Were you being sarcastic? Well I'm sure you have proof that Al-Queda existed in Iraq before the war. Please provide such.

 

AQ was in Iraq before the war, it is well documented. They were not allied with Sadam except in a co-belligerent status against Iran.

 

Really? You made the assertion, now back it up, especially since AQ is Sunni, NOT Shi'ite.

 

Ansar Al Islam is a Sunni, Kurdish, terrorist organization, so I don't quite get your point.

You're opinion is skewed because you don't believe in it and have no room for gray area. You believe the whole world is out to get you, with regards to this issue, and so if the media reports things that are pro-GW, of course you are going to cry foul.

And my scientific background counts for nothing over a journalist? My opinion is based on scientific integrity far more so than politics.

 

The MSM doesn't know a damn thing about science. So what do they do? They portray the sensationalist aspects to make money. Why am I not allowed to take sides and they are?

 

 

I swear you are one of the biggest talking heads on this forum. Geez.

 

Ok. I keep on forgetting this is an issue that is absolutely not worth discussing with you. Sorry.

 

And I'm not sure what that last bit means. I don't have a very large head.

How open minded of you.

 

Ditto.

This quote applies to this discussion. Does anyone know who said it first?

 

 

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they all stink.

Because at this point in time more people want to hear about it. Simple as that.

 

I actually agree that it would be nice if there was more coverage of both sides, but people don't want to hear both sides, and since they are still in the business of selling papers, one is going to get more coverage now. I think you are putting more thought into it than is necessary. It's not some big anti-science conspiracy. 10 years ago GW got no play because nobody cared. They aren't lying, they are playing to the stories that more people care about. I don't think that is a terrible thing.

 

My point is that I've realized over the years that it isn't worth discussing GW with you because of how set you are in your views. I don't believe the hype I'm told, but I also don't think it's nothing. I think there's something there, but to hear you tell it anyone who even contemplates the idea that it might exist has been duped by some vast conspiracy.

I think it does, but maybe I'm missing your question.

 

Oh, the what don't you believe in thing? You don't believe in the current global warming theory. Very vehemently so. So anytime the media reports a story on it, you are going to get all pissed off about it. I appreciate that you know much more than I do about this topic, but you should also realize that the majority of the population doesn't agree with you, and as such, I can't get mad at the media for giving them stories that they want to hear, especially if those stories aren't made up or poorly reported. They just represent one world view. Like I said, I wish they would do more to cover both sides, but there isn't exactly a huge push from anyone to get that view out there.

"Liberal bias"

 

And we're done.

 

Sorry, I just can't take anyone seriously who believes there is a liberal or conservative bias in the media.

I am late to this topic but I feel I must address it. We have very strong relations with a prominent middle eastern country in Jordan, in fact...I would say they are our strongest culturally middle eastern ally. Jordan has a history of peace and moderation and is an example for that region to follow.

 

One of my biggest problems with our current middle eastern relationships is with Saudi Arabia.

 

I am one who believes Saddam should of been deposed, although I think other means could of accomplished that. There was a very real threat of chemical and biological weapons, so the threat of WMD was real enough.

 

I have compassion for Israel's situation but feel our continued policy towards them hurts us more than any other factor in the middle east. I would like to distance ourselves from them and forge stronger ties with the U.A.E., Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, Lebanon, and Kuwait.

 

I feel we should focus on forging strong relationships with the states made up of the former Yugoslavia, unilaterally with stronger relations with middle eastern countries. Add to that Lithuania(their president was an American politician at one point), Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine. Rapidly developing countries who could become powerful allies, in terms of social standing and strategically. Our alliances with the U.K. and Australia only go so far.

 

I would like to permanently mend relationships that are at times strained with New Zealand. I would also like to sign some form of mutual defense pact with South Africa, much like the ANZUS treaty.

 

I want stronger ties to prominent Central and South American countries.

 

I would like to pull out of Iraq completely and turn it over to an unbiased multinational UN peacekeeping force(one that still had war making abilities), spearheaded by a country such as Canada or Germany.

 

I would like to pull all forces away from the European and middle eastern(theres a reason I dont capitalize it) area of operations to rest and refit and repopulate the armed forces throughout the U.S. I am fine with forces in South Korea, although if North Korea ever decided to go south they would decimate the forces we have there. Still enough to buy us time. Korea, however, is a relic of mid 20th century ideals and communism and it is time for unification or just recognition by each nation.

 

I would sacrifice relations with Taiwan for stronger ties to mainland China.

 

I am for stronger ties to other south east Asia countries, such as Vietnam and Laos. We have fences to mend there.

 

Our armed forces are set up so that if a crisis arrives anywhere in the world we can be there rapidly and battle ready. The need for European strategic locations went away with the fall of the Iron Curtain. And if we cant get there in time, there are enough powerful militaries in enough areas of operation around the globe to hold the line until we arrived.

 

I am in favor of helping modernize the military's of former Soviet Bloc countries. Surplus weapons and machinery that is being phased out could be sold to help the national budget. That goes on the lines of the AH-1, UH-1, and HH-53 helicopters, as well as the OH-58. Units that are replacing Bradleys with Strykers could also make the Bradley expendable and able to be sold for profit.

 

I am in favor of giving out defense contracts to foreign companies(such as Heckler&Koch and Eurocopter) and licensing out certain defense blueprints.

 

I would of liked to have stayed neutral in the Kosovo independence, but that didnt happen. I think we recognized them way too fast and I am afraid we might get pulled into a conflict in some form if Serbia tries to forcibly retake them. However, I am not against setting up diplomatic relations with them.

 

Those are my current views on the world climate as they pertain to the United States. I think we should refrain from policing the world for a time, to be honest. Canada can handle any major threat(they have a very strong, modern, well equipped, and well trained military), along with the aforementioned U.K., Germany, Australia, New Zealand, etc. I would like to see us convert a less used base into a multi national training and education center for cross training with US and foreign militaries. We could learn alot from each other.

:lol :lol

 

We certainly aren't.

 

Are you joking? If you don't think liberals in the media have an agenda in their reporting on the issue of climate change, then you are simply lying to yourself. You are going to extreme lengths to justify the motives of journalists and you are looking quite foolish.

 

Explain to me how one-sided, filtered reporting on a de facto political issue has no biased component present. The doomsday scenario is sensationalist enough to sell newspapers, but a strong dissenting opinion to the "consensus" would certainly be newsworthy.

 

Those opinions indeed exist. Why aren't they being reported? If there is no politically oriented bias present here, then why are all of the print articles so unilateral? Why is the media creating these stories about scientists being bought by oil companies? This happened right after the 2006 IPCC meetings. Why do they ignore the huge disparity in research funding?

 

Do you understand that the average reporter has exactly zero say in what gets printed in the paper? I'll give you that the average reporter is probably a liberal, but I'll also have to counter that most newspapers are owned and operated by multinational corporations, and they tend to be conservative (or, the people who run them do). This means that if there is a bias towards the "left" side (How the hell this issue became a left/right issue is beyond me, since neither side is a naturally conservative or liberal issue) it comes from the higher ups, not the reporter on the ground. If you want to rail against something, rail against the faceless, nameless, omnipresent corporations that run and impact most of the things we consume. It really doesn't have anything to do with your average reporters beliefs.

I believe that no matter how much you "know" about the subject of global warming.....you have to admit that there are credible scientists on both sides of the issue. I'm not a scientist myself, so I guess I'm subject to that liberal media bias that some speak of, but it seems like the majority of scientists do believe that global warming is to some degree caused by humans, and to some degree preventable or able to be slowed by humans. It seems foolish to dogmatically believe one way or the other. We just don't have nearly enough scientific data. Maybe in 100, 1000, or 100,000 years we'll have enough data. I'm not sure as well how this global warming discussion turned into a political debate. Makes no sense. It would be like "trying to find a cure for cancer" would be a political issue. Everyone on the planet should be concerned about both. Dealing(or not dealing) with global warming and/or cancer cure both in the end are a societal issue of cost vs. benefit...and risk of inaction.

Mostly because I don't think GW is a political issue. The parties have coopted it for both sides for their own gain, but it isn't a natural left vs. right issue, and as such, a liberal reporter is just going to report what he is told to.

You have to understand, el penguino, the first time we measure something HAS to show us EVERYTHING we need to know!

this is a useless topic of debate on this board...that is all

Mostly because people on both sides of the issue tend to be completely unwilling to give an inch.

i dont see global warming as a political issue whatsoever...its happening right before our very eyes and there is plenty of data to back it up...if you choose not to believe that data, that is clearly your own perogative...but its there whether or not you so wish to remain ignorant to the topic at hand

Mostly because people on both sides of the issue tend to be completely unwilling to give an inch.

I'll budge when the data budges.

 

This should not be a political issue but unfortunately this has ceased to be the case.

 

I just think there's not much to gain in speaking in absolutes. To say, unequivocally, that it is or isn't happening right now doesn't serve any purpose.

 

It absolutely makes no sense as a political issue. I mean, I guess I can look at it from the POV of republicans being anti government regulation in business and environmental regulations would go against that, but nobody is thinking about it in that way. It's more of a "Democrats have to believe in GW" and "Republicans can't" etc. etc. But, logically, it doesn't make sense. For most people it almost seems like since they are a Democrat (or Republican) they feel pressured to believe what their party does so they can be a "true" party follower.

I think we're getting a little off topic here...