I agree. If it can be proved that either administration falsified evidence then they are in trouble big time. I personally thought the case could have been made without wmds only but in all fairness the media ignored the other points to focus on that one and it led and was led by the whole process in the UN.
Hmmm Well Richard. I remember reading the National Geographic with the front page headline “The New Ice Age” back in say 1977 or 1978 and the “proof” was that islands in Canada “Baffin Island” being the main one were no covered with ice year around and this was not true 100 years ago. So no, it was not on the memo I got. Mine said “Kill all the Jews” and blame it on the Muslims.