Hypocrisy Watch: Iraq War vs. Global Warming

[OCinBuffalo]

Clearly "better safe than sorry" has been our government's doctrine through every administration, on both sides, wrt to many things.

 

The fact is, we used the same premise for invading Iraq. It all boils down to: after 9/11, we could not take the chance of some idiot gaining WMD, and "it's better to be safe than sorry". We went with the best intelligence we had at the time, and made the call. Of course, it was also about oil. Most of you are being crushed by $4+ gas prices. How would you like $10 gas? Because that's what you'll be paying if these terrorists(or the new Barbary Pirates) win, for the same reasons it's $4 right now, only those reasons will be amplified.

 

Now, if we are to believe the intrepid hunter of ManBearPig, or the now-minority of scientists who say that Global Warming is man-made and cause for immediate action(I think it's safe to say it's real), then we need to take immediate action. According to ManBearPig's hunter, we need to get rid of the combustion engine totally in 10 years. That immediate action will mean the loss of jobs and a general hit on the economy that might even cause a depression. The fact is that the ramifications are unknown, and man's effect on the environment remains unknown, no different that we weren't even 80% sure about WMD.

 

However, every time that a political person is put on the spot by data that says that man isn't involved, we end up with the same argument = "It's better to be safe than sorry", even if the whole thing is a hoax, because "our world will be cleaner anyway".

 

Now my question:

 

How can one say it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, yet at the same time demand immediate action on Global Warming, without singing up to be the Hypocrite of the Century? The fact is that both represent taking action using the best information available at the time(apparently, but I'm not sure any of it makes sense any more). Both decisions represent the "better to be safe than sorry" doctrine. If we are to believe that Global Warming requires immediate action, even though we don't know it's our problem and not the sun's, for sure, how is demanding that action any different than when people demanded action against Saddam?

[Exit_58]

how can you ask such a question?

 

my answer would be that we can turn fighting global warming into an economic benefit for ourselves like al gore is saying.

 

The iraq war, what benefit has that been.

[OCinBuffalo]

how can you ask such a question?

 

my answer would be that we can turn fighting global warming into an economic benefit for ourselves like al gore is saying.

 

The iraq war, what benefit has that been.

I get to ask questions, this is America after all. Sorry that it's making you uncomfortable, but it also requires you to think, which is it's intent.

 

"Fighting" Global Warming will not be any kind of economic "benefit", ever. It's economic cost will always outweigh any benefit it might provide. The only reason we are considering taking immediate action is because of the potential natural disasters it can cause. The long term economics mean that things will be very bad for a very long time, with only the possibility of things getting good again, someday. We are considering trading that for ensuring that we don't have crazy weather that might kill a lot of us. Al Gore is a nut as evidenced by his wanna-be JFK, get rid of combustion engine in ten years scheme. It's an embarrassment that he would even presume to put himself in the same room with JFK, never mind the same stage. Serious environmentalists should dump that guy because he's not in this for them, he's in it for himself.

 

There is no doubt that the Iraq war was terribly conducted and terribly planned. But now that it is a reality, and with the very real possibility of things going well there, having a real democracy in an Arab country has a huge upside. It sets an example for others to follow. It also proves that it can be done, that no culture, however dogmatic, is impervious to freedom. It sets the fascists around the globe back 20 years.

 

However, was it worth it? I don't know. We won't know for some years to come. For all this wonderful symbolism, it's also very possible that a democratically elected Iraqi parliament and/or president tells us to f off, on multiple occasions, which they will be fully within their rights to do. So who knows?

 

None of this is the point. The point is both decisions are about taking immediate action based on questionable, at best, completely wrong, at worst, information. I want to know why it's not Ok in one instance, and an absolute must in another.

[Exit_58]

getting on front of the new technologies to power the world would be huge economic benefit for United States. its sad that china and germany are ahead of us in this race. How much have we spent for the Iraqi people. Lots of money to them and I don't see them as a good investment.

[OCinBuffalo]

getting on front of the new technologies to power the world would be huge economic benefit for United States. its sad that china and germany are ahead of us in this race. How much have we spent for the Iraqi people. Lots of money to them and I don't see them as a good investment.

China, you mean the country that burns 5 times the coal that the rest of the world does, soon to be 10 times? The same country where our athletes and reporters have been warned about extreme pollution and to wear masks on certain days? Yeah, they are "ahead" alright. There is no single country that pollutes worse than China, and they are way "ahead" of us on that. Hell their pollution is ending up on our West Coast. Yeah, it's that bad.

 

Germany is doing what they do, getting good at manufacturing cars that use alternative fuels, but.....they are still manufacturing cars, which still puts carbon into the air, so I fail to see how that is an example of "ahead"-->again, if we are to believe the enviro dogma.

 

I keep hearing about these "new" technologies. Certainly burning coal is not "new". Edit: Nuclear power also isn't new, but I bet its the best alternative we have....

 

Beyond that, what exactly are these technologies? Solar panels, windmills, what? None of those are "new", they are old. Where's the real new stuff? Suddenly this is starting to sound like the .com companies that failed. I know, one of the ones I worked for(for 3 weeks), claimed they had "new technology". Their "new" technology wasn't "new" at all, in fact it didn't exist.

 

Edit: I agree that the Iraqis are a risky bet, but so is doing anything about Global Warming when I can't even get a straight answer from my PhD cousin on what is actually happening. She says nobody really knows and a hell of a lot of work still needs to be done to find out.

 

So if both are risky bets, why is one ok and the other not?

[Adam]

Global warming, while real, is not man made. Nor does it always mean that colder temperatures will not be experienced at times. It is more of a rise in average temperatures, which gives rise to doubters.

 

While it is not man made, it is man accelerated. I see no reason why we cannot only reduce carbon emissions, but find ways of removing the carbon dioxide in controlled amounts so we can continue with life as normal.

[finknottle]

Now my question:

 

...If we are to believe that Global Warming requires immediate action, even though we don't know it's our problem and not the sun's, for sure, how is demanding that action any different than when people demanded action against Saddam?

 

It's not. The anti-war pro-GW crowd is just as hypocritical as the pro-preemptive war GW-deniers. Roughly, the democratic left and the republican right. Those closer to the political center (McCain and Clinton) held more consistent positions. Why does this suprise you?

[blzrul]

There were other options besides invading Iraq. The nature of the supposed WMD were known - they'd get as far as Israel and that's about it...maybe to Greece on a good day. Not to the US. So if Saddam did decide, after years of supposedly sitting on those WMDs during sanctions which caused untold suffering in Iraq, to finally use those alleged WMDs, the US would not have suffered. And we could still have incinerated the country from a comfortable distance.

 

Global warming is a little different. It affects...well, you know, like the GLOBE. Like the entire world. Even America. I realize some people around here labor under the misconception that we are somehow better than other people and more deserving good things than the rest of the world, but we're just as vulnerable when it comes to global warming.

 

And maybe more. We have a lot more to lose, and we're a not used to having to worry about survival.

[Exit_58]

China, you mean the country that burns 5 times the coal that the rest of the world does, soon to be 10 times? The same country where our athletes and reporters have been warned about extreme pollution and to wear masks on certain days? Yeah, they are "ahead" alright. There is no single country that pollutes worse than China, and they are way "ahead" of us on that. Hell their pollution is ending up on our West Coast. Yeah, it's that bad.

 

Germany is doing what they do, getting good at manufacturing cars that use alternative fuels, but.....they are still manufacturing cars, which still puts carbon into the air, so I fail to see how that is an example of "ahead"-->again, if we are to believe the enviro dogma.

 

I keep hearing about these "new" technologies. Certainly burning coal is not "new". Edit: Nuclear power also isn't new, but I bet its the best alternative we have....

 

Beyond that, what exactly are these technologies? Solar panels, windmills, what? None of those are "new", they are old. Where's the real new stuff? Suddenly this is starting to sound like the .com companies that failed. I know, one of the ones I worked for(for 3 weeks), claimed they had "new technology". Their "new" technology wasn't "new" at all, in fact it didn't exist.

 

Edit: I agree that the Iraqis are a risky bet, but so is doing anything about Global Warming when I can't even get a straight answer from my PhD cousin on what is actually happening. She says nobody really knows and a hell of a lot of work still needs to be done to find out.

 

So if both are risky bets, why is one ok and the other not?

yes that china which is doing more about other sources of energy than we are. you talk in circles and not in serious way. Why do you even bother

[LaDairis]

"It all boils down to: after 9/11, we could not take the chance of some idiot gaining WMD"

 

 

We were attacked by Al Qaeda armed with plastic knives. The next thing we are doing is attacking Israel's enemy which has "no working relationship" with AQ for really obvious reasons about WMDs.

 

Some folks tend to get a clue when lied to. Others with beaks, feathers, and hateful birdbrains simply continue parroting nonsense.

 

Indeed, OBL is "not a priority." WHY?

 

 

As for the FRAUD of Global non-Warming, the simple truth is that there is absolutely no evidence of warming other than in growing urban areas due to the Urban Heat Sink Effect. As a city grows it gets warmer on the surface. Take Buffalo 100 years ago vs. today. NASA estimated urban areas are 1 to 10 degrees warmer ON THE SURFACE than surrounding undeveloped land. As a city grows, it moves up that scale, as grass and dirt are replaced with pavement and warm buildings. The highly correlated satellites and balloons show NO WARMING in the atmosphere. Antarctica shows no warming on the surface because there are no cities there to produce "warming," and Antarctica's ice, 90% of the world's ice, is at its larges acreage since we put satellites up to measure it.

 

 

 

Hence, the two greatest FRAUDs of our time are

 

 

1. Global non-Warming

2 "War on (exclusively anti-Israel) terror"

[finknottle]

There were other options besides invading Iraq. The nature of the supposed WMD were known - they'd get as far as Israel and that's about it...maybe to Greece on a good day. Not to the US. So if Saddam did decide, after years of supposedly sitting on those WMDs during sanctions which caused untold suffering in Iraq, to finally use those alleged WMDs, the US would not have suffered. And we could still have incinerated the country from a comfortable distance.

 

Global warming is a little different. It affects...well, you know, like the GLOBE. Like the entire world. Even America. I realize some people around here labor under the misconception that we are somehow better than other people and more deserving good things than the rest of the world, but we're just as vulnerable when it comes to global warming.

 

And maybe more. We have a lot more to lose, and we're a not used to having to worry about survival.

 

The problem with the selling of the Iraq War was that a million different arguments were allowed to float, regardless of their veracity, each resonating to a different segment (Saddam gassed his own people, Saddam has WMD, Saddam has AQ or 9/11 ties, Saddam will cause mischief when the sanctions are lifted. etc). This allows the detractors to pick the strawman argument, even those that were patently false such as involvement in 9/11. (IMO this was a PR miscalculation whose fault lies squarely with the administration.)

 

Nevertheless, the logic behind the war as a war of pre-emptive action was *not* that Saddam's current stockpile of WMD was a threat. It was that

- he had the means and desire to reconstitute his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted (no later than 2004 thanks to pressure from the left and the Europeans);

- we would have neither the means nor the political will to prevent him developing nuclear/biological capabilities once sanctions were lifted;

- given the provocative actions he engaged in while under UN sanctions there was no doubt that if free to do so he woiuld use every tool at his disposal to create mischief;

- and once having acheived WMD deterence he would enjoy the geo-political immunity that comes with it.

 

Consider - he carried out an assassination attempt on a former US president *while actively under UN sanctions.* Are we to assume that his behavior would be more peacefull, civil and rational if he were fortified with an effective deterence? Remember, nukes are a bogey man in all of this. You don't need an intercontinental missile to start a plague in NYC or Tel Aviv. You only need a diplomat and his pouch.

[finknottle]

Hence, the two greatest FRAUDs of our time are

 

 

1. Global non-Warming

2 "War on (exclusively anti-Israel) terror"

 

I think you are dead wrong but at least (to the point of this thread) you are consistent.

[LaDairis]

I think you are dead wrong but at least (to the point of this thread) you are consistent.

 

 

 

Then you really don't "think," rather you parrot.

 

 

Saddam told the CIA he was afraid Iran would attack him. Any Third Grade understanding of the situation would've revealed that truth. You don't care about truth. You care about PARROTING. Saddam was "neutered" by Schwarzkopf, one of the "soft on terror" types who advised W not to invade. Saddam was a total non-threat, and taking him out has greatly harmed our national security, Middle East regional security, and our ability to check our real threats like China, Russia, NK, and Chavez. Iraq was a f@@@@ng blunder, the biggest blunder in our country's history.

 

 

Belief in Global non-Warming requires absolute state of being a science invalid and a parrot. Check the RAW DATA for the first time, Polly.

[finknottle]

Then you really don't "think," rather you parrot.

:

Saddam was "neutered" by Schwarzkopf, one of the "soft on terror" types who advised W not to invade. Saddam was a total non-threat, ...

 

What do you mean he was neutered?

[finknottle]

Off topic a bit, but I was reviewing presidential assassination attempts on wikipedia and found this entry amidst otherwise serious ones:

 

Jimmy Carter

 

First assassination attempt

April 20, 1979: While Carter had gone on a solo fishing expedition in his hometown of Plains, Georgia when a rabbit approached his boat, "hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared and making straight for the president", trying desperately to enter the boat, causing Carter to flail at the swimming creature with the oars from his boat. The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. [11]

[LaDairis]

What do you mean he was neutered?

 

 

 

Um, let's see.

 

Air Force - wiped out in the Gulf War - Saddam did not have one in 2003 - that "threat" BS again.

Navy - LOL - never had one

Armour - lost 2/3rds of his 1970's era Soviet armour in the Gulf War

Missiles - used 'em all up or lost 'em in the Gulf War

 

 

Neutered - you bet. Iran fought Iraq to a draw in the 1980's. Had Iran invaded Iraq as Saddam feared in 2003, Iran would've won.

 

Instead, Iran let us invade, and Iran won big time, because we have replaced their biggest enemy with their biggest ally, even if the Z###ist media isn't too eager to tell you that...

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06...main/index.html

 

 

"A government official said al-Maliki will underscore to Iran that any long-term agreement willl not permit "American forces to launch attacks or conduct warfare or any kind of aggression against any neighboring country from Iraqi soil.""

 

 

In plain English, Iraq's new "democratically" elected Shia leader promised Shia Iran that Iraq will side with Iran if the US attacks Iran. That's our new "ally" in Iraq, Iran's new best buddy. Fox News, of course, never told its viewers about that, because Fox want its viewers to support the Iraq invasion regardless.

[blzrul]

The problem with the selling of the Iraq War was that a million different arguments were allowed to float, regardless of their veracity, each resonating to a different segment (Saddam gassed his own people, Saddam has WMD, Saddam has AQ or 9/11 ties, Saddam will cause mischief when the sanctions are lifted. etc). This allows the detractors to pick the strawman argument, even those that were patently false such as involvement in 9/11. (IMO this was a PR miscalculation whose fault lies squarely with the administration.)

 

Nevertheless, the logic behind the war as a war of pre-emptive action was *not* that Saddam's current stockpile of WMD was a threat. It was that

- he had the means and desire to reconstitute his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted (no later than 2004 thanks to pressure from the left and the Europeans);

- we would have neither the means nor the political will to prevent him developing nuclear/biological capabilities once sanctions were lifted;

- given the provocative actions he engaged in while under UN sanctions there was no doubt that if free to do so he woiuld use every tool at his disposal to create mischief;

- and once having acheived WMD deterence he would enjoy the geo-political immunity that comes with it.

 

Consider - he carried out an assassination attempt on a former US president *while actively under UN sanctions.* Are we to assume that his behavior would be more peacefull, civil and rational if he were fortified with an effective deterence? Remember, nukes are a bogey man in all of this. You don't need an intercontinental missile to start a plague in NYC or Tel Aviv. You only need a diplomat and his pouch.

 

Yes but the "logic" was lies and many people knew it.

 

The fact is for a decade no-one in the US gave a rat's ass about Saddam until the Administration out-and-out lied by linking him to 9/11. They preyed on ignorance and hysteria. GHWB took care of putting Saddam out of business. That's why Junior had to ratchet everything up with 9/11. If Saddam was such a serious threat then Junior did his country a great disservice by waiting until AFTER we were attacked to do anything about it, eh?

 

The global warming issue has attracted the attention of leaders from around the world and of all political persuasions. While they don't all agree on the severity of the problem, they agree it's a problem that is better not ignored because it does impact us all. I suppose they could be using ignorance and hysteria to generate a knee-jerk reaction, but they're not. What you see is that people are starting to very slowly take small steps toward improving the way we treat our environment, whether it's recycling, reducing water usage, buying "green", or whatever.

 

The two aren't even close. One situation was concocted. The other is real - how imminent the disaster is, we can't agree upon, but it's real enough.

[LaDairis]

Yes but the "logic" was lies and many people knew it.

 

The fact is for a decade no-one in the US gave a rat's ass about Saddam until the Administration out-and-out lied by linking him to 9/11. They preyed on ignorance and hysteria. GHWB took care of putting Saddam out of business. That's why Junior had to ratchet everything up with 9/11. If Saddam was such a serious threat then Junior did his country a great disservice by waiting until AFTER we were attacked to do anything about it, eh?

 

The global warming issue has attracted the attention of leaders from around the world and of all political persuasions. While they don't all agree on the severity of the problem, they agree it's a problem that is better not ignored because it does impact us all. I suppose they could be using ignorance and hysteria to generate a knee-jerk reaction, but they're not. What you see is that people are starting to very slowly take small steps toward improving the way we treat our environment, whether it's recycling, reducing water usage, buying "green", or whatever.

 

The two aren't even close. One situation was concocted. The other is real - how imminent the disaster is, we can't agree upon, but it's real enough.

 

 

 

Global Warming is an absolute FRAUD that is easily outed by checking the RAW DATA.

 

 

Highly correlated satellites and balloons show NO WARMING at all in the atmosphere, where all 370 PPM of CO2 (about 1 in 3,000 molecules is CO2) isn't warming anything.

 

Ocean temps are now down for life of series.

 

Antarctica has shown no warming on the surface

 

ice cores show COOLING for the past 500 years and the past 10,000 years

 

only the Surface Ground, measured 2/3rds in urban areas, shows "warming" due entirely to the Urban Heat Sink Effect, which NASA documents as 1 to 10 degrees. That series hasn't warmed since 1998 and in the US since 1934

 

 

Hence, when Algore goes to California to cheer on the fires to support HIS FRAUD, he does so from a data point, the surface of the US, that

 

HAS NOT WARMED SINCE 1934.

 

 

To anyone with a brain, the California fire problem is all about dwindling supplies of WATER. To PARROTING MORONS who have ZERO understanding of science, Algore is PARROTED despite the FACT that the US has not "warmed" since 40 years BEFORE the GLOBAL COOLING FRAUD of the 1970's.

 

 

There is ABSOLUTELY NO NET ICE MELT on planet Earth because the 90% chunk in Antarctica is at record levels.

 

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of any increase in canes, especially since, once again, there is no "warming" to begin with.

[finknottle]

Yes but the "logic" was lies and many people knew it.

 

The fact is for a decade no-one in the US gave a rat's ass about Saddam until the Administration out-and-out lied by linking him to 9/11.

 

I disagree. As far as the public goes, sure. But within the USG it was a different story. Iraq was consistently a high priority in the Clinton Administration - being the intersection of a US deployment and non-proliferation (the defining thrust of the Clinton foreign policy) - and significant amounts of political capital were quietly expended in cajoling the UN security council to maintain the sanctions. Hussein was buying the French and Russians off with post-sanction concessions, the left was organizing protests arguing that we were starving the Iraqi children, and it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the UN sanctions were removed and Saddam would have freedom of action. And that he would - what president could move against Iraq following the lifting the sanctions?

 

IMO the education gained from this experience explains both Blair's and Hillary Clinton's relative hawkishness. They knew bottling Hussein up was a losing proposition.

[finknottle]

Um, let's see.

 

Air Force - wiped out in the Gulf War - Saddam did not have one in 2003 - that "threat" BS again.

Navy - LOL - never had one

Armour - lost 2/3rds of his 1970's era Soviet armour in the Gulf War

Missiles - used 'em all up or lost 'em in the Gulf War

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06...main/index.html

 

And what do his conventional forces have to do with his being a threat? AQ had nothing compared to that prior to 9/11. Were they neutered in the 90's? What about the IRA or other terrorist groups? And what about state-sponsors of terrorism with relatively weak militaries, such as Libya during the 80's and 90's.

 

For a neutered threat, Hussein knew how to play the game. He was always pushing the boundary in the 90's - blocking inspections, moving troops in contravention of the cease-fire agreement, targeting and firing upon UN planes, sponsoring proxy-fighting among the Kurdish groups... For a guy supposedly under the UN thumb, that's chutzpah. And the smashing of Iraq's military didn't stop the regime from attempting to assassinate Bush in Kuwait in 1993. Or do you believe that Clinton fabricated the whole thing?

 

Maybe neutering doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to me.