[Sonart]

.
This probably isn't the place to continue discussing global warming, since there's an ongoing global warming thread here.

However, the short answer to your question...

Quote by: Punkbuster Well your curve chart makes my point- 30 years ago (near the tip of the curve- we were on the precipice of a NEW ICE AGE. And now its changed?

Yes, but it was 200 years ago (see chart) and I just showed you exactly why... 200 years of a massive human population explosion compounded by an equally massive explosion in our industrial capacity to produce greenhouse gases.

Quote by: Punkbuster Antartica ice shelf is growing as fast as the Artic's is melting.

No, it's not. That's disinformation based on ice growth in the interior of the continent. Over all, the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking at a faster rate than predicted.

Quote by: Punkbuster I also personally believe (from afar not knowing the threats) that Muslims are big talkers

You mean they haven't committed enough suicide bombings yet to convince you???

Quote by: Punkbuster And of course I know what you "blame America for everything" people are thinking.

We "blame America for everything" people??? How's that?

Quote by: Punkbuster 1> The war may have been partly about oil (other countries have oil that we could easily take over and we dont- Nigeria) but like it or not it was "common knowledge" to all that he had WMD - even Chirac told Colin Powell that Saddahm would surely shoot chemicals at the advancing US army - WRONG Russia, Germany, France, Saudi, Dutch etc... all on board that he had WMD. Dont want to rehash that but the "blame America firsters" always pull that card when others act barbaric.

Except that he DIDN'T have any WMD. That's a proven fact. Nor did EVERYONE believe that he did... far from it.

And Iraq was entirely about oil, to this extent... The basic premise of the Neo-Cons is that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States is the sole remaining super power on the globe. Therefore, it's in our interest to USE that power to fix global problems areas as we see fit.

Global problem area #1 is the middle east, specifically the oil produciing Gulf Oil region, and it's biggest pain-in-the-butt, hated-by-everyone nuisance has been Saddam Hussein. Time for the Super Duper U.S. to apply a bit of Machiavelian, prison yard politics... meaning we march straight up to the baddest bully in the yard (although Iraq was actually the weakest), beat the holy crap out of him, get his mind right (install a pro-U.S. democracy), and then turn to the rest of the inmates and, with our steeliest Clint Eastwood stare, ask, "allright.. Punks! ...who wants to be next?" Whereupon Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. etc. would all lower their heads and avert their eyes, muttering , "No way, not me, dude", and the Persian Gulf region all goes back to the business of pumping cheap oil. Problem area #1 solved.

Except, it didn't quite work out that way, did it?

Quote by: Punkbuster 2>While many innocents have died in the sectarian war that has followed the invasion- (150k is the last estiamte) many tens of thousands also would have been killed by Saddahm and his pervert kids.

So? Innocents are dying at the hands of evil dictators all over the world. When did Iraq's become our problem?

Quote by: Punkbuster So its not like we invaded paradise. And no we dont just let countries do what they want- Kosovo EVERYONE wanted us to kill the Serbs.

Amazing, isn't it... Clinton didn't have to mislead us about Bosnia and Kosovo, he managed to tip-toe through the minefield of conflicting European, Russian, UN and Muslim mideast interests, end each of those conflicts in a few short months, with Serbia undergoing regime change and Molosovic on the dock for war crimes, and all without losing a single American life to enemy action.

Pretty impressive, huh!

The difference of course, was that Bosnia and Kosovo were active conflicts, about which Europe was terrified the Balkan conflict would spread into the wider region, and the U.S. had to be begged to finally step in and solve the problem for everyone... which we successfully did, to the world's respect and awe.

Quote by: Punkbuster And Bill Clinton said Rwanda was his biggest mistake - My words here- in other words he should have intervened and killed a hundred thosuand or so "innocents" to save 800,000.

Which he didn't because of his experience in Somalia (where unbeknownst to us at the time, al-Qaeda was beginning to take a active role) That's where he found out that Americans would support the use of our military for ALTRUISTIC missions -- meaning saving people only for the sake of saving them, with no other national interests involved -- only so long as there were no significant casualties. Following the battle of Mogadishu, Americans wanted nothing more to do with Somalia if it meant more dead soldiers being dragged through the streets, and there was no reason to believe that the chaos of Rwanda would be any different. Whatever Clinton might regret in hindsight now, I suspect he was right not to go in... not until Americans decide that saving tens of thousands of black Africans - just for the sake of saving them - is, in fact, worth American lives.

PS Wonder what Saddahm and the boys would have done with $100 oil?

And would there be $100/bbl oil if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Who knows, but I do know that it isn't doing diddlysquat for the Iraqis right now. They still -- after 5 years -- have only partial electric power, partial water and sewage service, partial phone service and huge lines for gasoline.... when they can afford it.


.