QUOTE
The one constitutional role of the federal government is to defend this country.
We had been in Iraq since freeing Kuwait since 1991 trying to protect sects in Iraq that were being murdered by their own leader. Saddam Hussein continued to defy the cease fire agreement giving UN weapons inspectors access to suspected areas.
The country was protected.
The sad part is not how much the cost was in terms of money but the lives of those taken as a result
Uh, you can't force freedom on people that don't want it. The Iraqis you think you know you're talking about, are what most people commonly know as or refer to being Kurdish people. If you are talking about the thousands I think you mean. I was in Erbil, or Irbil Iraq ... depending on what sign you're looking at. I was a biological integrated detection systems specialist for the Army.
I got to take a tour of the city, to include the old interior of. I was escorted by a man that was a Kurdish English professor that chance, fate, or ... something like that happened to throw in my path that day. It was one of the more profound experiences of my life. "Those" people want the type of freedom we would offer, but we can't go changing international maps just because we see fit. The situation is unfortunate, and things won't change till all of "those other" people want them to.
True freedom is not ever taken nor given, it is discovered. The whole of Iraq wanted to be free of Saddam, not because they (some did yes, but not nearly enough) wanted our version of freedom, but because they were tired of his. We have essentially shaken up an old bag emotion in that region with yet another crusade, and again the pretense seems to be noble, but the bottom line is what is in our best interest, or chance to gain or make profit. They posed no real threat to us what-so-ever. If we are just the evil west, lets just be evil and stay in the west and let the middle east deal with the middle east, this doesn't mean the sacrificing of allies nor the witch hunting of enemies.
It always has been a rather precarious situation, but it doesn't have to be that way ... does it? You want to see how college kids handle responsibility and stressful situations? Look up college drinking statistics, now take those "same" kids ... and give them, planes, tanks, bombs, guns, and the fear of being killed.
That is how you make a bad situation worse. We can easily see the physical cost of the war in the present, but the real cost will be with us for many years to come down the mental road. It is not worth what it is costing us. It is a bad investment with no return value in terms of prospering humanity at the cost of humanity. Just like innocent civilians get bombed over there, innocents are effected here when they get the news of death of, or a loved one returns not quite the same person they were when they left. Luckily for me, the experience I "sufffered" changed me, for the the better.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The one constitutional role of the federal government is to defend this country.
We had been in Iraq since freeing Kuwait since 1991 trying to protect sects in Iraq that were being murdered by their own leader. Saddam Hussein continued to defy the cease fire agreement giving UN weapons inspectors access to suspected areas.
The country was protected.
The sad part is not how much the cost was in terms of money but the lives of those taken as a result |
Uh, you can't force freedom on people that don't want it. The Iraqis you think you know you're talking about, are what most people commonly know as or refer to being Kurdish people. If you are talking about the thousands I think you mean. I was in Erbil, or Irbil Iraq ... depending on what sign you're looking at. I was a biological integrated detection systems specialist for the Army.
I got to take a tour of the city, to include the old interior of. I was escorted by a man that was a Kurdish English professor that chance, fate, or ... something like that happened to throw in my path that day. It was one of the more profound experiences of my life. "Those" people want the type of freedom we would offer, but we can't go changing international maps just because we see fit. The situation is unfortunate, and things won't change till all of "those other" people want them to.
True freedom is not ever taken nor given, it is discovered. The whole of Iraq wanted to be free of Saddam, not because they (some did yes, but not nearly enough) wanted our version of freedom, but because they were tired of his. We have essentially shaken up an old bag emotion in that region with yet another crusade, and again the pretense seems to be noble, but the bottom line is what is in our best interest, or chance to gain or make profit. They posed no real threat to us what-so-ever. If we are just the evil west, lets just be evil and stay in the west and let the middle east deal with the middle east, this doesn't mean the sacrificing of allies nor the witch hunting of enemies.
It always has been a rather precarious situation, but it doesn't have to be that way ... does it? You want to see how college kids handle responsibility and stressful situations? Look up college drinking statistics, now take those "same" kids ... and give them, planes, tanks, bombs, guns, and the fear of being killed.
That is how you make a bad situation worse. We can easily see the physical cost of the war in the present, but the real cost will be with us for many years to come down the mental road. It is not worth what it is costing us. It is a bad investment with no return value in terms of prospering humanity at the cost of humanity. Just like innocent civilians get bombed over there, innocents are effected here when they get the news of death of, or a loved one returns not quite the same person they were when they left. Luckily for me, the experience I "sufffered" changed me, for the the better.
"Death is not the worst that can happen to men."
Plato
"Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death."
Anais Nin
pnelson419
8th June 2009 - 06:27 AM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 8 2009, 12:48 AM)
The Iraqis you think you know you're talking about, are what most people commonly know as or refer to being Kurdish people.
By sects I was referring to Kurds and Shiites.
I just wasn't sure you knew the history behind the war.
Thanks for your service.
Goodnight.
skepticgriggsy
18th July 2009 - 02:25 AM
[B] Meem, climate change deniers aren't skeptics as they do not proceed from real knowledge but from pieces and distortions of knowledge. They should educate themselves by Googling Real Climate to get email that would educate them.They are like creationists- faith-based quacks.
I, a liberal ,have more trust in regulated capitalism to overcome bad climate change and thereby making more and better jobs than do libertarians, those reactionaries!
Let Boone Pickens make billions off his climate project!
Moderator, thanks for that correction.
And, moderator, please get someone to put all my posts and threads under skeptic griggsy rather than separately under skeptic griggsy, skepticgriggsy and griggs1947 [ At least, under one nickname, whichever.]. I have altogether more than 200 post, not just the ones numbered under this nickname. I had to use more than the first one- griggs1947- in order to post again. Thank you.
nopEda
20th July 2009 - 02:22 PM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 7 2009, 06:54 PM)
Global warming is the illusion.
The supposed "illusion" is caused by increasing temperatures and diminishing ice caps. So maybe recognition of what is happening isn't also an illusion, but instead the illusion is held by different people...those who deny what is happening. Out of curiosity though, if not warming temperatures what do you think is causing the ice to diminish? Do you think maybe it's getting too cold for it so it's beginning to migrate, or what?
pnelson419
20th July 2009 - 10:51 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 20 2009, 10:22 AM)
The supposed "illusion" is caused by increasing temperatures and diminishing ice caps. So maybe recognition of what is happening isn't also an illusion, but instead the illusion is held by different people...those who deny what is happening. Out of curiosity though, if not warming temperatures what do you think is causing the ice to diminish? Do you think maybe it's getting too cold for it so it's beginning to migrate, or what?
nopEda
20th July 2009 - 11:49 PM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 20 2009, 10:51 PM)
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821QUOTE (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821+)
NASA satellites found that last winter's Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years' average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007.
Oh, so the documentaries about it and all the scientists who agree with it and show us video of where ice should be but is no longer are lying? There really are not polar bears and other wildlife dying as a result, but instead they are thriving better than they have been due to more ice and lower temperatures? It's amazing that so many scientists and institutions are getting away with deliberately lying about what's going on, while a few other sources are exposing their lies. Every country and every scientific organization I've seen comment on it has been lying, and only a rare few people are coming forward with the truth about the lies of everybody else? Hard to believe really. It seems more likely that the scientists are correct, and the "rare few people" are the ones who are lying. Maybe not, but that certainly seems most likely so far.
pnelson419
21st July 2009 - 12:12 AM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 20 2009, 07:49 PM)
QUOTE (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821+)
NASA satellites found that last winter's Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years' average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007.
Oh, so the documentaries about it and all the scientists who agree with it and show us video of where ice should be but is no longer are lying? There really are not polar bears and other wildlife dying as a result, but instead they are thriving better than they have been due to more ice and lower temperatures? It's amazing that so many scientists and institutions are getting away with deliberately lying about what's going on, while a few other sources are exposing their lies. Every country and every scientific organization I've seen comment on it has been lying, and only a rare few people are coming forward with the truth about the lies of everybody else? Hard to believe really. It seems more likely that the scientists are correct, and the "rare few people" are the ones who are lying. Maybe not, but that certainly seems most likely so far.
I am going to predict the future.
The planet is getting cooler and there is nothing we can do about it.
nopEda
21st July 2009 - 03:46 PM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 21 2009, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Every country and every scientific organization I've seen comment on it has been lying, and only a rare few people are coming forward with the truth about the lies of everybody else? Hard to believe really. It seems more likely that the scientists are correct, and the "rare few people" are the ones who are lying. Maybe not, but that certainly seems most likely so far.
I am going to predict the future.
The planet is getting cooler and there is nothing we can do about it.
May be. Maybe not. So far most people who appear interested in it seem to believe you're wrong. The only thing that's certain is that one side is lying since they can't both be right. The poles can't be getting both larger and smaller for example, so who's lying and why?
buttershug
21st July 2009 - 04:39 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 21 2009, 03:46 PM)
I am going to predict the future.
The planet is getting cooler and there is nothing we can do about it.[/QUOTE]
May be. Maybe not. So far most people who appear interested in it seem to believe you're wrong. The only thing that's certain is that one side is lying since they can't both be right. The poles can't be getting both larger and smaller for example, so who's lying and why?
You really love bad logic don't you?
Yet another false dichotomy.
How can you possibly not consider that one side is mistaken?
But you change. "accurate,mistaken, or lying" into "truth or lying"
nopEda
21st July 2009 - 10:21 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 21 2009, 04:39 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The only thing that's certain is that one side is lying since they can't both be right. The poles can't be getting both larger and smaller for example, so who's lying and why?
You really love bad logic don't you?
Yet another false dichotomy.
How can you possibly not consider that one side is mistaken?
I do tend to overestimate(?) people in that area. I tend to believe people usually really do know when they're lying, especially about something as blatant as this. Are the ice caps getting larger or smaller? They can't be doing both at the same time, and anyone who is going to make a solid claim about it should certainly take the time to find out. So we have two groups of people who certainly should have taken the time to find out whether they are getting larger or smaller, and one group claims the former while the other claims the latter.
Since BOTH groups SHOULD know the truth, and they say conflicting things, it seems by far most likely that one group is deliberately lying. That much has been established from my pov, so what we're left with is a question we're always left with when being lied to: WHY??? This time so far we're also left with: WHO? In fact it may be easier to learn who than it is to learn why
if we can ever learn either.
buttershug
21st July 2009 - 11:15 PM
If you can learn, you would be wise to ignore any arguements with the word "should" in them.
It's possible for each side to be biased but not lying.
pnelson419
21st July 2009 - 11:34 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 21 2009, 06:21 PM)
Are the ice caps getting larger or smaller?
buttershug
22nd July 2009 - 01:35 AM
try August for the Actic.
In the late 70's I read that global warming meant colder winters.
pnelson419
22nd July 2009 - 01:45 AM
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 21 2009, 09:35 PM)
try August for the Actic.
In the late 70's I read that global warming meant colder winters.
Since there is not yet any data for August 2009 how about June 2009?
buttershug
22nd July 2009 - 01:59 AM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 22 2009, 01:45 AM)
Since there is not yet any data for August 2009 how about June 2009?
August 2008 was interesting.
pnelson419
22nd July 2009 - 02:12 AM
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 21 2009, 09:59 PM)
August 2008 was interesting.
Did you compare it to August 07?
I think it will be interesting to see July and August 09 compared to 08.
rpenner
22nd July 2009 - 03:52 AM
The plural of anecdote is not data. You have to establish a methodology and establish a baseline over at least 25 years to make inferences about climate change. Comparing isolated data points is just talking about the weather.
From
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007):
Chapter 4 covers sea ice (8+ MB).
QUOTE (Section 4.8+p. 374)
Observations show a consistent picture of surface warming and reduction in all components of the cryosphere (FAQ 4.1, Figure 1),¹ except antarctic sea ice, which exhibits a small positive but insignificant trend since 1978 (Figure 4.23).
¹
Surface air temperature data are updated from Jones and Moberg, 2003; sea ice data are updated from Comiso, 2003; frozen ground data are from Zhang et al., 2003; snow cover data are updated from Brown et al., 2000; glacier mass balance data are from Ohmura, 2004; Cogley, 2005; and Dyurgerov and Meier, 2005. QUOTE (FAQ 4.1+p. 376)
Since 1978, satellite data have provided continuous coverage of sea ice extent in both polar regions. For the Arctic, average annual sea ice extent has decreased by 2.7 ± 0.6% per decade, while summer sea ice extent has decreased by 7.4 ± 2.4% per decade. The antarctic sea ice extent exhibits no significant trend.
nopEda
22nd July 2009 - 07:22 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 21 2009, 11:15 PM)
It's possible for each side to be biased but not lying.
Sometimes. You may be right about some of them this time. Doing a Google image search for global temperature chart is a quick way to see how much difference there is in different charts. Some show that temperatures are getting higher, and some that they are getting lower. It still seems some of those people must know and are lying, since it can't all be true.
flyingbuttressman
22nd July 2009 - 07:25 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 22 2009, 02:22 PM)
Sometimes. You may be right about some of them this time. Doing a Google image search for global temperature chart is a quick way to see how much difference there is in different charts. Some show that temperatures are getting higher, and some that they are getting lower. It still seems some of those people must know and are lying, since it can't all be true.
It's the global average temperature that is rising.
buttershug
22nd July 2009 - 08:33 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 22 2009, 07:22 PM)
Sometimes. You may be right about some of them this time. Doing a Google image search for global temperature chart is a quick way to see how much difference there is in different charts. Some show that temperatures are getting higher, and some that they are getting lower. It still seems some of those people must know and are lying, since it can't all be true.
A lot of nonsense "seems" to be true to you.
Einstein said "there are two things that are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I"m not sure about the Universe." Or something like that.
Don't think people are lying when they could simply be stupid.
We don't accuse you of lying.
nopEda
23rd July 2009 - 03:05 AM
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 22 2009, 08:33 PM)
A lot of nonsense "seems" to be true to you.
Einstein said "there are two things that are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I"m not sure about the Universe." Or something like that.
Don't think people are lying when they could simply be stupid.
We don't accuse you of lying.
Even though I haven't lied about anything it is surprising that I haven't been accused of it more often by this group, now that you mention it. Someone is lying about global warming though, but as yet we don't know who it is.
pnelson419
23rd July 2009 - 09:16 AM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 22 2009, 3:22 PM)
Sometimes. You may be right about some of them this time. Doing a Google image search for global temperature chart is a quick way to see how much difference there is in different charts. Some show that temperatures are getting higher, and some that they are getting lower.
U.S. Records
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Records Look-Up
pnelson419
23rd July 2009 - 02:38 PM
nopEda
26th July 2009 - 10:37 PM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 23 2009, 02:38 PM)
U.S. Climate at a Glance
Really the thing to do would be get a good feel for how the cycle WAS going 60 or 100 years ago or whatever, and then see if it seemed to change when humans started dumping sh*t into the atmospere. It could be that we were already in a warming cycle and humans are making it worse... And then if you could get familiar with that you would need to find out how much influence greenhouse gasses actually have, and how much sun spots have, etc. And there's always someone to say one thing is the main thing. I saw an older documentary that said in Africa termites produce more Co2 (or whatever) than all the large grazing animals in the grass lands. It's too much trouble to try to figure out who's full of shitter than the other guy...
buttershug
27th July 2009 - 12:15 AM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 23 2009, 03:05 AM)
Even though I haven't lied about anything it is surprising that I haven't been accused of it more often by this group, now that you mention it. Someone is lying about global warming though, but as yet we don't know who it is.
you didn't pick up on the insult did you?
I said
QUOTE
Don't think people are lying when they could simply be stupid
.
Then I said we don't think you are lieing.
Ok slowly now, you could be a)stupid or
lieing.
No one here thinks the answer is
, that leaves...
you also didn't notice I used your technique of creating a false dichotomy and eliminating one side.
pnelson419
27th July 2009 - 01:21 AM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 26 2009, 06:37 PM)
Really the thing to do would be get a good feel for how the cycle WAS going 60 or 100 years ago or whatever, and then see if it seemed to change when humans started dumping sh*t into the atmospere. It could be that we were already in a warming cycle and humans are making it worse... And then if you could get familiar with that you would need to find out how much influence greenhouse gasses actually have, and how much sun spots have, etc. And there's always someone to say one thing is the main thing. I saw an older documentary that said in Africa termites produce more Co2 (or whatever) than all the large grazing animals in the grass lands. It's too much trouble to try to figure out who's full of shitter than the other guy...
There are qualified scientists on both sides of the debate honestly trying to determine what effects the climate and what if anything can be done about.
The real question is where it is heading.
http://climateresources.org/prediction.htm
nopEda
27th July 2009 - 04:12 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 27 2009, 12:15 AM)
you could be a)stupid or
lieing.
No one here thinks the answer is
, that leaves...
I don't believe you people are literally lying when you insist God could be a technologically inferior native of this planet even though I'm convinced you're wrong, since it appears you are actually stupid enough to think that could be the case even though none of you can explain how you think it possibly could be.
nopEda
27th July 2009 - 04:17 PM
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 27 2009, 01:21 AM)
There are qualified scientists on both sides of the debate honestly trying to determine what effects the climate and what if anything can be done about.
The real question is where it is heading.
http://climateresources.org/prediction.htm
Also why. Also how much influence cutting back on emmisions has had. In fact that would be one of the main things to learn...if it's having an influence then we learn that and if not then we learn that instead... And if it is having no difference, then what else are we able to do? If sun spots are the major influence then there probably isn't much we can do about that.
buttershug
27th July 2009 - 05:25 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 27 2009, 04:12 PM)
I don't believe you people are literally lying when you insist God could be a technologically inferior native of this planet even though I'm convinced you're wrong, since it appears you are actually stupid enough to think that could be the case even though none of you can explain how you think it possibly could be.
We say you are operating under a false dichotomy.
Also using definitions you have been told are in valid.
pnelson419
28th July 2009 - 12:17 AM
QUOTE (nopEda+Jul 27 2009, 12:17 PM)
Also why. Also how much influence cutting back on emmisions has had. In fact that would be one of the main things to learn...if it's having an influence then we learn that and if not then we learn that instead... And if it is having no difference, then what else are we able to do? If sun spots are the major influence then there probably isn't much we can do about that.
I have a suggestion.
Watch the global temperature index for the next few years. If it goes down following a natural cyclical pattern then it would seem man has little influence on the climate. If it goes up then maybe man is having a greater impact.
Even then it would still be hard to tell how much influence we have on the Earth's climate.
skepticgriggsy
9th August 2009 - 12:18 PM
Climate scientists take into consideration the sun's cycle and the episodic nature of Earth's cycles. So, their conclusions are conclusive. There are very few competent scientists who can challenge them The pseudo-scientists reflect the interests of the oil industry and the libertarians[ reactionaries].
True skeptics do not decide a priori [beforehand] to find claims true or not, so it is egregious to call climate change deniers skeptics!
Climate change affords a grand opportunity for entrepreneurs to aid in getting under control the noxious parts of climate change and thereby increase better jobs. American ingenuity can overcome these problems. We who hold to regulated free enterprise shout that from the industrial plant tops.
By the way, regulations requires itself in order for the market to be competitive and to guarantee health and safety and consumer protections. Without them, we would indeed be on the road to serfdom!
Google Real Climate to ponder honest comment on climate change.
When I click a smile, it only goes to the last sentence.
angry should have gone after skeptics
buttershug
9th August 2009 - 12:49 PM
The real cause of climate change
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009...er-prayer_N.htmThose guys were praying too hard. But don't worry they are going to change the prayer.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
So true.