|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 22, 2004 15:01:55 GMT -5
Interesting article on ideologies, Chris. Safire articulated the point well.
Unfortunately, I can pretty much agree with Jllm's items 2 and 3. As for item 1, Bush is certainly weak on the environment, but there are still many questions among scientists and experts regarding global warming; the press just presents all of the worst scenarios as fact, so much that the public (and industry) mostly just accepts it now. So, now we're letting another sattelite - dedicated to climate study - fall into the sea for lack of funding. I suppose we should just muse out the answers using Aristotlean Pure Thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 22, 2004 15:02:39 GMT -5
As for 9/11... 2 reports on British TV (one of C4 and one on C5) have, in the last hour, described the report as critical of both Clinton and Bush. Either British TV is suddenly fucking me around, or you're wrong. If British TV has really sunk that low, I'm pretty saddened. I need to see the whole text of the report, and the speeches made during its release/presentation then. I would encourage you to read the report and / or watch the presentation speeches unedited. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 22, 2004 15:05:51 GMT -5
Strat-o, since you agre with JLLM on 2 and 3, I'd be curious to hear your responses to the questions I raised, given that JLLM apparently can spout off opinions, but is not obligated to defend them like he expects the rest of us to do in a totally creative way that is not similair in thinking to anyone else who has ever spoken publicly.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 22, 2004 15:33:27 GMT -5
Note I said "pretty much."
What is the source of this claim? And since apparently there are published numbers on al Qaeda's membership that i"m not aware of, how is there overall membership when you add this huge number of recruits, but subtract those that we've killed or captured? Up or down overall?
I have actually seen or heard several reports on an increase in volounteerism for al Qaeda and like groups - I can't give you a source at the moment. I believe that despite attrition for whatever reasons, the numbers are up. (This is raw volounteerism and not trained or organized cells - I don't know about that.)
on Today at 2:05pm, JesusLooksLikeMe wrote:-We're no nearer a solution in Palestine. .
[Chrisfan] ... a conflict that has exsisted since before the US exsisted. And we're holding BUSH responbile for this?
I meant to address this - I agree with you here, Chris. They have been bound and determined to kill each other for thousands of years. It's always a see-saw. Melon's article touches on a similar phenomenon (from the Islamist side) too. However, all the attention placed on Iraq helps permit miscreants on both sides to operate. Kind of like the kids when Mom and Dad are away.
Oops - I gotta go for now!
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 22, 2004 15:58:26 GMT -5
Very nice, very valid viewpoint in that Safire article...he's always been one of my favorite columnists.
Nice to see that his depth of thought flushes out such an OBVIOUS out-of-his-depth observation like 'beh, how 'bout another jellybean, heh..'
THAT definitely made me LOL, 'Dude had zero idea there'...
Generally, if you haven't an idea what an article is about, it's best to just leave commentary(or in the case of Safire's piece...a total LACK of comment)to someone who actually understood a bit of what he was after there...
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 22, 2004 16:39:18 GMT -5
As for 9/11... 2 reports on British TV (one of C4 and one on C5) have, in the last hour, described the report as critical of both Clinton and Bush.
Jllm, what I'm hearing about the report is that, yes, it is critical of both administrations, but doesn't place blame on either. The goal of such a commission's assessment is to be critical, or it's not a valid assessment. If everything were hunky-dory it never could have happened in the first place. If I'm going to go after Bush, I'm going to go with Iraq (not that I like some of the other things he's done).
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 22, 2004 20:25:41 GMT -5
Christ, leave for a day and you bastards decide to go post crazy.  Anyway, just going to hit the high points as I remember them, admittedly being too lazy to go back and cherry pick comments from various posts. I apologize in advance for possibly scattershot comments. Chrisfan, that was an excellent article you posted by Safire. It conjured up exactly (with some minor diversions, [I'm most certainly pro-gun]) what goes on inside my own head. It was a refreshing read, and a breath of fresh air. JLLM, re: the 9/11 Commission report; Chrisfan and strat-0 are both right. The Commission criticized both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, but found neither was to blame. Early thoughts/comments here are that it is a very good report/accounting of what happened, and what needs to be done as a country to fix it, and is largely being accepted by politicians on both sides of the aisle. I live under no illusions as to the biased coverage you receive. As regards the ICC; I'm so very grateful President Bush has kept us out of this trap. American soldiers and citizens can face American justice. We are pretty good at it. History shows it, imo. The ICC is just one more sovereignty sucking brick in the wall. Frankly, I can't understand why any free western nation would submit to this, but European countries just don't hold their own sovereignty in as high regard as the United States I suppose. Regarding global warming; not going to rehash a lot of old ground here. JLLM, Drum didn't debunk anything. He simply posted opinions that concurred with his POV. I did the same at RS. Regarding your "special interest scientists", I suppose you were referring to my links at the time. If you'll also remember, I also said that they were some among many that I had found. And before you go throwing that label around, perhaps you'll look at the agenda behind the scientists that you support. Bottom line: you're a "sky is falling" liberal, with a typical doom and gloom philosophy. I prefer to wait for more information and more facts. So much of this "projecting what will happen" is based on junk science. Climate study has only been around for a couple of hundred years. The Earth has been here for billions, and we pretend to know climate trends. Go ahead and be that arrogant...I'll wait for the facts, thank you. If you haven't guessed by now, I'm not sure global warming is taking place, and there are many like me. I suppose there was more I wanted to comment on, either can't recall, or don't care right now as this is the most typing I've done in awhile. And JLLM, you have most definitely become more strident. That's your right of course, but it is a change. |
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 22, 2004 20:37:44 GMT -5
Kumbaya, or die!
C'mon Stratman help me out.Sorry I couldn't help ya out with the whole "kumbaya thing" Shane-o-matic. I arrived at the game too late. Not sure I would have been much help anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Jul 22, 2004 20:38:26 GMT -5
Mujahidin are are all pretty unique. They have their ways, when they believe Islam is being intruded upon.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 22, 2004 20:52:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I believe Islam to be a religion of hate, violence, and repression. Actions speak. I'm certainly un-PC, some here will go as far as to call me a bigot...go right ahead. Just remember that Arabs have killed more Arabs, then western forces combined. Perhaps someone should remind the Arabs of that?
nevermind. I don't think it matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by PC on Jul 22, 2004 21:02:08 GMT -5
Stratman, only fundamentalist Muslims are violent and hate-filled. Most Muslims are peaceful people, not terrorists. That's like saying all Christians are fundamentalist, far-right, Pat Robertson-types. Not true.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 22, 2004 21:16:03 GMT -5
Exactly. Like all religions, it is the craziest and most dangerous members who are the most visible. Granted, at this point in history, the whacko extremist Muslims are definately more dangerous and hateful than the extremists of other religions, but I certainly don't think that this should necessarily reflect on everyone of that religion.
Islam is not a religion of hate and violence, although there are certainly a large number of people in the world right now who are putting out that image. I think in Islam, as in other religions, the extremists are perverting the true meaning and teachings of the religion, and it is these specific groups of people and not the religion itself that represent such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 23, 2004 0:23:31 GMT -5
Stratman - Not sure we can afford to wait around until we're all wearing gas masks and Bangladesh is under water. I think we need to act now with something as potentially devastating as global warming. Just think, it's worth the industrial costs anyway, in terms of clean air and reduced carcinogens, even if global warming is a myth, or unconnected to CO2 emissions. As for 'stridency' - that's down partly to the speed I was typing. Had about 2 minutes to make both those posts in their entirety, and so they came out pretty blunt and were just intended as a general view, rather than an essay full of specifics. A starting point for some ideas about America's position in the world, and the 'Bush Factor', if you like. It's also down to the fact that Bush inspires strong feelings - far stronger than yer average politician. I really do think the guy is dangerous and bad for both the USA and the world in general. I guess I get more strident on this subject because I believe that. But I'll still be me polite self if I can help it |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 23, 2004 4:44:53 GMT -5
JLLM, I don’t think you need to get apologetic for perceived stridency. Your three charges are well founded IMO. The Bush record is appalling in so many areas. Civility is a value we all need to keep in mind here and you have been civil but how is one to say that without saying it? No point in mincing words about it – Bush is dangerous. His policies have been disastrous – demonstrably so – and an endorsement of them by the American people in would be to the detriment of both America and the rest of the world. This has to be a very quick comment from me this morning, as well, so I’m going focus only on your first point for now, Bush’s environmental record. This past Tuesday, Russell E. Train, the head of the EPA under presidents Nixon and Ford and a man who ironically once co-chaired an organization called Conservationists for Bush during the first President Bush’s tenure, spoke at an event in New Hampshire. He said he considered George W. Bush’s environmental record so dismal that he planned to vote for John Kerry. "It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection," he said. "I find this deeply disturbing." This tells you a lot of what you need to know about George W. Bush’s environmental record. I would suggest anyone wanting to know more visit the Natural Resources Defense Council 'Bush Record' page at nrdc.org/bushrecord/. They’ve kept tabs on this administration from the onset, and it’s all there in copious, sordid detail. I’d like to say a few words as well on the nature of science and the place of debate within the scientific community with respect to global warming specifically but I really do have to run right now, so I’ll get to that one some time later today. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 23, 2004 6:02:17 GMT -5
"Stratman, only fundamentalist Muslims are violent and hate-filled. Most Muslims are peaceful people, not terrorists. That's like saying all Christians are fundamentalist, far-right, Pat Robertson-types. Not true."
exactly. some of the nicest people i've ever met are muslims. and some of the nicest people i've met also are christians. i think we've been taught to be scared whenever we see muslims, and though i understand the idea of being concerned and alert when you see someone suspicious, i think some have gone overboard with the idea.
|
|
