So, there were no WMD's in Iraq, huh?

[ECSNorway]

Let's see...
First, we have the word direct from an Iraqi General, Georges Sada, that WMD's were shipped to Syria just before the invasion.
We have a CNN report on a planned al'Qaeda attack on Jordan using chemical and nerve agents
And there's the Kay Report, so trumpeted about for its assertion that no actual stockpiles have yet been found. True, but incomplete. A little excerpt from a few paragraphs after that:

---

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

---

An actual reading of the full report makes it quite clear that there were ongoing development programs throughout the 1990's, despite the efforts of UN inspection teams. --
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[VladimirTherin]

Any hand waving you do does not change the fact that WMD were used as a pretext for the war because of an *iminent* threat.
Equipment or documents that might ( but probably not) have allowed saddam to develop chem/bio weapons 5-6 years down the road if all the inspectors left the country and the rest of the world proceded to look the other way do not a 45-minute nuke inbound make.
Uranium enrichment is not a trivial process.
It involves either the construction of a breeder-reactor ( beyond the technical means anyone has even most generously given saddam )
Centrifuge enrichment on the other hand involves converting a large amount of uranium into uranium hexa-flouride. A gas that is not only toxic and radioactive, but eats through steel.

[Fidoohki]

Which, according to every western intellegence agency at the time, was going to be given to terrorist elements. It
wasn't til after we had commited that we found out they
were wrong and by then it was too late.
I look at it this way though, Which would you have perferred?
To go and be wrong or not go and be wrong?

[katreus]

It seems that part of the problem was that intelligence was being cherrypicked for those that supported the assertions and other intelligence disregarded. I heard on 60 minutes about the CIA head of intelligence in Europe saying that that was what was happening. o.O

[Fidoohki]

this is the same 60 minutes that tried to smear Bush with
a phony story about his service record.

[Acyl]

I think the Iraq war was a mistake - or rather, I think was started for the wrong reasons...and the US handling of it (both in the military and political arenas) has been extremely distasteful.
But I can understand the reasoning. It's the precautionary principle. Take Global Warming, for instance. We still don't know if it's really happening. But back in the early 90s, when scientific evidence was even more sketchy...people decided, hell, we gotta do something about pollution now.
Likewise...we mock Rumsfeld for his bit about "unknown unknowns". Still, he was right. There's too much we don't know. Put yourself in the shoes of the US government. Assume stuff like oil and politics are out of the equation. Decide purely on the basis of suspected WMDs. Maybe they have them. Maybe not. Maybe they're trying to get them. Maybe not. What do you do? If you act, you run the risk of disaster, sure. But if you do too little, or worse, nothing... there'll be another, maybe worse disaster.
As Rumsfeld also put it, in another tongue twister, but a logical one... "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense".
Yes. I agree. The situation was handled badly, and they rigged the presentation to sway public and political opinion.
But that doesn't mean the considerations weren't real.
-- Acyl

[Necratoid]

The WMD issue was overblown. How much time did people spend on the Iraq bought yellow cake from Nigeria? The line in the State of the Union was that Iraq TRIED to buy the yellow cake from Nigeria. Nigeria said they did try. The Nigerians never sold it to them. Reality was ignored in the favor the STORY of Bush is EVIL AND BAD AND MEAN.
If you bring up the moron that did an investigation in Nigeria involving being drunk in a hotel... I will beat you with a fish as soon as I have your home address. He did find out the above anyway... then reported it to the CIA as true. Then wrote nothing down and preached the opposite and made up a deep cover assignment for his wife... who got him the job in spite of no qualifications. Home address = beating with fish.
Their was at least one WMD program in Iraq that was and embezzlement scheme. I think Sadam was rather suprized on how many WMD he had existed or didn't have he thought he had. And we gave him a year and a half notice to work with. Sadam thought he had more WMD than he had.
I personally thought that Sadam needed to go from the fact he employed professional rapists, was enough of a reason. But that is just me. That he had used WMD and was trying to get /make more was enough. He had someone on staff with the name Dr. Germ. He employ someone with a cheesy super villain name.

[Ayiekie]

Hi.
The White House has already admitted they were wrong and there was no WMDs.
Do you know exactly how hard it is to get that White House to admit they screwed up? Why, look at exactly how horrible the situation had to get in Iraq (answer: extremely) before they would admit something was wrong (and then start blaming other people for it).
Saddam did not pose a threat to the US. Saddam was not affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Virtually everybody who knew a damn thing about the matter knew that. That's why 90% of the world said so when Bush started going on about it. Bush said they were wrong. Some people chose to believe him. That's understandable! You want to believe your President, especially in the wake of a national tragedy. Nobody blames you for believing him then.
He was wrong (actually, he was flat-out lying). You were wrong. The people who said otherwise were right. I realise this is difficult to admit, but it's true nonetheless.
Trying to defend a bogus justification for invasion long past when even the White House has admitted it was smoke and mirrors is... maybe noble or something, but mostly kind of sad.

[Acyl]

---

Saddam did not pose a threat to the US. Saddam was not affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Virtually everybody who knew a damn thing about the matter knew that. That's why 90% of the world said so when Bush started going on about it. Bush said they were wrong.

---

I think...the issue is not really so clear-cut. It's debatable whether the Bush administration really believed Saddam was a threat. Let's say they did, though. And let's go a bit further and assume they genuinely believed he had to be taken down before he did something terribly nasty to the US.
Now, in hindsight, we know that reasoning was wrong. And even if it was right, well, they still ran their whole public relations campaign in a despicable manner. But the basic impulse for going to war, even the decision, that's understandable.
Wrong, but understandable.
Also consider...many other countries opposed the US. But WHY did they do so? Because they really believed that Saddam didn't have WMDs? Dunno. I'm sure a lot of nations did believe there were WMDs, but still opposed the invasion for various political reasons. Most Middle Eastern nations kicked up a fuss - the US was proposing an invasion of another Muslim nation, Afghanistan was bad enough. Heck, the first Iraq war drew fire from the Middle East as well... most Arabs thought Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was a terrible thing, but they still opposed US intervention on principle. Then there's France. French leaders have been talking about balancing the US in world politics since the end of WWII. Chirac's stance wasn't anything new.
And then, of course, there's all those countries which did support the US invasion of Iraq, the Coalition forces. Sure, it was mostly US and British troops, but a lot of countries sent detachments, however small, to Iraq, and didn't condemn the war. Australia, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Denmark, a whole raft of Eastern European nations...a lot of those nations probably didn't believe the whole WMD thing, but they probably went along with the war for...yeah, political reasons. Currying favour with the US, if you wanna be crude about it.
-- Acyl

[Ayiekie]

Acyl, when there's absolutely no evidence a guy can attack you, and you attack him anyway just cause you can, that's preemptive declaration of war. You should be familiar with it, because it's the exact same case the White House is making to justify attacking Iran. It's also the exact same case every country in the world could make to justify attacking every other country in the world. Because if the richest, most powerful nation in the world is so terrified of random Third World pissholes that it must unilaterally attack them to safeguard themselves, EVERYBODY can justify attacking whoever they want.
You have set a precedent that allows China to nuke any country they want, because "they might attack us". If North Korea blows up Tokyo, "they might have attacked us". If Turkey swallows up Northern Iraq when nobody's looking, "we needed a buffer because they were going to attack us". If Germany invades Poland... wait, sorry, too late.
60 years of a world united on the front that "attackers in war are the bad guys", ended by the Bush administration. And for what, precisely? On a "maybe" that turned out to be a "what were you smoking"? That was sure worth it. Those dead 2000 Americans... sure worth it. Those dead 100,000+ Iraqis... sure worth it, huh? The fact that a once-secularised country that allowed women to walk freely in the streets is now run by religious fundamentalists who don't... sure worth it, right?
Will you swallow the Kool-Aid about Iran, too, if they actually manage to push that through? And when that goes disastrously wrong, as everybody in the world except you knows it will, will you be rushing up to say it wasn't their fault then, either?
Actions have consequences. What is happening in Iraq was an easily foreseeable consequence of what the US did. That you clearly chose not to believe the people saying this was going to happen at the time doesn't make it okay. There were people that knew what they were talking about, and then there was the Bush administration. You, and a small majority of other Americans at the time, chose to believe the latter. Everything that has happened since is a direct and foreseeable consequence of that choice. It's not like you couldn't have known this was going to happen, because lots of people did. Take responsibility for it. And then consider carefully what choice you're going to make this time around.
(Oh, and by the way - every single reputable scientific study that hasn't been paid for by a biased party has concluded that global warming is a fact. There is no debate upon this in the legitimate scientific community. None. There is about as much attention paid to people who say it doesn't exist as there is to Creationists. There's a giant hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, the polar caps are melting, every new hurricane seems to be setting a new record, temperatures are setting new records every year, the coral reefs in the Caribbean are dying en masse... but there's "not enough scientific evidence", huh? It's amazing when laymen think that they somehow know better than people who have actually studied scientific subjects all their lives. Would you go up to a rocket scientist and tell him how a spacecraft's engines ought to be built and expect him to give a flying rat's arse about your uninformed opinion? No? So I wonder why so many people do essentially the same thing to biologists and climatologists?)

[Acyl]

---

It's also the exact same case every country in the world could make to justify attacking every other country in the world. Because if the richest, most powerful nation in the world is so terrified of random Third World pissholes that it must unilaterally attack them to safeguard themselves, EVERYBODY can justify attacking whoever they want.

---

Heh...first, I should note that I actually agree with you, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. Kinda. I personally think the Iraq War was a huge mistake, and attacking Iran would be a worse one.
But...just 'cause I disagree with something doesn't mean I don't grok the reasoning behind it. I dislike the Bush administration, but I can't say I don't feel...certain sympathy here. They had to make tough choices. I'm not fond of Bush and his cohorts, and I'm certain they're the wrong people to be making those choices. But I don't deny the choices are difficult.
Unilateral pre-emptive action makes sense from a certain point of view. You're right. It's a very, very, short-sighted approach.
Unfortunately...historically speaking, unilateral pre-emptive attacks are how nations operate. You speak if "60 years of a world united on the front that "attackers in war are the bad guys"". True, but unfortunately that's a blip on the historical radar. World War II was undoubtedly a war with Germany, Italy, and Japan as the aggressors. But the First World War was a conflict where, well...Germany and Austria-Hungary may have ended up starting it, but a lot of historians believe the French and Russians, at least, wanted it just as badly. In a way, both sides were aggressors. And most of history's been like that - Empires and conquest. We haven't really lived up to the ideals of Westphalia until the modern age. And even the Treaty of Westphalia, which forwarded concepts like state sovereignity...was only meant to apply to the European nations, they cared bugger-all for sovereignity in the rest of the world.
It would really, really suck for us to go back to that international system, and with nuclear weapons, we'll all be screwed. It'd REALLY suck. But...I think it's inevitable that humanity's going to doom itself, that way. Meh.
On a side note:-

---

every single reputable scientific study that hasn't been paid for by a biased party has concluded that global warming is a fact. (...) but there's "not enough scientific evidence", huh? It's amazing when laymen think that they somehow know better than people who have actually studied scientific subjects all their lives.

---

You're quite correct. I apologise.
I should have phrased it better...'s not exactly what I meant. Sorry, I tend to be imprecise. I'm definitely not a scientist. I also tend to overgeneralise, since I used to do radio work...bad media-writing habits, seriously, even if it was just Army radio. What I said was:

---

...back in the early 90s, when scientific evidence was even more sketchy...people decided, hell, we gotta do something about pollution now.

---

Emphasis added. See, I was talking about the early 90's, not now. We've been living with environmental issues as part of politics for over a decade now, but really, environmental issues only started to become a part of mainstream politics in the late 80s and early 90s. Before then...well, the subject was largely eclipsed by the Cold War.
So...when the problem first really hit the global political landscape, it was a new and puzzling thing. Governments didn't know what to make of it, or whether to really trust what the experts told them. A lot of people had never heard of the problem...and now they were being asked to make major decisions on it. Now, again, it's easy to condemn governments for dragging their feet. But leaders of nations have other concerns. Pledging to, say, cut greenhouse gas emissions...that means a bit hit to the economy. And all those industrial concerns and corporations, they're gonna complain.
The US, I think, deserves to be kicked in the ass about this. Sure. But many countries which did sign up to Kyoto have still been condemned by environmentalists for not doing enough. But the way I see it, at least they're doing something. These decisions are tough.
-- Acyl

[Necratoid]

Always fun to watch people babble. Mindless Liberal talking points anyone? I'm not saying this to start a rhetoric debate. I'm saying this because your read like your cutting and pasting someone else's argument.
First off, Global warming exists. That has to do with the mini-ice age that was going on from the medieval ages to the early 1800s. This is fact. The French revolution was mostly due to starvation issues. They were going to eat long stalk grains. Nevermind the thing with those crops fairing poorly, because the frozen and snapped off. They are the French and those potatoes that everyone else solved the starvation issue with are for the weak non French. Strangely the Christian king of France lacked weather control powers so they eventually flipped out and started killing people.
The argument is if man is causing it or not. No repeatable credible evidence that man is causing it has surfaced. Lots of wild accuzations though, mostly from the guys who brought us Earth day. April 22, because it was Lenin's birthday. This is why the US is the cause of Global Warming and not China. The Commies are hiding in that movement. I'm not against cleaner anything environmental. I'm against warrentless blame.
Please... stop feeding the rep of the greater demon of destruction and propaganda. GW is full of itself as it is. Volcanoes are of course not to blame like we can actually prove occurred in the mini-ice age. Hell, I've actually heard that the US improving its skills at putting less crap into the air is causing GW as well as putting more crap into the air is causing GW. Stop invoking GW. GW is annoying and demanding I pay child support, because I'm its parent.

---

The US, I think, deserves to be kicked in the ass about this. Sure. But many countries which did sign up to Kyoto have still been condemned by environmentalists for not doing enough. But the way I see it, at least they're doing something. These decisions are tough.

---

FYI, the US is a leader in reduction of toxic waste in the air and water. Kyoto is worthless. Note the country not signing it (the U.S.A.) actually is doing better than those that did sign it. So get over it.
Seriously the US is not the source of all evil in the multiverse. Its sad, but true. Forests in the US are growing larger. The water, air, land is getting cleaner. Try checking the numbers before listening to the communist party refugees.
Iraq was run by a mad man who was interested in more fun with WMD. Every unit thought they were the only unit without WMD. Then again they listened to the same guy who told his troops the US tanks are armored with cardboard and plywood. The US troops let them feel the tanks afterwards. They were quit suprize to learn of the whole steel and depleted uranium armor thing.'
The UN is worthless. They had a decade to deal Sadam. Bush asked them to back up their decade of sanctions. They are only good for passing out pamphlets to children explaining the farm animals are an exceptable source of sexual pleasure. That and taking massive bribes from Sadam.

[Ayiekie]

Awesome.
See, once again, this is what happens when you take any random person's opinion seriously just because he holds it. You get Creationists, people who think the UN black helicopters broadcast mind control rays, people who think the moon landings never happened, people who think the US government is made of Reptoids, and people who voluntarily eat at Denny's.
Necrotoid, pal, friend, buddy? You're right, global warming exists. That's a good first start. Now, follow me closely here: by far the biggest contributer to climatological change is the unprecedented amount of pollutants that mankind has poured into the atmosphere in the last 150 or so years.
Anybody who says otherwise is full of crap. Every single study that was NOT paid for by an oil company or similarly interested party has come to that conclusion. Every single study has concluded the changes being wrought on the earth's atmosphere are far-ranging, unprecedented, and are so rapidly sliding down the scale towards disastrous climate change that it's probably too late to stop it, only mitigate it to a greater or lesser degree.
They do not tell you this to scare you. They have no particular reason to scare you. A scientist who found definitive proof that pollutants aren't a big problem would be able to snort cocaine from a hooker's ass in his jacuzzi made out of a single huge diamond for the rest of his life, with hookers and cocaine being replaced as necessary. They tell you these things because they know what they're talking about, and they're true. People hired by oil companies tell you that it's perfectly okay to keep doing what you're doing, because they have been paid to tell you that. I know you want to believe otherwise. Unfortunately, you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about. Harsh, I know, but unfortunately true. You can scream that saying that "water is wet" is "just a Liberal talking point" all you like, but water remains wet.
Quick examination of your other 'points':
"Remember, I'm not a racist! Ha ha, French people are stupid and dumb!"
"COMMIES! COMMIES EVERYWHERE CONTROLLING THE WORLD AGENDA!"
"The UN supports beastiality!"
"The WMDs did exist! They did they did they did!"
Right. Gotcha. You're adorable, kid. (ruffle the top of your head)

[Necratoid]

---

Necrotoid, pal, friend, buddy? You're right, global warming exists. That's a good first start. Now, follow me closely here: by far the biggest contributer to climatological change is the unprecedented amount of pollutants that mankind has poured into the atmosphere in the last 150 or so years.

---

Volcanoes are irrelivant then... the things that spew more crap each year for each eruption then man can if man wanted to. Proof is irrelivant to you.
-Fact: The Delware was frozen at the time of Washington.
-Fact: Now it doesn't free in winter.
-Conclusion: The Earth is warmer now, then
-Fact: Enviromentalists insist the US is causing GW when they polute more. (The US poluted more in the 1970s than now by far).
-Fact: Enviromentalists insist the US is causing GW by poluting less. (Stated this year of 2006)
-Fact: These are mutually exclusive conditions.
-Conclusion: GW is not caused, because of the existance of the USA. Global warming is NOT the fault of the US.
The question is if industrial nations of the world are contributing to it. No, conclusive repeatable science has come about proving that they are. In fact, Duke Univerity has done a repeatable study showing the Earth is warming, because it is closer to the sun than during the mini-iceage.
After that your ranting BS.

---

"Remember, I'm not a racist! Ha ha, French people are stupid and dumb!"

---

Stop. Your embarassing. I state facts.
-Fact: The French were starving during the mini-iceage.
-Fact: the solution was to change crops, the long stalk grains snapped off in the cold and spoiled creating a food shortage.
-Fact: They demanded the king fix the weather or the crops.
-Fact: For decades the French kings told them the solution everyone else was using. Use the potatoe.
-Fact: They refused.
-Fact: They starved for their resistance to changing crops and some died for it.
-Fact: A major cause the French Revolution was this starvation.
-Conclusion: The French people's extreme resistance to change hurt them and made them starve. A viable alternative to starvation was available to them They refused it.
Today laws exist in France to enforce that extreme resistance to change. They do things like come up new words for foriegn things. Walkmans have a different legal name in France. So do does E-mail:
thcnet.net/index.php?sect...r=zhA1dsNu
Here is an the Un supporting beastalist link:
newsmax.com/scripts/showi...5/10/60025
Please learn to actually think.

[Necratoid]

In response to you ranting and mocking me mindlessly.

---

"COMMIES! COMMIES EVERYWHERE CONTROLLING THE WORLD AGENDA!"

---

They'd like to... however they are in control of China. More importantly to your side trip they control the Enviromental movement in the US.
Volcanoes are irrelivant then... the things that spew more crap each year for each eruption then man can if man wanted to. Proof is irrelivant to you.
-Fact: The Delware was frozen at the time of Washington.
-Fact: Now it doesn't free in winter.
-Conclusion: The Earth is warmer now, then
-Fact: Enviromentalists insist the US is causing GW when they polute more. (The US poluted more in the 1970s than now by far).
-Fact: Enviromentalists insist the US is causing GW by poluting less. (Stated this year of 2006)
-Fact: These are mutually exclusive conditions.
-Conclusion: GW is not caused, because of the existance of the USA. Global warming is NOT the fault of the US.
The question is if industrial nations of the world are contributing to it. No, conclusive repeatable science has come about proving that they are. In fact, Duke Univerity has done a repeatable study showing the Earth is warming, because it is closer to the sun than during the mini-iceage.
After that your ranting BS.

---

"Remember, I'm not a racist! Ha ha, French people are s

---

---

---

Stop. Your embarassing. I state facts.
-Fact: The French were starving during the mini-iceage.
-Fact: the solution was to change crops, the long stalk grains snapped off in the cold and spoiled creating a food shortage.
-Fact: They demanded the king fix the weather or the crops.
-Fact: For decades the French kings told them the solution everyone else was using. Use the potatoe.
-Fact: They refused.
-Fact: They starved for their resistance to changing crops and some died for it.
-Fact: A major cause the French Revolution was this starvation.
-Conclusion: The French people's extreme resistance to change hurt them and made them starve. A viable alternative to starvation was available to them They refused it.
Today laws exist in France to enforce that extreme resistance to change. They do things like come up new words for foriegn things. Walkmans have a different legal name in France. So do does E-mail:
thcnet.net/index.php?sect...r=zhA1dsNu

---

"The UN supports beastiality!"

---

newsmax.com/scripts/showi...5/10/60025
Please learn to actually think.

[Ayiekie]

I love that the Delaware river is apparently the world gauge for temperature.
YOU are exactly the reason why I wonder why ignorant laymen think they know better than trained scientists who have worked in fields all their lives.
Also: "Communists control the environmentalist movement in the United States!"
Do you wear a tinfoil hat, Necrotoid? Be honest. I won't laugh.
Okay, I will: Ha ha! Sorry.
Your own link starts with "Stupid French". A marvellous way to prove you're not racist. I also love how you argue with a straight face that changing words is a sign of extreme resistance to change.
Your other link, hilariously, despite being from a right-wing shill site, still disproves your own point.

[katreus]

Uh... That link about the UN is interesting. But it doesn't seem to say that the UN supports bestiality.
From the article:
"That book was a product of the Mexican government, supported by UNICEF financially as part of UNICEF's support to the Mexican government," he told the paper.
[...]
Ironside [...] noted that it carried a disclaimer that explained "the views of the writers do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations."
--
Seems like it says instead that UNICEF basically grants out money to governments that then does with it in accordance to the guidelines. i.e. more like Reagan's block grants to the states. For example, money is doled out for the purpose of family planning to governments that then use that money to fund projects that would promote family planning. It seems like the Mexican government isn't particulary, mmm, competent in that but it doesn't say the UN itself supports bestiality -- since it seems like the UN wasn't involved in it at all except for the original granting of money (before knowing what the government ended up doing with it). I'd say, probably better accountability on the part of the UN in figuring out what governments are actually doing with the money would be helpful (although perhaps impractical? It'd greatly increase the bureaucracy anyway, esp. considering how many nations it probably supports), but that's still a far cry from the UN actually supporting bestiality.
Hrm. Holding the UN accountable for money it grants out seems like it'd be similar to holding banks accountable because they lent out money to people who used the money to eventually buy, say, illegal drugs.
Edit:
About the global warming, I don't think it's necessarily the sheer amount of pollution.

---

Volcanoes are irrelivant then... the things that spew more crap each year for each eruption then man can if man wanted to. Proof is irrelivant to you.

---

Well. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that volcanoes have erupted a fair amount in the past 2000 years. Since there hasn't been significant change in global temperature say before 1900, I think then that volcanoe eruptions were compensated. Or to put it another way, if they haven't effected the global temperature in the past several milennia of existence then we can conclude that they're not the cause of modern day's problems.
However, what is different is the large scale effect humans have had on the biosphere through transforming of territory and various harmful emissions. Perhaps, it'd be better to think of it as a bucket with a small hole in the bottom. We'll assume it starts off at no water. Volcanoe eruptions raise the water in the bucket to a point below the bucket's rim. Eventually, the water drains away through the small hole in the bottom as nature works to compensate. However, if we add in more water due to human effect and reduce the bucket's height to signify nature's diminishing capacity to handle this, the water goes closer to the rim and eventually overflows (or the global temperature rises by 1 degree).
Presuming we want to stop global temperature from rising, we can either 1) reduce our own effect on the environment or 2) stop volcanoes from erupting and other natural but harmful effects on the environment. I don't know about you, but I can't do #2. ^_^ So that makes me look at option 1.
I'm sure China also has a huge effect on the global warming issue. I hear stories of coal fires that don't ever go out in some of their mines and that -cannot- be good for the environment. In addition, the amount of slash and burn agriculture in the Amazons probably has a deleterious effect on the ability of nature to compensate. However, as we're all human, we all contribute to the problem. So I'd say that while US isn't the sole cause of global warming, the US is a, probably significant due to our size and amount of output, factor in global warming.

[Rev Dark]

Necratoid, your knowledge of French History is utter garbage which means that it is on par with your knowledge of pretty much everything else you spout.
Necra-Fact The French were starving during the mini-ice age.
No. The French were starving through a combination of huge deficit spending by the non-representational French Government, a grossly corrupt feudal system, taxation without representation, etc. Not to mention burgeoning cloth industry that turned formerly cultivated lands into sheep fields. All the while, the French coffers being drained through a series of ill-conceived and ill-fought wars; combined with excesses by the government and clergy. This was compounded by European banks trashing France's credit rating, making it very difficult for them to borrow funds.
Necra-Fact: The solution was to change crops, the long stalk grains snapped off in the cold and spoiled creating a food shortage.
No. The harvest in 1788 was poor; but that in an of itself would not have been sufficient to cause mass starvation had the fiscal and political situation been stronger.
Necra-Fact: They demanded the king fix the weather or the crops
No. Over the period predating the revolution there were multiple attempts to restore fiscal stability and prosperity. These included taxation reforms blocked by the nobility, not the people; multiple attempts at creating a more representative legislature and aligning local taxation to a national model to lessen corruption. The potato was introduced at the French court; and integrated in haute cuisine, but it did not gain widespread use until considerably after the revolution. Part of the feudal system is that the Signeur dictates much, if not all of what you plant. In other words those that were planting the crops were not choosing the crops. To whit, in Ireland the potatoe was the basis for the family farming to survive, as an acre could feed a whole family leaving their remaining acres to provide crops (Wheat/Barley/etc.) demanded by their landlord.
Necra-Fact: A major cause of the French Revolution was Starvation.
Necra-Fact: They refused
No. The primary movers and shakers in the Revolution were the bourgegoisis; the moneyed merchants, traders and craftsmen. Who were fed up with the lack of representation.
Necra-Fact: They starved for their resistant to changing crops and some died for it.
No. The majority of starvation was in the cities, rather than the countryside and had far more to do with the economy than the availablitliy of foodstuffs. There was food but no one could afford it on the wages paid.
Conclusion: In matters of history you would be unable to find your arse without both hands, a flashlight, and a team of highly motivated spelunkers.

[Necratoid]

---

I love that the Delaware river is apparently the world gauge for temperature.

---

Funny... I thought it was. I mean if the river froze over then, but not now it means that the world WAS colder. Guess I was wrong. Im tempted to explain states of matter here but that would involve sinking to a lower level.

---

YOU are exactly the reason why I wonder why ignorant laymen think they know better than trained scientists who have worked in fields all their lives.

---

Enviromentalists trained scientists, yeah. Great. Can we add reputable to that list. The paper work someone has is not as important as them actually being correct in a provable way. It may surprise you to know that scientists are actually humans.I do believe your going to have to prove this point of yours beyond its simple statement.
Seriously, GW came around as a popular theory from the same people that were talking about a pollution based ice age was coming. They were mostly ignored. Then they got the first proof of GW when they got a hold of orbital pictures of the Ozone layer and saw polar gaps they called holes in it. With no previous data, they saw the terrible truth. Suddenly we are not all going to freeze we are all going to burn!!!
All these holes were going to kill us. CFCs broke down the Ozone layer due to pollution. Nevermind that in California high pollution levels cause Ozone to be generated to the point they have Ozone alerts. The Ozone layer they discovered 20 minutes previous was dying and taking us all with it. That was decades ago.
These people are also responsible for predicting that at 4 billion people in the world would starve as it was physically impossible to produce enough food. We are currently climbing towards 7 billion and distribution is far more a problem now as enough food exists.
Speaking of starving

---

No. The harvest in 1788 was poor; but that in an of itself would not have been sufficient to cause mass starvation had the fiscal and political situation been stronger.

---

This is your first major logic error of the post. This was a long term issue. The effects of the agricultural die off is long term. Decades and centuries long, long term. The fact the food supply was low and the French kings didnt fix it for so long was a major issue. If the conditions were not present a bad year is something that happens. If your people are otherwise happy they dont lop your head off and revolt.

---

No. The majority of starvation was in the cities, rather than the countryside and had far more to do with the economy than the availablitliy of foodstuffs. There was food but no one could afford it on the wages paid.

---

Your logic utterly escapes me. I'm quite serious here. The people make less food so the producers keep it for themselves and their landowners. This means less food on the market... so the price goes up. How does the end user getting less product due to less production cancel anything I've said. Also, that the peasant grew what they were told to changes nothing. They are the only group you proven are irrelevant to the issue.

---

No. The primary movers and shakers in the Revolution were the bourgegoisis; the moneyed merchants, traders and craftsmen. Who were fed up with the lack of representation.

---

So the city dwellers that werent getting food they could afford the ones starving rioted and not the peasants who have food? Guess they could eat cake then? Sorry besides proving you can use Google, youve proven nothing. At least as far as me being wrong, you did prove the unfed were the one rioting and lopping off peoples heads. Which only supports what I said.

---

Conclusion: In matters of history you would be unable to find your arse without both hands, a flashlight, and a team of highly motivated spelunkers.

---

Im not sure I want to know why your model of finding your own body parts or me finding mine requires a flashlight and cave climbers. You have proven youre a member of the Google religion of remembering nothing.

---

Ironside [...] noted that it carried a disclaimer that explained "the views of the writers do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations."

---

Oh good. It carried a disclaimer. Im so relieved. Guess they have that disclaimer on all their documentation. Backtrack a step and look at the other articles, the U.N. is scum. They havent accomplished anything productive in years.

[Ayiekie]

You know, Necratoid, when I say something like noting that you used a random river in the United States as the world gauge for temperature, you are supposed to immediately point out that isn't what you meant to say.
Instead you say it is what you meant to say.
This is why people laugh at you, Necratoid. Like now: Ha ha ha!
It's also because you say the environmentalist movement in the US is controlled by communists. Ha ha ha!
Also, you think because ground-level ozone is pollution, that there's no problems with the high atmospheric ozone layer. Ha ha ha!
WATCH OUT NECRATOID. THE COMMIES ARE COMING FOR YOU. THEY KNOW YOU'RE ONTO THEM.
ONLY YOU KNOW THE TRUTH, NECRATOID. BE BRAVE. BE STRONG. WEAR YOUR TINFOIL HAT.
You're the best, Necratoid. Love and kisses.

[ECSNorway]

So, so far, this entire thread consists of people pointing out facts, and Ayiekie, whoever that is, screaming "you're a filthy fat lying racist redneck".
Thank you so much for verifying my disgust with the so-called 'liberal' movement.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Foxboy]

The sad fact is that in the US, we're having a polarization of our political thought. Lots of "us vs. them" leaving the intelligent moderates at the mercy of "raving liberals" and "insane, fascist conservatives." Stating disagreement with one places you under attack as one of the other.
The average Joe just can't win.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[katreus]

---

Thank you so much for verifying my disgust with the so-called 'liberal' movement.

---

Ehh?
Thanks. Loves and kisses to you too.

---

Oh good. It carried a disclaimer. Im so relieved. Guess they have that disclaimer on all their documentation. Backtrack a step and look at the other articles, the U.N. is scum. They havent accomplished anything productive in years.

---

Meh. Point out a specific link you'd like me to look at. It's finals week and I don't have that much time to go look around.
On the contrary, I'd find it very disturbing to live in a world without the UN, where countries unilaterally decide to invade other countries. As I've said before, the UN provides a forum to air grievances and has done much good for the world, whether through initiatives such as food distribution or demining (of landmines).
The fact that the UN has messed up in places is not IMO a good reason to scrap the body. I don't think there's any major government organization that hasn't messed up.
Also, your focus on the disclaimer seems to have completely missed my analysis. Like I said, the process seems similar to Reagan's block grants. In this case, Mexico messed up but that doesn't mean that all of the countries who received UN funding messed up.

[Ayiekie]

"See, once again, this is what happens when you take any random person's opinion seriously just because he holds it. You get Creationists, people who think the UN black helicopters broadcast mind control rays, people who think the moon landings never happened, people who think the US government is made of Reptoids, and people who voluntarily eat at Denny's."
Necratoid has never stated a "fact" in this thread. He HAS said that the US environmentalist movement is controlled by Communists, though! Explain why I'm supposed to take him seriously again?
I never said any of the things you said. I did laugh at Necratoid for saying silly things that cannot be anything but laughed at by anybody who knows a damn thing about anything.
If you want a "conservative" viewpoint to be taken seriously, honey, perhaps you ought to present one that deserves to be taken seriously. Floor's open to you.

[Norgarth]

I caught part of a comedy show they other week, one of the comediens used this joke:
"They will fine the Weapons of Mass Destruction, just as soon as they can get them from Andrews Air Force Base to Bagdad without anybody seeing them."
I also watched part of an episode of Ellen where she was talking to Robin Williams and he joked: "They have 'weapons of mass destruction'. Appearantly ours are weapons of peace and friendship."__________________
"I know when I'm not wanted. I usually don't listen, but I know." - Harper (Andromeda)
___________________________
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin