<p>
</p>
<p>hey hey hey slander not needed.</p>
<p>and btw, i am not fat. so BAH</p>
<p>Either way it is not perfectly all right to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Haven’t you people been to cities like Bombay or Mexico City where the pollution is so bad that breathing the air will make you sick? This pollution causes asmatha, lowers life expecancy, etc. Not to mention there is a hole in the ozone layer over Antartica.
The ozone layer is the one that protects us from the ultraviolet radiation from the sun, once its gone we all die. There has been a 33% drop in ozone lavels from before 1975 to now. What causes the depletion you may ask? Well substances with chloride and bromide especially and CFCS undergo reactions with the O3 (ozone) and turn back into O2 and create HCl.</p>
<p>I been to Bombay, i.e., Mumbai.</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter…after he left the presidency and became a human rights activist of sorts. But I guess I am kinda bias coming from Emory…</p>
<p>Woodrow Wilson…sigh…</p>
<p>Ike was a great president. he created the national highway system and does not get as much credit as he deserves when it comes to civil rights. however, harding and jfk were both pretty bad. carter was a good man but not that great of a president. nixon was a great president until he got scared of losing an election he was going to win anyway and did the whole watergate thing.</p>
<p>Has anyone said William Henry Harrison yet?</p>
<p>I’m not sure how this turned into a referendum on Bush, Kerry, and Iraq; I just stopped by to say I was fond of Woodrow Wilson. But in homage, I might contest the following statement: </p>
<p>“Multilateralism is foolishness. You don’t need concensus to protect your own ass. If someone comes to rob your house, you don’t go around the neighbourhood asking if you can kill him.”</p>
<p>No, one does not wander around the neighborhood doing so. However if some rapist broke into my apartment, you damned better believe it I’d go running to my roommate for backup. I’ll run to my roommate in the event of a rapist even though he can be a little bit of a smartass and sometimes he drinks my beer without saying thanks. If he’s a rude ■■■■■■■ when I first go banging on his door, I’m not going to go running to the little old lady across the hall instead no matter how nice she is to me. (Wow, this metaphor has acquired life of its own.)</p>
<p>The problem with the argument many of my liberal friends made before the war was that it was one of principle, not practicality. International cooperation is a big part of that–particularly with major powers. (I define major power as G8 status, status within major economic/trade organization, UNSC permanent veto ability, nuclear capacity.) Having some more rich countries splitting the check might have helped. I would also point out that the discrediting/failure of international IGOs has precipitated every major historical conflict of the 20th century.</p>
<p>Lastly, though I’ll accept w1cked’s use of the Weekly Standard and the Times Online, I have a problem with anyone citing someone like Michelle Malkin as an objective, secondary source. Or, for that matter, anyone like Maureen Dowd or Michael Moore. They fall into the same category: opinionated blowhards for whom fact is only secondary to winning. Some do it with a little more style and subtlety than others, though. </p>
<p>I opposed the Iraq war from the get-go. My problem is not with the notion of war; that’s part of international relations. My problem is that there are other, more credible threats in the world than the one presented by Iraq at the time of the invasion. Now, it is dangerous because yet another power vacuum is fast emerging in the world’s most volatile region.</p>
<p>Actually, let me rephrase that: if I thought I heard a rapist breaking into my apt, I’d run to my roommate first rather than the little old lady.</p>
<p>“My problem is that there are other, more credible threats in the world than the one presented by Iraq at the time of the invasion.”</p>
<p>What could be a more credible threat than a man who has SCUD missiles, who houses terrorists in his country, threatens Israel, and kills millions of his own people?</p>
<p>How about a man who:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Is actively and openly pursuing a nuclear program. And has enough indigenous deposits of uranium at his disposal to construct a dozen nuclear weapons.</p></li>
<li><p>Actively encourages terrorism. Provides funding, arms, and training for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Helps perpetuate the civil war in Afghanistan by supporting warlords there. (Meanwhile, Saddam–while not my favorite world leader or anything–was constantly at odds w. religious fundamentalists. He ran a secular government; OBL couldn’t stand him.) </p></li>
<li><p>Openly advocates the nuclear annihilation of Israel. On practically a weekly basis.</p></li>
<li><p>Hosts public beheadings on a weekly basis? Whose cabinet members have been called “ministers of murder”? Who systematically persecutes, imprisons, and kills dissidents? If we were so deeply concerned about the well-being of the Kurds, we probably would not have sought the assistance of Turkey. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Seriously, check out what the Brookings Institute has to say about this:
<a href=“http://www.brook.edu/views/testimony/pollack/20050929.htm[/url]”>http://www.brook.edu/views/testimony/pollack/20050929.htm</a></p>
<p>Thanks for making unwarranted assumptions. I have never read a Michelle Malkin post or story or column. Yes, I know who she is.</p>
<p>w1cked, you cited her in one of your posts.</p>
<p>pip-pip who is ur terrorist leader that u speak of?</p>
<p>Which post? I don’t understand.</p>
<p>In general, these have been the practices of the Iranian govt since 1978; including its current president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad. While I realize he did not come to power until telatively recently, he continues a number of troubling policies/practices. Hezbollah has been supported by Iran (and trained there) since at least the 1990s, probably earlier. And we’ve known about their direct support for these organizations for just as long. </p>
<p>In other words, Iran has been far more troubling for some time. When the Iraq war started, I didn’t buy most of the argument. We’ve never gone to war for humanitarian reasons. OBL and Saddam never supported once another. And a drawing of a trailer wasn’t enough to convince me that Saddam had WMD. Now we have a viable threat on our hands. And we’ve piddled away $280 billion in Iraq, with minimal success.</p>
<p>w1cked, on May 9 you wrote: </p>
<p>" The UN is good for raping little boys, but not much else
<a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...05/081zxelz.asp[/url]”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...05/081zxelz.asp</a>
<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1413501,00.html[/url]”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;
<a href=“http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001561.htm[/url]”>Michelle Malkin Archive - The Unz Review;
Sad to say, I agree with this theist on security issues."</p>
<p>Anyway, I wouldn’t have mentioned Malkin otherwise; I usually don’t think ppl like that are worth commenting on.</p>
<p>I looked at the Times link. I didn’t see the Malkin one.</p>
<p>You mean you didn’t look at it b.f. you posted it or you didn’t notice it in your post? I mean, that’s fine; I’m just not sure what you mean by that. </p>
<p>I only brought it up b.c. I noticed it within one of your posts. I really avoid making assumptions about individuals based on their political leanings. It’s actually a big pet peeve of mine.</p>
<p>Nope I just looked the Times link before posting. I just saw the Malkin page five minutes ago. Its ok I make assumptions too.</p>