Support NeoGAF

[Mandark]

1) I think you're underestimating the effect that the US can have, especially in the immediate future, on Middle Eastern Muslims' perceptions of the US. Moqtada Al-Sadr whipped himself up a militia's worth of young men to fight the US in about a year. Some 10,000+ civilians have died in Iraq, to say nothing of injuries, property damage, and perceived humiliations. How many friends, fathers, sons, nephews, and cousins in Iraq blame the US for the death of a loved one?

There are things that the American government has done and has supported in the Middle East which genuinely have enraged people there. Not just excuses for people who were going to attack us anyway.

2) Okay, Iraq is part of a macro-strategy for spreading democracy in the middle east. That deserves its own thread. But as far as the micro-strategy, what is Bush going to do to ensure a favorable outcome in Iraq? He may have laid out something, but if he has, I haven't heard it. I've seen him boast about what has already been accomplished, and point to the scheduled election in January, but does he have a plan going forward? Do you think the execution has been up to par so far?

3) How do you know that Bush will intervene further in the Middle East? He has invaded exactly one country in that region. He did not even mention Iran or Syria in his acceptance speech. Even if he planned to invade them, what would be the soonest point at which that would be possible, since he's said American troops will be in Iraq until it is a free, democratic state and a partner in the war on terror?

4) Kerry's argument for internationalism in Iraq is twofold: that it will reduce the appearance of American imperialism, and that the task is too large to effectively be done by the US alone. I understand you put less value than I would on the first objective. On the second point, do you think that the US can effectively occupy and reconstruct Iraq with the current level of international support? Has the reconstruction been acceptable so far? If more resources are needed, what would be your solution? Allied troops, a larger US military, or a combination of the two?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

you do realize that movie was a work of fiction, right? As in there's no theoretical basis for the events that transpire in the movie?

Well, there is... but as the conversation went earlier, we might say it's not something that most scientists agree on.

 

[Phoenix]

3) How do you know that Bush will intervene further in the Middle East? He has invaded exactly one country in that region. He did not even mention Iran or Syria in his acceptance speech. Even if he planned to invade them, what would be the soonest point at which that would be possible, since he's said American troops will be in Iraq until it is a free, democratic state and a partner in the war on terror?

To be fair, not all interventions need be done with military force of Division strength. If we take a look at the Sudan operations that are about to happen, we aren't going to send significant troop strength. At the same time I'm watching at this very moment where Mr. Biden in the senate hearing on Sudan is talking about nations forfeiting their soverignty when the commit/permit acts of genocide within their borders. So while we COULD take other avenues other than military force (which should always be the last resort) we have people all over the government who firmly believe in gunboat diplomacy - a notion that is antiquated. Fortunately, even they are talking about building up the AU to solve the problem and potentially using force in the interim to stabilize the region while the AU builds up and gets into a position to stop the atrocities.

4) Kerry's argument for internationalism in Iraq is twofold: that it will reduce the appearance of American imperialism, and that the task is too large to effectively be done by the US alone. I understand you put less value than I would on the first objective. On the second point, do you think that the US can effectively occupy and reconstruct Iraq with the current level of international support? Has the reconstruction been acceptable so far? If more resources are needed, what would be your solution? Allied troops, a larger US military, or a combination of the two?

I personally don't think that more military resources are the issue. We need to backfill to cover our losses, but I think that more importantly is getting the country back on its feet - getting the infrastructure up, running, and secure. I think you have to protect all of these contract employees so that they aren't used as tools to break the coalition (which is happening). I think you have to get the people up on par with other nations again. Much of what I see in a lot of these hearings is that a lot of people think that all we have at our disposal - so they see every situation in the world as a nail.

We need to redress the problem and come in with multiple ways to solve problems. You can't sanction your way to a solution any more than you can bomb your way to a solution.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I hear the same things from people who claim Bush is better for the war on terror than Kerry. Not that I think either of them has a clue on what to do to make things better, but I have to ask a simple question:

Why do you feel safer now with Bush's war on terror?

I'd like to know b/c I don't feel safer, and I haven't since we first started targeting Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not send any hijackers AFAIK. They were largely Saudi and Egyptian last I checked, and those are our allies. There's a deeper problem here that's being glazed over. I see the illusions of security, but no real fixes. I think the war on terror will end up being a major problem in the coming years. I see its effect being the same as the war on drugs. It will only fragment and splinter the base and cause it to flourish over a wider area. We've already seen some of that. Just my opinion, but what good has the war on terror been besides focusing Al Qaeda's attention on Iraq and Afghanistan? PEACE.

 

[Mandark]

Phoenix: Not every intervention, but anything on the scale of the Iraq venture. The failure to provide security has pretty well undermined every other aspect of the operation.

 

[LuckyBrand]

sorry , i noticed the death penalty came up..

just wanted to add my two cents that rapists and child molestors should get the death penalty..

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

sorry , i noticed the death penalty came up..

just wanted to add my two cents that rapists and child molestors should get the death penalty..

If you really want to make the death penalty effective.

Rapists, child molestors, and anyone gulity of first or second degeree murder should get the dealth penality.

 

[SteveMeister]

Afghanistan did not send any hijackers AFAIK. They were largely Saudi and Egyptian last I checked, and those are our allies.

The ruling Taliban in Afghanistan provided safe haven for Al Qaeda. THAT is why the US attacked Afghanistan, and rightly so.

 

[KingV]

I guess you could say, "A bunch of [experts] think"... these are the people who work in this field, and they tend to agree that the "latest research" says that the climate has been affected by humans. This is what they think about the latest research.

"At an international workshop* here late last month on climate sensitivity, climatic wishy-washiness seemed to be on the wane. "We've gone from hand waving to real understanding," said climate researcher Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Increasingly sophisticated climate models seem to be converging on a most probable sensitivity. By running a model dozens of times under varying conditions, scientists are beginning to pin down statistically the true uncertainty of the models' climate sensitivity. And studies of natural climate changes from the last century to the last ice age are also yielding climate sensitivities.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I completely do not believe that humanity is having any effect on the climate at all. The theory is pretty simple, and I'm sure that human output has some effect, but how much is still unclear. Even the models talked about below (I'm going off of the cut and pastes, Science does not seem to be free), have a range of 1.5 degrees to infinity and beyond. Yes, the scientist think 3 degrees sounds reasonable, so let's work with that. What are the effects of a 3 degree climate change? At this point it becomes a cost benefit exercise. Don't kid yourself, a 1-3% hit in GDP is pretty big. We're normally talking annual growth rates of 2-5%, taking a full 20%-60% of your economic growth and throwing it into combating global warming would have a massive effect on a lot of people. Is it worth it? I personally, at this moment in time don't think it's worth the risk. While the modeling is better than it was, there are still far too many unknown factors, and even if the models are right, nobody really knows exactly what effect this will have on the world? Is it an Extinction Level Event, or will growing seasons just get longer. I'm guessing it's somewhere in between, where it will have both net positive and net negative effects depending on geographic position.

Hello, the predictions get updated. Refer to my earlier posts on things being updated. Also, people use different models. Again, look at my previous post on how disagreement doesn't mean "wrong".

Models that have tracked average global temperature over its fluctuations during the past 10 centuries show that it has followed natural events (such as volcanic eruptions and variations in solar flux) quite well up until the 20th century.

I just wanted to point out that much of the Middle Ages occurred longer than 10 centuries ago, so if they truly as much of an outlier as the earlier article suggested, well, they could change the models considerably. The article is not specific on specifically when in the middle ages they are referring to though, other than a "Little Ice age" in the 1300's

Again, science deals with the best that it has... if you want absolute answers, you can look at some philosophy and religion.

I agree, but is the Science robust enough that we can make educated decisions based upon it? Is not a more moderate approach than Kyoto advisable (we got a little, "off topic", so to say)? I think it is, until the science is more robust. There's been a lot of advances, but nobody out there is saying "I can predict the temperature 10 years from now". Here's an article that addresses global warming and a few of the shortcomings of current models.

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

 

[videogamer]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I completely do not believe that humanity is having any effect on the climate at all. The theory is pretty simple, and I'm sure that human output has some effect, but how much is still unclear. Even the models talked about below (I'm going off of the cut and pastes, Science does not seem to be free), have a range of 1.5 degrees to infinity and beyond. Yes, the scientist think 3 degrees sounds reasonable, so let's work with that.

OMG who would say that temps would increase to infinity? Even the sun isn't that hot. WTF is it even possible? Think about it. The articlee quoted 1.5 to 6 degrees C, with most models tending toward 3 centigrade.

What are the effects of a 3 degree climate change? At this point it becomes a cost benefit exercise. Don't kid yourself, a 1-3% hit in GDP is pretty big. We're normally talking annual growth rates of 2-5%, taking a full 20%-60% of your economic growth and throwing it into combating global warming would have a massive effect on a lot of people. Is it worth it? I personally, at this moment in time don't think it's worth the risk. While the modeling is better than it was, there are still far too many unknown factors, and even if the models are right, nobody really knows exactly what effect this will have on the world? Is it an Extinction Level Event, or will growing seasons just get longer. I'm guessing it's somewhere in between, where it will have both net positive and net negative effects depending on geographic position.

Remember that they are proposing that the world do this over 50 years. Read that quote again, and you would notice that. Also, potential risks of global warming are well documented, especially the rise in ocean levels. It can swamp out low lying land. if you check out the ppt slide, you can find other potential problems such as large-scale coral bleaching (which 3 degrees in certain areas can meke the difference). These things do have an economic impact in addition to the loss of habitat, land, and changes in rain patterns. When things do go bad in one area, it takes money to move those people out (or to build canals/dams or whatever to make it comfortable/viable for them to stay there). The IPCC website would be a good place to start (their reports are cited by the papers)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/001.htm

I just wanted to point out that much of the Middle Ages occurred longer than 10 centuries ago, so if they truly as much of an outlier as the earlier article suggested, well, they could change the models considerably. The article is not specific on specifically when in the middle ages they are referring to though, other than a "Little Ice age" in the 1300's

Remember that climate goes in cycles. Ice ages are expected about every 100000 years. It has been suggested that the medieval warm period fits into the periodization. It was warm just before the "little ice age". However, the recent temperature rises do not seem to fit in with the 100000 year cycle.

Unfortunately, there it's still not yet that clear if the warming was global or was a localized event. There is evidence that it is part of the normal global osscillation.

I agree, but is the Science robust enough that we can make educated decisions based upon it? Is not a more moderate approach than Kyoto advisable (we got a little, "off topic", so to say)? I think it is, until the science is more robust. There's been a lot of advances, but nobody out there is saying "I can predict the temperature 10 years from now". Here's an article that addresses global warming and a few of the shortcomings of current models.

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

Science is a peer reviewed journal...and you can't get much more reputable than that. Also, Science is one of the major journals... oftentimes big "wow" kind of research gets published here. Come on, you can find it in most places... it isn't some obscure journal focusing on retinal diseases or something. I chose review articles, so you can easily look at the footnotes and look at the original research.

You can probably access Science through your school libraries. I'm using a proxy so it thinks that I'm using the school computer.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=9/30/2004

 

[Azih]

What are the effects of a 3 degree climate change?

Man do you realise the amount of energy it takes to make the ENTIRE world 3 degrees hotter? It's stupefying, hell a 1 degree difference is mind boggling.

 

[BigGreenMat]

a 3 degree total climate change is VERY large. It is not like every day everywhere would just be 3 degrees warmer. The largest effects are at the poles which is why small temperature change vastly changes polar temperatures. Also ocean temperatures will be change vastly as will there patterns leading to quite massive shifts in climate on land especially in the northern hemisphere and America where it will actually get colder before it gets warmer. Believe me you don't want this kind of massive shift in such a small time period. Be a conservative. Small change is ok, large is not.