Squeaky wheel gets grease - again

All this global warming nonsense is based on made up science and liberal superstition. Credible scientists paid by the people accused of ""polluting"" the environment have easily disproven all these liberal lies and that''s good enough for me.

Credible scientists paid by the people accused of ""polluting"" the environment have easily disproven all these liberal lies and that''s good enough for me.

Are you going to claim that scientists who support the model of human influenced climatic change aren''t being compensated?

Could environmentalists whackos afford to hire ""real"" scientists? No, turns out they hire some dude on the whacky weed and stick him in front of a podium saying that ""Business is killing us,"" ""Oil is evil,"" and ""Coal is murder."" Puh-leeze. The industries pay top dollar for their scientists, so they must be better and smarter than their commie liberal counterparts.

"belt500" wrote:

So, if Bush wanted to be consistant in his foriegn policy he''d be attacking NK. Instead he''s just sitting on a much worse situation.
All last spring we kept hearing NK is 5 months away from having a nuclear weapon...then all summer it was like a countdown. Now, we''ve all but conceded that they have them.

So, we go to war with Iraq because we think that they might be trying to get them but, allow an even crazier guy, who threatens everybody with them get his hands on some?

To be fair, there''s some added complications with North Korea. All that artillery within firing range of Seoul, to be more precise. The moment they catch wind of an attack, it''s going to be reduced to rubble.

The industries pay top dollar for their scientists,

As do universities.

hehe, reading about those crazy demands of Secret Service for Bush`s England visit, I finally understood that thanks to current US administration`s policy, ""world is a safer place"".

I mean - come on, Apache? planes? diplomatic immunity to trigger-happy snipers? Battle-field equipment for crowd control?

maybe its simplier to skip visit and install videoconferencing software?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Only to the delusional or those easily led by the nose.

Well, I hardly think it''s fair to say that such a large part of the world is delusional. easlily lead by the nose? Yeah, probably. That''s why I said, couldn''t we have made it seem less like that was what is happening?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Again, what solution are you offering? Sounds like you''re disappointed that we don''t invade more countries to me... Either that or you''re upset that the administration has a complicated foreign policy which uses the gamut of military, financial, and diplomatic tools to achieve its goals.

The case for invading Iraq was complex and didn''t hinge on WMD''s or Saddam being a bad guy - rather it was based on those things, combined with his support for terrorism and his stated emnity towards the US. And even all of that would not have been enough had he not had violated 12 years of UN resolutions. You are implying that the administration is inconsistent for not applying the ""bad guy"" standard to all bad guys. Well, that''s YOUR standard, not theirs.

OK, so it was for support of terrorism (Huge drug running out of North Korea, remember those lovely ads that told us smoking a joint was like giving money to terrorists?), ignoring of sanctions (which NK pretty much did with violating that treaty we had with them in ''94) hatred for the US, WMD and being a bad guy. Still all things that we could pin on North Korea. Except with the added caveat that they DO have Nuclear weapons. So, I''m really still looking to the administrations standard...not my own.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Also, what would you prefer? Thanks to George Bush there are now two less rogue, terrorist-sponsoring states. There are two fledgling democracies in a region that never had Muslims living in freedom. There are 50 million people in those countries whose children will be born into liberty and a hope for modernity and prosperity. And you are complaining that it happened.

Well, since it appears that attacking these two countries is fostering more hatred around the world against us, and spurning more of the children of the middle east to groups like al queda, yeah, I''m complaining.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

To be fair, there''s some added complications with North Korea. All that artillery within firing range of Seoul, to be more precise. The moment they catch wind of an attack, it''s going to be reduced to rubble.

I agree completely. But, since Saddam supposedly had guns loaded with chemical weapons waiting for us to attack, wasn''t this same deterrent waiting for us in the Iraq war?

Again, I''m not saying I''m mad that we didn''t go bomb NK. I''m just pointing out things, that at least to me, seem terribly inconsistant.

Plus I''m quite annoyed that the whole NK thing was allowed to go right ahead and get WMD when we''re bent on attacking Iraq to stop them from trying to.

"belt500" wrote:

I agree completely. But, since Saddam supposedly had guns loaded with chemical weapons waiting for us to attack, wasn''t this same deterrent waiting for us in the Iraq war?

Haha. I don''t think they''ve started believing their own lies quite yet, no.

belt500 wrote:
I agree completely. But, since Saddam supposedly had guns loaded with chemical weapons waiting for us to attack, wasn''t this same deterrent waiting for us in the Iraq war?

Haha. I don''t think they''ve started believing their own lies quite yet, no.

You guys got it again. The administration knew that there were no chemical weapons. That''s why they deployed chemical suits to forward troops, increasing the risk of heat stroke and lowering combat effectiveness. That''s why journalists have been embedded with combat unts, insuring that the people would know whether chemical weapons were used. Oh wait...

Do you really believe that the administration knew there were no WMD''s and then invaded, also then knowing that they would be proven liars? Do you really think that US politicians are willing to take that kind of chance, that the public just wouldn''t care that they were lied to? Ridiculous.

Also, it''s a little different in Iraq than N. Korea. We attack N. Korea and there will be artillery raining down on pre-targeted sites, killing mostly S. Koreans. In Iraq, our force was mobile and staged out of range from immediate counter attack, and the risk was to ourselves, not another nation.

Plus I''m quite annoyed that the whole NK thing was allowed to go right ahead and get WMD when we''re bent on attacking Iraq to stop them from trying to.

you should be - and please send all complaints attention: Bill Clinton, Harlem, NY. N. Korea began violating the deal they made with Clinton immediately after the ink was dry. So sorry if Bush has to negotiate with anuclearrogue state, but it isn''t really something to gripe about him for. And it is another reason to take out Iraq now - would you prefer we have waited to deal with Iraq after it got nukes? Literally every intelligence agency in the world stated that Iraq would succeed in getting nukes at some point, unless Saddam changed his ways. I guess that''s no big deal, as long as you can kick the can down the street a bit longer and not have to deal with hard choices.

OK, so it was for support of terrorism (Huge drug running out of North Korea, remember those lovely ads that told us smoking a joint was like giving money to terrorists?), ignoring of sanctions (which NK pretty much did with violating that treaty we had with them in ''94) hatred for the US, WMD and being a bad guy.

Nope. We invaded Iraq based on Saddam''s failure to live up to the terms of the cease fire of a war. Iraq was firing on US warplanes maintaining the no-fly zone almost daily, and had met none of the conditionsheagreed to. That''s it. The other factors helped us decide, but they wouldn''t have been enough being in a state of armed conflict with Iraq for 12 years. You can try to stretch logic (anti-drug commercials? please.) and apply imaginary standards to why we went to war and then complain that we don''t apply the same standard, buat again, they are your standards.

"ralcydan" wrote:

You guys got it again. The administration knew that there were no chemical weapons. That''s why they deployed chemical suits to forward troops, increasing the risk of heat stroke and lowering combat effectiveness. That''s why journalists have been embedded with combat unts, insuring that the people would know whether chemical weapons were used. Oh wait...

Do you really believe that the administration knew there were no WMD''s and then invaded, also then knowing that they would be proven liars? Do you really think that US politicians are willing to take that kind of chance, that the public just wouldn''t care that they were lied to? Ridiculous.

That''s not what I''m saying at all. Quite the opposite actually. I was pointing out that the Administration felt that Iraq was going to retaliate with WMD. Which is the same case as with North Korea. So, if it didn''t stop us from attacking Iraq, why should it with North Korea?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Also, it''s a little different in Iraq than N. Korea. We attack N. Korea and there will be artillery raining down on pre-targeted sites, killing mostly S. Koreans. In Iraq, our force was mobile and staged out of range from immediate counter attack, and the risk was to ourselves, not another nation.

Really? Kuwait was in no danger of being hit with a WMD armed scud? Oh, wait...

N. Korea began violating the deal they made with Clinton immediately after the ink was dry.

Yes, the US was hoodwinked. So we agree that NK was in violation of an arms agreement for quite a few years.

would you prefer we have waited to deal with Iraq after it got nukes?

Kinda like we did with North Korea? We knew last spring that they were close. But we failed to do something to stop it in the end.

You can try to stretch logic (anti-drug commercials? please.) and apply imaginary standards to why we went to war and then complain that we don''t apply the same standard, buat again, they are your standards.

The Anti-drug thing may have been a bad example. Let me use this one:
North Korea has been linked to Terrorist events in the past. North Korea has continued, over the years, to sell anything and everything (most notably scud and Taepo-Dong missles) it can because it needs the money. North Korea hates the US. North Korea is trying to get Nuclear missles. The administration itself has even said it was worried that NK would sell a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group.

Again on the anti-drug commercials. Would you agree that George Bush would agree with them? Agree that NK is a huge drug exporter?

Nope. We invaded Iraq based on Saddam''s failure to live up to the terms of the cease fire of a war. Iraq was firing on US warplanes maintaining the no-fly zone almost daily, and had met none of the conditionsheagreed to. That''s it. The other factors helped us decide, but they wouldn''t have been enough being in a state of armed conflict with Iraq for 12 years.

NK has been in violation of the Korean war cease fire terms by allowing it''s army to carry weapons into the demilitarized zone for years. They are in violations of a nuclear arms pact for over 8 years.

sigh...sorry, what was this post about to start with? I think I carried us a little off topic...

edit:spelling

"ralcydan" wrote:

Do you really believe that the administration knew there were no WMD''s and then invaded, also then knowing that they would be proven liars? Do you really think that US politicians are willing to take that kind of chance, that the public just wouldn''t care that they were lied to? Ridiculous.

I think they knew Iraq was about as serious an obstacle for the US army as a squid. Or possible a rather aggressive goat. Whether they believed there was wmds in Iraq or not I can''t say, but I''d bet on yes. Or at least *something* they could hold up and shout ""Hoho! A weapon''s programme! We told you he was a naughty lad!"" over. I do however believe they knew how exaggerated their claims were, and that the risk of any being deployed on the battlefield was very, very small.

Then again, I could be wrong. It''s happened before. They could be a bunch of paranoids. Or incompetents. Or disguised monkeys. Or...whatever. I''ve already written too much over what was supposed to be a Not Very Serious comment. It''s starting to cut in on my farmyard porn time.

I was wondering why this thread still had replies, it''s gone completely off topic

That said, hazmat suits are cheaper than evacuating cities. With North Korea we know and can prove they have WMDs, they have said as much. With Iraq no one was ever that certain. So instead of not fighting, we figure the risk is worth it, just throw some hazmat suits out there just in case. So yes, ral, they could be fairly sure there were no chemical weapons and then throw on hazmat suits just to be safe. It''s also cheap. Besides, was reducing combat effectiveness really that much of a concern? Iraq fought like a wet kitten.

I''m not sure where you came up with the Journalist analogy, they put journalists out there so they could get shots of Iraqi''s cheering us on. It was a propoganda thing, you''ve said as much yourself.

Yeah, what were we talking about again?

Iraq fought like a wet kitten

Have you ever actually fought a wet kitten? At least one that hasn''t been declawed? I tell ya, every cat has the spirit of a lion in them, waiting only to be awoken by the threat of running water.

Yes... I still bear scars...