Discussion:
"Controlling the earth's population will not do jack-shit to sustainability. BBC-environmentalist
(too old to reply)
GLOBALIST
2014-10-28 12:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News

Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.

A worldwide one-child policy would mean the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Even a catastrophic event that killed billions of people would have little effect on the overall impact, it said.

There may be 12 billion humans on Earth by 2100, latest projections suggest.

Concerns about the impact of people on the planet's resources have been growing, especially if the population continues to increase.

'Can't stop it'
The authors of this new study said roughly 14% of all the people who ever existed were alive today.

These growing numbers mean a greater impact on the environment than ever, with worries about the conversion of forests for agriculture, the rise of urbanisation, the pressure on species, pollution, and climate change.


Start Quote

Even if we had a third world war in the middle of this century, you would barely make a dent in the trajectory over the next 100 years"

Prof Corey Bradshaw
University of Adelaide
The picture is complicated by the fact that while the overall figures have been growing, the world's per-capita fertility has been declining for several decades.

The impact on the environment has increased substantially, however, because of rising affluence and consumption rates.

Many experts have argued the best way of tackling this impact is to facilitate a rapid transition to much lower fertility rates.

To work out the impact on population, the team constructed nine different scenarios for population change up to the year 2100, using data from the World Health Organization, and the US Census Bureau's international database.

They also used "catastrophe scenarios" to simulate the impacts of climate disruption, wars or global pandemics on population trends.

According to the study, attempts to curb our population as a short-term fix will not work.

If China's much criticised one-child policy was implemented worldwide, the Earth's population in 2100 would still be between five and 10 billion, it says.

trees
Rising population impacts the environment through deforestation and pressure on natural resources
"We've gone past the point where we can do it easily, just by the sheer magnitude of the population, what we call the demographic momentum. We just can't stop it fast enough," said Prof Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide.

"Even draconian measures for fertility control still won't arrest that growth rate - we're talking century-scale reductions rather than decadal scale, because of the magnitude."

In their paper, the researchers also look at the impact on numbers of a global catastrophe in the middle of this century. They found that even an event that wiped out two billion people would still leave about eight and a half billion in 2100.

"Even if we had a third world war in the middle of this century, you would barely make a dent in the trajectory over the next 100 years," said Prof Bradshaw, something he described as "sobering".

'Difficult to tackle'
The scientists said the issue of population and its impact on global consumption was often described as the "elephant in the room" - a problem that the world ignores as it is politically and ethically difficult to tackle.

But the research shows that curbing numbers will not deal with environmental challenges in the short term.

"Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term," said Prof Barry Brook from the University of Tasmania.

"Our great-great-great-great grandchildren might ultimately benefit from such planning, but people alive today will not."

As a result of this long-term impact, the world should focus on curbing consumption and designing ways to conserve species and ecosystems.

"Society's efforts towards sustainability would be directed more productively towards reducing our impact as much as possible through technological and social innovation," says Prof Bradshaw.

Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc

More on This Story
Related Stories

'Seven billionth' baby identified 31 OCTOBER 2011, SOUTH ASIA
7 billion people and you: What's your number? 26 OCTOBER 2011, WORLD
chatnoir
2014-10-28 12:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
A worldwide one-child policy would mean the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Even a catastrophic event that killed billions of people would have little effect on the overall impact, it said.
There may be 12 billion humans on Earth by 2100, latest projections suggest.
Concerns about the impact of people on the planet's resources have been growing, especially if the population continues to increase.
'Can't stop it'
The authors of this new study said roughly 14% of all the people who ever existed were alive today.
These growing numbers mean a greater impact on the environment than ever, with worries about the conversion of forests for agriculture, the rise of urbanisation, the pressure on species, pollution, and climate change.
Start Quote
Even if we had a third world war in the middle of this century, you would barely make a dent in the trajectory over the next 100 years"
Prof Corey Bradshaw
University of Adelaide
The picture is complicated by the fact that while the overall figures have been growing, the world's per-capita fertility has been declining for several decades.
The impact on the environment has increased substantially, however, because of rising affluence and consumption rates.
Many experts have argued the best way of tackling this impact is to facilitate a rapid transition to much lower fertility rates.
To work out the impact on population, the team constructed nine different scenarios for population change up to the year 2100, using data from the World Health Organization, and the US Census Bureau's international database.
They also used "catastrophe scenarios" to simulate the impacts of climate disruption, wars or global pandemics on population trends.
According to the study, attempts to curb our population as a short-term fix will not work.
If China's much criticised one-child policy was implemented worldwide, the Earth's population in 2100 would still be between five and 10 billion, it says.
trees
Rising population impacts the environment through deforestation and pressure on natural resources
"We've gone past the point where we can do it easily, just by the sheer magnitude of the population, what we call the demographic momentum. We just can't stop it fast enough," said Prof Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide.
"Even draconian measures for fertility control still won't arrest that growth rate - we're talking century-scale reductions rather than decadal scale, because of the magnitude."
In their paper, the researchers also look at the impact on numbers of a global catastrophe in the middle of this century. They found that even an event that wiped out two billion people would still leave about eight and a half billion in 2100.
"Even if we had a third world war in the middle of this century, you would barely make a dent in the trajectory over the next 100 years," said Prof Bradshaw, something he described as "sobering".
'Difficult to tackle'
The scientists said the issue of population and its impact on global consumption was often described as the "elephant in the room" - a problem that the world ignores as it is politically and ethically difficult to tackle.
But the research shows that curbing numbers will not deal with environmental challenges in the short term.
"Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term," said Prof Barry Brook from the University of Tasmania.
"Our great-great-great-great grandchildren might ultimately benefit from such planning, but people alive today will not."
As a result of this long-term impact, the world should focus on curbing consumption and designing ways to conserve species and ecosystems.
"Society's efforts towards sustainability would be directed more productively towards reducing our impact as much as possible through technological and social innovation," says Prof Bradshaw.
More on This Story
Related Stories
'Seven billionth' baby identified 31 OCTOBER 2011, SOUTH ASIA
7 billion people and you: What's your number? 26 OCTOBER 2011, WORLD
In other words there is no hope!
mg
2014-10-28 18:10:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .

You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
GLOBALIST
2014-10-28 20:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.

The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
mg
2014-10-28 22:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
rumpelstiltskin
2014-10-29 02:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.

I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
mg
2014-10-29 06:47:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:00:13 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.
I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)

There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html

While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control

Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking. One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis. In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
El Castor
2014-10-29 07:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:00:13 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.
I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking. One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis. In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
I call upon all liberals to make the ultimate sacrifice in the cause
of saving the planet. Dubyah did as much as he could, but only you
progressives possess the nobility and wisdom to do what is necessary.
Eat shit and die!!!
mg
2014-10-29 08:56:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:48:12 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:00:13 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.
I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking. One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis. In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
I call upon all liberals to make the ultimate sacrifice in the cause
of saving the planet. Dubyah did as much as he could, but only you
progressives possess the nobility and wisdom to do what is necessary.
Eat shit and die!!!
It's hard to imagine how anyone, could have ever fucked things up
worse than Bush did. First, he failed to prevent 9/11, even though
there were a lot of warnings. Then he failed to get Bin Laden in
Afghanistan and started a nation building war with the Taliban,
instead. Then he started a war with Iraq, a country that had nothing
to do with 9/11 and he replaced a Sunni government with a Shiite
government that has now aligned itself with our Iranian enemy. The
estimated cost, when all the dust settles, will be about $4 trillion.
And now we're stuck with having to defend that Shiite government
against the Sunnis, who want their country back.

It's hard to imagine how any ordinary, American citizen could have
ever fucked things up that bad, if he had been president. The problem,
though, was that George Bush isn't an ordinary, American citizen. He's
an oil guy, from an oil-rich, war-profiteering family.
El Castor
2014-10-29 19:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:48:12 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:00:13 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.
I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking. One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis. In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
I call upon all liberals to make the ultimate sacrifice in the cause
of saving the planet. Dubyah did as much as he could, but only you
progressives possess the nobility and wisdom to do what is necessary.
Eat shit and die!!!
It's hard to imagine how anyone, could have ever fucked things up
worse than Bush did. First, he failed to prevent 9/11, even though
there were a lot of warnings. Then he failed to get Bin Laden in
Afghanistan
Clinton had a great shot at bin Laden, but he passed, and Bush
probably felt compelled to act on Iraq when all your big shot Dems
kept bleating about the WMDs. Gosh, I guess Pelosi, Gore, and the rest
just forced his hand. Anyhow, he did the best he could in the war
against over population. Now it's time for you liberals to take up the
banner and do the right thing.
Post by mg
and started a nation building war with the Taliban,
instead. Then he started a war with Iraq, a country that had nothing
to do with 9/11 and he replaced a Sunni government with a Shiite
government that has now aligned itself with our Iranian enemy. The
estimated cost, when all the dust settles, will be about $4 trillion.
And now we're stuck with having to defend that Shiite government
against the Sunnis, who want their country back.
It's hard to imagine how any ordinary, American citizen could have
ever fucked things up that bad, if he had been president. The problem,
though, was that George Bush isn't an ordinary, American citizen. He's
an oil guy, from an oil-rich, war-profiteering family.
Thank God for the oil. Without it we would still be riding around on
horses, and as I was reading the other day, it does seem strange when
you liberals complain about a 4% profit on a gallon of gas, but are
good with a 15% tax on the same gallon. Why is that?
chatnoir
2014-10-29 20:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:48:12 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:00:13 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.
I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking. One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis. In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
I call upon all liberals to make the ultimate sacrifice in the cause
of saving the planet. Dubyah did as much as he could, but only you
progressives possess the nobility and wisdom to do what is necessary.
Eat shit and die!!!
It's hard to imagine how anyone, could have ever fucked things up
worse than Bush did. First, he failed to prevent 9/11, even though
there were a lot of warnings. Then he failed to get Bin Laden in
Afghanistan
Clinton had a great shot at bin Laden
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/09/25/7679/wag-the-dog/

FLASHBACK: Conservative Lawmakers Decried Clinton's Attacks Against Osama As 'Wag the Dog'

by ThinkProgress Posted on September 25, 2006 at 3:48 pm Updated: September 28, 2006 at 10:23 am
facebook icon 0Share This twitter icon 0Tweet This

"FLASHBACK: Conservative Lawmakers Decried Clinton's Attacks Against Osama As 'Wag the Dog'"

Share:
facebook icon twitter icon

In his interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, former President Bill Clinton noted that the political right, which now accuses him of not doing enough to stem the al Qaeda terrorist threat, criticized his 1998 missile strikes in Afghanistan as "wag the dog." Clinton said:

The people on my political right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was wag the dog when he tried to kill him.

Originating from a 1997 movie, Wag the Dog was a phrase used by the right to suggest Clinton's airstrikes were driven by ulterior motives in an effort to distract the public. Some examples below:

Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):

"'Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,' Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. 'Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.'" [Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):

"There's an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. ... I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president's current problems have to be on the minds of many people." [CNN, 8/20/98]

Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):

"'We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we're not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?' Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H." [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):

"I'm very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed." [Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]

Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):

"Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, 'While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.'" [CNN, 8/20/98]

Former Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):

"Although most in Congress rallied around Clinton on Thursday, two Republican U.S. senators and one Central Florida congressman broke with the tradition of standing behind a president during a foreign crisis.Sen. Daniel Coats, R-Ind., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay, publicly questioned Clinton's motives in launching the attacks so soon after his public admission of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. ... 'The president has, indeed, broken the trust of the American people, and these are legitimate questions that must be answered.'" [Orlando Sentinel, 8/21/98]

Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):

"All I'm saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention." [Fox News, 8/20/98]



, but he passed, and Bush
Post by El Castor
probably felt compelled to act on Iraq when all your big shot Dems
kept bleating about the WMDs. Gosh, I guess Pelosi, Gore, and the rest
just forced his hand. Anyhow, he did the best he could in the war
against over population. Now it's time for you liberals to take up the
banner and do the right thing.
Post by mg
and started a nation building war with the Taliban,
instead. Then he started a war with Iraq, a country that had nothing
to do with 9/11 and he replaced a Sunni government with a Shiite
government that has now aligned itself with our Iranian enemy. The
estimated cost, when all the dust settles, will be about $4 trillion.
And now we're stuck with having to defend that Shiite government
against the Sunnis, who want their country back.
It's hard to imagine how any ordinary, American citizen could have
ever fucked things up that bad, if he had been president. The problem,
though, was that George Bush isn't an ordinary, American citizen. He's
an oil guy, from an oil-rich, war-profiteering family.
Thank God for the oil. Without it we would still be riding around on
horses, and as I was reading the other day, it does seem strange when
you liberals complain about a 4% profit on a gallon of gas, but are
good with a 15% tax on the same gallon. Why is that?
mg
2014-10-30 01:53:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:25:37 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:48:12 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:00:13 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.
I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking. One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis. In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
I call upon all liberals to make the ultimate sacrifice in the cause
of saving the planet. Dubyah did as much as he could, but only you
progressives possess the nobility and wisdom to do what is necessary.
Eat shit and die!!!
It's hard to imagine how anyone, could have ever fucked things up
worse than Bush did. First, he failed to prevent 9/11, even though
there were a lot of warnings. Then he failed to get Bin Laden in
Afghanistan
Clinton had a great shot at bin Laden, but he passed, and Bush
probably felt compelled to act on Iraq when all your big shot Dems
kept bleating about the WMDs. Gosh, I guess Pelosi, Gore, and the rest
just forced his hand. Anyhow, he did the best he could in the war
against over population. Now it's time for you liberals to take up the
banner and do the right thing.
Post by mg
and started a nation building war with the Taliban,
instead. Then he started a war with Iraq, a country that had nothing
to do with 9/11 and he replaced a Sunni government with a Shiite
government that has now aligned itself with our Iranian enemy. The
estimated cost, when all the dust settles, will be about $4 trillion.
And now we're stuck with having to defend that Shiite government
against the Sunnis, who want their country back.
It's hard to imagine how any ordinary, American citizen could have
ever fucked things up that bad, if he had been president. The problem,
though, was that George Bush isn't an ordinary, American citizen. He's
an oil guy, from an oil-rich, war-profiteering family.
Thank God for the oil. Without it we would still be riding around on
horses, and as I was reading the other day, it does seem strange when
you liberals complain about a 4% profit on a gallon of gas, but are
good with a 15% tax on the same gallon. Why is that?
I believe in competition and I believe that the purpose of the Iraq
war was to eliminate, or delay, the competition and make the price of
oil go higher. As I recall, the average cost, for U.S. oil producers,
is about $60/bbl and the cost for Iraqi oil is about $5/bbl. Iraq oil
is a much higher quality grade of oil, also. So, refining costs are
also a lot less.
El Castor
2014-10-30 19:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:25:37 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:48:12 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:00:13 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.
I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking. One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis. In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
I call upon all liberals to make the ultimate sacrifice in the cause
of saving the planet. Dubyah did as much as he could, but only you
progressives possess the nobility and wisdom to do what is necessary.
Eat shit and die!!!
It's hard to imagine how anyone, could have ever fucked things up
worse than Bush did. First, he failed to prevent 9/11, even though
there were a lot of warnings. Then he failed to get Bin Laden in
Afghanistan
Clinton had a great shot at bin Laden, but he passed, and Bush
probably felt compelled to act on Iraq when all your big shot Dems
kept bleating about the WMDs. Gosh, I guess Pelosi, Gore, and the rest
just forced his hand. Anyhow, he did the best he could in the war
against over population. Now it's time for you liberals to take up the
banner and do the right thing.
Post by mg
and started a nation building war with the Taliban,
instead. Then he started a war with Iraq, a country that had nothing
to do with 9/11 and he replaced a Sunni government with a Shiite
government that has now aligned itself with our Iranian enemy. The
estimated cost, when all the dust settles, will be about $4 trillion.
And now we're stuck with having to defend that Shiite government
against the Sunnis, who want their country back.
It's hard to imagine how any ordinary, American citizen could have
ever fucked things up that bad, if he had been president. The problem,
though, was that George Bush isn't an ordinary, American citizen. He's
an oil guy, from an oil-rich, war-profiteering family.
Thank God for the oil. Without it we would still be riding around on
horses, and as I was reading the other day, it does seem strange when
you liberals complain about a 4% profit on a gallon of gas, but are
good with a 15% tax on the same gallon. Why is that?
I believe in competition and I believe that the purpose of the Iraq
war was to eliminate, or delay, the competition and make the price of
oil go higher.
MG, as I recall, not even Islander buys that. I sure don't, but unlike
some in this group I don't feel it necessary to worship certain
politicians. I am willing to believe anyone is a crook, but I do
insist on proof. Where's the proof? Give me a plausible source for
your beliefs -- and I don't mean Socialists-R-Us.com, or
Lunatics-B-Here.net. (-8
Post by mg
As I recall, the average cost, for U.S. oil producers,
is about $60/bbl and the cost for Iraqi oil is about $5/bbl. Iraq oil
is a much higher quality grade of oil, also. So, refining costs are
also a lot less.
mg
2014-10-31 20:18:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:25:37 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:48:12 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:00:13 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
Matt McGrath
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
. . .
You left the words "short term" out of the title. I'm sure that was,
of course, just an inadvertent error on your part, though, and wasn't
meant to mislead anybody.
Did I write the article?
You read the article I presume
At what point would you consider it 'short' term to eliminate
half the population?
I took what he meant by "hort term" was that..It might 'appear' that you
are getting rid of the problem, while ignoring the actual problem.
HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS HOPELESS
He merely said that we are avoiding the real problem. And need to
start preparing for better ways to raise food.
The answer that most of you guys are mover familiar with is: "Just
kill a few people. And all will be well"
On the contrary, I've always felt that in order to make everything
well, it would be necessary to kill a lot of people.
That's what ISIS thinks, and they're doing it.
I just saw a spot on TV in which a man in Britain was
celebrating his 100th birthday. He was being praised for
saving hundreds of kids from the Nazis, by whatever
means he could, by lying and forging documents for
example, to gain their release. Near the end, the
announcer asked anybody who had been saved by this
man to please stand up, and about 50 people in the
audience stood up.
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking. One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis. In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
I call upon all liberals to make the ultimate sacrifice in the cause
of saving the planet. Dubyah did as much as he could, but only you
progressives possess the nobility and wisdom to do what is necessary.
Eat shit and die!!!
It's hard to imagine how anyone, could have ever fucked things up
worse than Bush did. First, he failed to prevent 9/11, even though
there were a lot of warnings. Then he failed to get Bin Laden in
Afghanistan
Clinton had a great shot at bin Laden, but he passed, and Bush
probably felt compelled to act on Iraq when all your big shot Dems
kept bleating about the WMDs. Gosh, I guess Pelosi, Gore, and the rest
just forced his hand. Anyhow, he did the best he could in the war
against over population. Now it's time for you liberals to take up the
banner and do the right thing.
Post by mg
and started a nation building war with the Taliban,
instead. Then he started a war with Iraq, a country that had nothing
to do with 9/11 and he replaced a Sunni government with a Shiite
government that has now aligned itself with our Iranian enemy. The
estimated cost, when all the dust settles, will be about $4 trillion.
And now we're stuck with having to defend that Shiite government
against the Sunnis, who want their country back.
It's hard to imagine how any ordinary, American citizen could have
ever fucked things up that bad, if he had been president. The problem,
though, was that George Bush isn't an ordinary, American citizen. He's
an oil guy, from an oil-rich, war-profiteering family.
Thank God for the oil. Without it we would still be riding around on
horses, and as I was reading the other day, it does seem strange when
you liberals complain about a 4% profit on a gallon of gas, but are
good with a 15% tax on the same gallon. Why is that?
I believe in competition and I believe that the purpose of the Iraq
war was to eliminate, or delay, the competition and make the price of
oil go higher.
MG, as I recall, not even Islander buys that. I sure don't, but unlike
some in this group I don't feel it necessary to worship certain
politicians. I am willing to believe anyone is a crook, but I do
insist on proof. Where's the proof? Give me a plausible source for
your beliefs -- and I don't mean Socialists-R-Us.com, or
Lunatics-B-Here.net. (-8
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
As I recall, the average cost, for U.S. oil producers,
is about $60/bbl and the cost for Iraqi oil is about $5/bbl. Iraq oil
is a much higher quality grade of oil, also. So, refining costs are
also a lot less.
islander
2014-10-31 22:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.

As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.

You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.

But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
mg
2014-11-01 01:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.
As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.
You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.
But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.

The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.

I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
islander
2014-11-01 15:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.
As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.
You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.
But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.
The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.
I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
You are a hard man, Max!
Walt Hadley
2014-11-02 06:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.
The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.
I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
You are a hard man, Max!
Maybe he's just coming to the sad realization that politicians are
politicians, first and foremost, no matter how much they seem to support
Conservative or Liberal causes. A pox on them all!
mg
2014-11-02 07:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.
As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.
You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.
But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.
The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.
I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
You are a hard man, Max!
I think about my grandkids and great grandkids a lot. I made a lot of
mistakes when I was young -- too many to count, but that was back in
the days when life in America was pretty easy and forgiving. Now the
political system has made it so that young people can't make mistakes,
at least not very many, and then recover, anymore. They have to be
smart and they have to do things right the first time, or they're
screwed.

That being the case, then, why should I be tolerant of the
politicians' mistakes when they are intelligent, educated adults (and
not children), who have created a country where my grandkids aren't
allowed to make mistakes?

Anyway, that's how I look at it.
islander
2014-11-02 15:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.
As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.
You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.
But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.
The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.
I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
You are a hard man, Max!
I think about my grandkids and great grandkids a lot. I made a lot of
mistakes when I was young -- too many to count, but that was back in
the days when life in America was pretty easy and forgiving. Now the
political system has made it so that young people can't make mistakes,
at least not very many, and then recover, anymore. They have to be
smart and they have to do things right the first time, or they're
screwed.
That being the case, then, why should I be tolerant of the
politicians' mistakes when they are intelligent, educated adults (and
not children), who have created a country where my grandkids aren't
allowed to make mistakes?
Anyway, that's how I look at it.
Your grandkids and great grandkids are going to make mistakes. It is a
part of learning.

Better, I think, to concentrate on the kind of world that we would like
for them so that their mistakes are more easily survivable. To that
end, I focus more on the ideology that underlies leadership and the
people who are attracted to that ideology. Look at the people who Bush
surrounded himself with and compare that with the people who Obama
surrounds himself with. There is a world of difference.

It is too easy to simply blame the man!
El Castor
2014-11-02 20:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.
As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.
You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.
But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.
The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.
I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
You are a hard man, Max!
I think about my grandkids and great grandkids a lot. I made a lot of
mistakes when I was young -- too many to count, but that was back in
the days when life in America was pretty easy and forgiving. Now the
political system has made it so that young people can't make mistakes,
at least not very many, and then recover, anymore. They have to be
smart and they have to do things right the first time, or they're
screwed.
That being the case, then, why should I be tolerant of the
politicians' mistakes when they are intelligent, educated adults (and
not children), who have created a country where my grandkids aren't
allowed to make mistakes?
Anyway, that's how I look at it.
Your grandkids and great grandkids are going to make mistakes. It is a
part of learning.
Better, I think, to concentrate on the kind of world that we would like
for them so that their mistakes are more easily survivable. To that
end, I focus more on the ideology that underlies leadership and the
people who are attracted to that ideology. Look at the people who Bush
surrounded himself with and compare that with the people who Obama
surrounds himself with. There is a world of difference.
It is too easy to simply blame the man!
You and I can't agree on much, but one thing I am sure we can agree on
is what Obama is NOT -- he is not a Reagan Republican. (-8

Now that we have that behind us ... Paul Ryan for president??
islander
2014-11-02 21:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.
As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.
You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.
But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.
The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.
I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
You are a hard man, Max!
I think about my grandkids and great grandkids a lot. I made a lot of
mistakes when I was young -- too many to count, but that was back in
the days when life in America was pretty easy and forgiving. Now the
political system has made it so that young people can't make mistakes,
at least not very many, and then recover, anymore. They have to be
smart and they have to do things right the first time, or they're
screwed.
That being the case, then, why should I be tolerant of the
politicians' mistakes when they are intelligent, educated adults (and
not children), who have created a country where my grandkids aren't
allowed to make mistakes?
Anyway, that's how I look at it.
Your grandkids and great grandkids are going to make mistakes. It is a
part of learning.
Better, I think, to concentrate on the kind of world that we would like
for them so that their mistakes are more easily survivable. To that
end, I focus more on the ideology that underlies leadership and the
people who are attracted to that ideology. Look at the people who Bush
surrounded himself with and compare that with the people who Obama
surrounds himself with. There is a world of difference.
It is too easy to simply blame the man!
You and I can't agree on much, but one thing I am sure we can agree on
is what Obama is NOT -- he is not a Reagan Republican. (-8
Now that we have that behind us ... Paul Ryan for president??
Not gonna happen. Ryan has left too many turds in his trail. I
honestly don't know who the Republicans may run. The party has been
badly damaged by the batshit crazies who they helped to elect and who
they cannot control.

But, let's get the midterms behind us before we begin the next campaign.
mg
2014-11-03 03:38:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:45:13 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.
As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.
You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.
But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.
The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.
I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
You are a hard man, Max!
I think about my grandkids and great grandkids a lot. I made a lot of
mistakes when I was young -- too many to count, but that was back in
the days when life in America was pretty easy and forgiving. Now the
political system has made it so that young people can't make mistakes,
at least not very many, and then recover, anymore. They have to be
smart and they have to do things right the first time, or they're
screwed.
That being the case, then, why should I be tolerant of the
politicians' mistakes when they are intelligent, educated adults (and
not children), who have created a country where my grandkids aren't
allowed to make mistakes?
Anyway, that's how I look at it.
Your grandkids and great grandkids are going to make mistakes. It is a
part of learning.
Better, I think, to concentrate on the kind of world that we would like
for them so that their mistakes are more easily survivable. To that
end, I focus more on the ideology that underlies leadership and the
people who are attracted to that ideology. Look at the people who Bush
surrounded himself with and compare that with the people who Obama
surrounds himself with. There is a world of difference.
It is too easy to simply blame the man!
You and I can't agree on much, but one thing I am sure we can agree on
is what Obama is NOT -- he is not a Reagan Republican. (-8
Now that we have that behind us ... Paul Ryan for president??
"Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett: Face it, Obama is a conservative

Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 10:19 AM MDT

President Barack Obama “has governed as a moderate conservative,”
former Reagan administration domestic policy aide Bruce Bartlett
writes in a new essay for the eclectic American Conservative magazine.

Bartlett, an economic policy expert who left the Republican Party amid
disgust with President George W. Bush’s fiscal policies and backed
Obama in 2008, contends that a look at Obama’s track record reveals a
president who’s basically a liberal Republican of yore. From the
beginning of his administration, Bartlett argues, Obama has charted a
center-right course on both foreign and domestic policy issues.

Populating his administration with hawks like Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Obama has presided over new military engagements abroad while
overseeing a draconian crackdown on national security leaks at home,
Bartlett notes.

Meanwhile, Obama has pursued “very conservative” fiscal policies,
Bartlett writes, signing a stimulus package that was far smaller than
what experts and advisers like Christina Romer found would be
necessary to really prime the nation’s economic pump. Moreover, Obama
has conducted himself like a deficit hawk, “proposing much deeper cuts
in spending and the deficit than did the Republicans during the 2011
budget negotiations,” when a deal eluded the two parties. And don’t
buy into the the GOP “harping” that Obama hates business, Bartlett
cautions. The president, he says, “has bent over backward to protect
corporate profits.”

What about the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s signature domestic policy
achievement? That, too, is evidence of Obama’s conservatism, Bartlett
writes. Observing that Obamacare’s market-based approach drew on a
model put forth by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and by
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Bartlett contrasts Obamacare with a
real left-wing alternative like universal Medicare. So why are
conservatives so obstinately opposed to a fundamentally conservative
health care law? “The only thing is that it was now supported by a
Democratic president that Republicans vowed to fight on every single
issue,” Bartlett writes.

While Bartlett doesn’t see viscerally anti-Obama conservatives as
likely to acknowledge the president’s conservatism, he concludes that
philosopher and activist Cornel West “nailed it” when he recently
declared to Salon that Obama has given the country “a Wall Street
presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency.”

Read Barlett’s essay here."

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/reagan_adviser_bruce_bartlett_face_it_obama_is_a_conservative/
mg
2014-11-03 03:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
It might be impossible to convince either one of you, but I think it
would probably be easier to convince you than it would Islander.
Islander is an eternal optimist, who probably has more faith in his
fellow man than the Pope. When I die, I hope to have Islander manning
the pearly gates so that he can make a lot of excuses for me, and let
me in, whether I deserve it or not.
Sorry, I'm not going to be there! I'll either still be here or I'll be
dead.
As a self-admitted optimist, I don't believe that I have to apologize
for anyone. Like you, I think that it is clear that the war in Iraq was
motivated, at least in part, by the desire to control oil prices.
Unlike you, I see little benefit to criticizing the President,
especially just before an election that may determine whether he is able
to accomplish anything in his last two years. Political leadership is
all about making the best of what options you have. Given the
alternative, and considering the opposition that he has faced, he has
done a remarkable job, IMV.
You place way too much emphasis on the man while ignoring the larger
issues in play.
But, the bottom line is that I agree with Pinker that when we take our
current situation in the grand sweep of history, the human species has
never had it so good.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson left office, he took the opportunity to
inform us that "you never had it so good". He also wondered "why we
Americans enjoy punishing ourselves so much with our own criticism". I
guess that was his way of saying that we ought to overlook the fact
that he lied to get us into Vietnam and started a national nightmare
that killed about 58,000 Americans.
The fact that the world, in general, has it better now than they used
to and some housewife in Peoria, Illinois has a new dishwasher, that
never gave us the right to put an embargo on Iraq that resulted in the
deaths of about a half-million Iraq children and it didn't give us the
right to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis based on Bush's lies.
I believe that the larger issue right now is that Obama is a (Reagan)
Republican and so was Bill Clinton and so is Hillary Clinton. I also
think that Hillary, for all intents and purposes can be considered to
be a neocon. I believe in the truth and I don't believe that it ever
pays to hide it. Nobody ever reads my posts and nobody ever reads
yours. What we say here isn't going to have any effect on the election
or Obama's approval rating. So, we might as well just speak our minds
instead of acting like this is a ball game or something where we are
automatically obligated to cheer for our home team.
You are a hard man, Max!
I think about my grandkids and great grandkids a lot. I made a lot of
mistakes when I was young -- too many to count, but that was back in
the days when life in America was pretty easy and forgiving. Now the
political system has made it so that young people can't make mistakes,
at least not very many, and then recover, anymore. They have to be
smart and they have to do things right the first time, or they're
screwed.
That being the case, then, why should I be tolerant of the
politicians' mistakes when they are intelligent, educated adults (and
not children), who have created a country where my grandkids aren't
allowed to make mistakes?
Anyway, that's how I look at it.
Your grandkids and great grandkids are going to make mistakes. It is a
part of learning.
Better, I think, to concentrate on the kind of world that we would like
for them so that their mistakes are more easily survivable. To that
end, I focus more on the ideology that underlies leadership and the
people who are attracted to that ideology. Look at the people who Bush
surrounded himself with and compare that with the people who Obama
surrounds himself with. There is a world of difference.
It is too easy to simply blame the man!
There are two things that I don't like about Obama. The first is that
he is a Republican (see article below). I believe that Obama plans on
following in Bill Clinton's footsteps when he leaves the presidency
and becoming a multi-millionaire, like Clinton is. Bill and Hillary's
net worth is estimated at between $100 to $200 million. When
politicians get that rich, somebody pays the price and in the case of
Bill Clinton, I can think of a lot of ways that we paid the price. And
I believe we have paid the price for Obama, too. He just hasn't
collected, yet, but he will when he leaves office.

The second reason I don't like Obama is because he is incompetent
and/or lazy, and dishonest, and I think there's a lot of hubris
involved with that incompetence and laziness, too. Whether we are
Republicans or Democrats, I believe we should all have one thing in
common and that's in believing in working hard, being honest and doing
our job well. I believe that Obama flunks that test on all 3 counts.
-------------------------

"How Democrats Became Liberal Republicans

By Bruce Bartlett,
The Fiscal Times
December 21, 2012

Many on the left are puzzled by Barack Obama’s apparent willingness to
support dramatic reductions in federal social spending. It is only
because Republicans demand even more radical cuts in spending that
Obama’s fiscal conservatism is invisible to the general public. But
those on the political left know it and are scared.

Yesterday, left-leaning law professor Neil Buchanan penned a scathing
attack on Obama for abandoning the Democratic Party’s long-held
policies toward the poor, and for astonishing naiveté in negotiating
with Republicans. Said Buchanan:

“The bottom line is that President Obama has already revealed himself
to be unchanged by the election and by the last two years of
stonewalling by the Republicans. He still appears to believe, at
best, in a milder version of orthodox Republican fiscal conservatism –
an approach that would be a fitting starting position for a right-wing
politician in negotiations with an actual Democrat. Moreover, he
still seems to believe that the Republicans are willing to negotiate
in good faith.”

Others on the left, such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman,
former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and others raise similar
concerns. They cannot understand why Obama, having won two elections
in a row with better than 50 percent of the vote – something
accomplished only by presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan in
the postwar era – and holding a powerful advantage due to the fiscal
cliff, would seemingly appear willing to gut social spending while
asking for only a very modest contribution in terms of taxes from the
wealthy.

The dirty secret is that Obama simply isn’t very liberal, nor is the
Democratic Party any more. Certainly, the center of the party today is
far to the right of where it was before 1992, when Bill Clinton was
elected with a mission to move the party toward the right. It was
widely believed by Democratic insiders that the nation had moved to
the right during the Reagan era and that the Democratic Party had to
do so as well or risk permanent loss of the White House.

It is only the blind hatred Republicans had for Clinton that prevented
them from seeing that he governed as a moderate conservative –
balancing the budget, cutting the capital gains tax, promoting free
trade, and abolishing welfare, among other things. And it is only
because the political spectrum has shifted to the right that
Republicans cannot see to what extent Obama and his party are walking
in Clinton’s footsteps.

One of the few national reporters who has made this point is the
National Journal’s Major Garrett. In a December 13 column, he detailed
the rightward drift of the Democratic Party on tax policy over the
last 30 years.

“In ways inconceivable to Republicans of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s,
Democrats have embraced almost all of their economic arguments about
tax cuts. Back then, sizable swaths of the Democratic Party sought to
protect higher tax rates for all. Many opposed President Reagan's 1981
across-the-board tax cuts and the indexing of tax brackets for
inflation. Many were skeptical of Reagan's 1986 tax reform that
consolidated 15 tax brackets into three and lowered the top marginal
rate from 50 percent to 28 percent (with a "bubble rate" of 33 percent
for some taxpayers). They despised the expanded child tax credit and
marriage-penalty relief called for under the GOP's Contract With
America.

“Now all of that is embedded in Democratic economic theory and
political strategy. The only taxes that the most progressive
Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson wants to raise are those
affecting couples earning more than $267,600 and individuals earning
more than $213,600 (these are the 2013 indexed amounts from President
Obama's 2009 proposal of $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for
individuals). Yes, some of this increase would hit some small
businesses. But that can be finessed.”

I think that a lot of the Democratic Party’s rightward drift resulted
from two factors. First is the continuing decline of organized labor
from 24 percent of the labor force in 1973 to less than half that
percentage in 2011. And the decline among private sector workers has
been even more severe.

When the AFL-CIO was strong, it looked out for the working class as a
whole. Its leadership understood that improving the pay and benefits
of all workers was ultimately to the benefits of unionized workers.
Labor support was critical to the passage of every important piece of
social welfare legislation since the 1930s. Hence the decline of
unionization has deprived liberals of their most important ally.

Secondly, the collapse of the Soviet Union essentially led to the
collapse of support for socialism worldwide. I think voters bought the
idea that the economist F.A. Hayek made during World War II that
socialism impoverishes people and necessarily becomes totalitarian
eventually. The disappearance of socialism as a viable political
philosophy deprived liberals of their ideological anchor, causing
liberalism itself to drift rightward with the tide.

There are other factors as well, such as the dependence of Democrats
on campaign contributions from Wall Street, but I think these are the
most important. But whatever the reason, the result is that the nation
no longer has a party of the left, but one of the center-right that is
akin to what were liberal Republicans in the past – there is no longer
any such thing as a liberal Republican – and a party of the far right.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/21/How-Democrats-Became-Liberal-Republicans

- See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/21/How-Democrats-Became-Liberal-Republicans#sthash.S5aSIsgK.dpuf
mg
2014-10-29 14:28:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:41:52 -0700,
<snip>
Post by mg
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking.
That is true. How they kill them and what they believe is so
hateful to me that I got carried away with what they'd actually
succeeded in doing so far. I certainly thank Sky-Monster that
I'm not in a place where ISIS is in control, though.
Post by mg
One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis.
Now I think perhaps you're going too far. There have been
some massacres, I think.
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed. I wasn't speaking about moral repugnance. When it comes
to that subject, religion always takes the prize. Although, as Obama
said, we did torture some folks.

Speaking of wholesale killing, incidentally, I forgot to mention
Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson got 58,000 Americans killed in that one and
153,000 wounded. It has been estimated that a total of approximately
882,000 Vietnamese were killed. We are still killing people in Vietnam
with the landmines left behind, by the way. The Vietnamese government
estimates that it will take about 100 years to clean up all the
unexploded ordnance and about 42,000 Vietnamese have been killed in
such accidents so far.

More than 4 times as many people have been killed by leftover US
landmines in Vietnam than have been killed by ISIS so far this year.
Although it's not ISIS, I also remember those schoolgirls
kidnapped in Nigeria or someplace like that by an Islamic group,
who haven't been heard from since and who I assume are now
functioning as slaves, including as sex-slaves, for their Islamic
masters, except for the ones who've been killed for not
submitting.
Post by mg
In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
islander
2014-10-29 15:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed.
I think that your wholesale/retail metaphor is a good one and involves
more than numbers. America is the world's largest wholesaler of
weapons. The military-industrial complex has gone global.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
mg
2014-10-29 17:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed.
I think that your wholesale/retail metaphor is a good one and involves
more than numbers. America is the world's largest wholesaler of
weapons. The military-industrial complex has gone global.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
Yes, its the modern weaponry that is responsible and the fact that we
have large quantities of it. It's not that radical Islamists wouldn't
kill more people than they do, if they had half a chance.

The US, for example, dropped 7.8 million tons of munitions over
Vietnam. That's more than we unleashed in WWII on Germany and Japan
combined.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/40-years-after-vietnam-bombing-victims-still-fall

Corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages are at an all time
low and a lot of those profits are undoubtedly being made in the
defense industry. Sometimes I wonder how low and medium income people
survive at all, when you consider how much money the defense industry,
the medical industry, the banks, and the oil industry take out of the
economy.

Sometimes I will see something advertised for sale, on Craigs List,
for example, for a very low amount, like maybe $5, for instance, and
I'll wonder why someone would even go to all the trouble of selling an
item like that, instead of just throwing it away, but then I realize
how broke a lot of people in this country must be.
islander
2014-10-30 00:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed.
I think that your wholesale/retail metaphor is a good one and involves
more than numbers. America is the world's largest wholesaler of
weapons. The military-industrial complex has gone global.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
Yes, its the modern weaponry that is responsible and the fact that we
have large quantities of it. It's not that radical Islamists wouldn't
kill more people than they do, if they had half a chance.
The US, for example, dropped 7.8 million tons of munitions over
Vietnam. That's more than we unleashed in WWII on Germany and Japan
combined.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/40-years-after-vietnam-bombing-victims-still-fall
Corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages are at an all time
low and a lot of those profits are undoubtedly being made in the
defense industry. Sometimes I wonder how low and medium income people
survive at all, when you consider how much money the defense industry,
the medical industry, the banks, and the oil industry take out of the
economy.
Sometimes I will see something advertised for sale, on Craigs List,
for example, for a very low amount, like maybe $5, for instance, and
I'll wonder why someone would even go to all the trouble of selling an
item like that, instead of just throwing it away, but then I realize
how broke a lot of people in this country must be.
The reason that I was attracted to your metaphor was not so much about
what we sell to ourselves, but what we sell to other countries,
especially in regions that are politically unstable. How much of the
weapons systems that we built and sold are now being used by ISIS, for
example?
mg
2014-10-30 02:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed.
I think that your wholesale/retail metaphor is a good one and involves
more than numbers. America is the world's largest wholesaler of
weapons. The military-industrial complex has gone global.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
Yes, its the modern weaponry that is responsible and the fact that we
have large quantities of it. It's not that radical Islamists wouldn't
kill more people than they do, if they had half a chance.
The US, for example, dropped 7.8 million tons of munitions over
Vietnam. That's more than we unleashed in WWII on Germany and Japan
combined.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/40-years-after-vietnam-bombing-victims-still-fall
Corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages are at an all time
low and a lot of those profits are undoubtedly being made in the
defense industry. Sometimes I wonder how low and medium income people
survive at all, when you consider how much money the defense industry,
the medical industry, the banks, and the oil industry take out of the
economy.
Sometimes I will see something advertised for sale, on Craigs List,
for example, for a very low amount, like maybe $5, for instance, and
I'll wonder why someone would even go to all the trouble of selling an
item like that, instead of just throwing it away, but then I realize
how broke a lot of people in this country must be.
The reason that I was attracted to your metaphor was not so much about
what we sell to ourselves,
Yes, I know, but I like to go off on a tangent, sometimes.
Post by islander
but what we sell to other countries,
especially in regions that are politically unstable. How much of the
weapons systems that we built and sold are now being used by ISIS, for
example?
I'm sort of ambivalent on the subject of selling military stuff to
other countries. From an abstract, hypothetical point of view, I
suppose it would be a better world if we didn't. From a practical view
point, though, I think its a lot like selling drugs and alcohol. If we
didn't sell military weapons, somebody else would.

On a similar subject, I am in favor of the Mine Ban Treaty which the
U.S. refuses to sign, but then so does Russia and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
islander
2014-10-31 15:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On a similar subject, I am in favor of the Mine Ban Treaty which the
U.S. refuses to sign, but then so does Russia and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
I bloodied my nose on that one shortly before I retired when I attempted
to put together a research consortium to develop micro sensor arrays as
a replacement for land mines. The basic idea was to take advantage of
the low cost of electronics to deploy miniature sensors to provide
situation awareness in the battlefield, allowing targeting by
alternative means. The approach would eliminate the problem of leaving
mines in the battlefield.

It was a pretty interesting project and I got a small study contract to
examine feasibility. I even got a retired general to participate as a
consultant. In a final briefing at the Pentagon, the representative of
the Marine Corps strongly opposed the project. The primary reason that
he cited was that we relied heavily on land mines to repel the North
Koreans, should they ever choose to march south. Without land mines, he
said that we would need to have a much larger presence in S. Korea.

It was an interesting project and I learned a lot about what is possible
in micro-fabricated sensors and self-configuring communication networks.
Despite the opposition by the Marine Corps, I put together a proposal
that involved researchers at several universities and a couple of
companies, all to no avail. The last I heard, a Defense contractor had
won a contract to pursue the idea further, but I lost track of the
program after I retired.

This workshop was held not long after I retired and just reading it
gives me a headache! http://tinyurl.com/krv7aed

Not surprisingly, there was a lot of interest at the time in technology
to detect landmines and I imagine that interest is still there.
Unfortunately, it is a very difficult problem.
chatnoir
2014-10-31 15:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
On a similar subject, I am in favor of the Mine Ban Treaty which the
U.S. refuses to sign, but then so does Russia and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
I bloodied my nose on that one shortly before I retired when I attempted
to put together a research consortium to develop micro sensor arrays as
a replacement for land mines. The basic idea was to take advantage of
the low cost of electronics to deploy miniature sensors to provide
situation awareness in the battlefield, allowing targeting by
alternative means. The approach would eliminate the problem of leaving
mines in the battlefield.
It was a pretty interesting project and I got a small study contract to
examine feasibility. I even got a retired general to participate as a
consultant. In a final briefing at the Pentagon, the representative of
the Marine Corps strongly opposed the project. The primary reason that
he cited was that we relied heavily on land mines to repel the North
Koreans, should they ever choose to march south. Without land mines, he
said that we would need to have a much larger presence in S. Korea.
It was an interesting project and I learned a lot about what is possible
in micro-fabricated sensors and self-configuring communication networks.
Despite the opposition by the Marine Corps, I put together a proposal
that involved researchers at several universities and a couple of
companies, all to no avail. The last I heard, a Defense contractor had
won a contract to pursue the idea further, but I lost track of the
program after I retired.
This workshop was held not long after I retired and just reading it
gives me a headache! http://tinyurl.com/krv7aed
Not surprisingly, there was a lot of interest at the time in technology
to detect landmines and I imagine that interest is still there.
Unfortunately, it is a very difficult problem.
We had sensors on LZ Professional; However due to the constant B 52 bombing in Laos they proved to be ineffective!
islander
2014-10-31 19:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by chatnoir
Post by islander
Post by mg
On a similar subject, I am in favor of the Mine Ban Treaty which the
U.S. refuses to sign, but then so does Russia and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
I bloodied my nose on that one shortly before I retired when I attempted
to put together a research consortium to develop micro sensor arrays as
a replacement for land mines. The basic idea was to take advantage of
the low cost of electronics to deploy miniature sensors to provide
situation awareness in the battlefield, allowing targeting by
alternative means. The approach would eliminate the problem of leaving
mines in the battlefield.
It was a pretty interesting project and I got a small study contract to
examine feasibility. I even got a retired general to participate as a
consultant. In a final briefing at the Pentagon, the representative of
the Marine Corps strongly opposed the project. The primary reason that
he cited was that we relied heavily on land mines to repel the North
Koreans, should they ever choose to march south. Without land mines, he
said that we would need to have a much larger presence in S. Korea.
It was an interesting project and I learned a lot about what is possible
in micro-fabricated sensors and self-configuring communication networks.
Despite the opposition by the Marine Corps, I put together a proposal
that involved researchers at several universities and a couple of
companies, all to no avail. The last I heard, a Defense contractor had
won a contract to pursue the idea further, but I lost track of the
program after I retired.
This workshop was held not long after I retired and just reading it
gives me a headache! http://tinyurl.com/krv7aed
Not surprisingly, there was a lot of interest at the time in technology
to detect landmines and I imagine that interest is still there.
Unfortunately, it is a very difficult problem.
We had sensors on LZ Professional; However due to the constant B 52 bombing in Laos they proved to be ineffective!
Yes, there were some acoustic sensors used in Vietnam and they were
pretty useless in any areas near the carpet bombing. IIRC, we had
investigated six or eight phenomena that were candidates for use, one of
which was acoustic coupled with signal processing used to identify
specific signatures.

I once proposed to use speech recognition algorithms to distinguish
between friend or foe in the next generation of Stinger missiles.
Helicopters have a definite sound signature and the intent was to
prevent damage to our helicopters, either by accident or from a missile
that was captured.

This was back in the early '80s and I couldn't find a contractor to take
it on at the time.
mg
2014-10-31 16:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by mg
On a similar subject, I am in favor of the Mine Ban Treaty which the
U.S. refuses to sign, but then so does Russia and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
I bloodied my nose on that one shortly before I retired when I attempted
to put together a research consortium to develop micro sensor arrays as
a replacement for land mines. The basic idea was to take advantage of
the low cost of electronics to deploy miniature sensors to provide
situation awareness in the battlefield, allowing targeting by
alternative means. The approach would eliminate the problem of leaving
mines in the battlefield.
It was a pretty interesting project and I got a small study contract to
examine feasibility. I even got a retired general to participate as a
consultant. In a final briefing at the Pentagon, the representative of
the Marine Corps strongly opposed the project. The primary reason that
he cited was that we relied heavily on land mines to repel the North
Koreans, should they ever choose to march south. Without land mines, he
said that we would need to have a much larger presence in S. Korea.
It was an interesting project and I learned a lot about what is possible
in micro-fabricated sensors and self-configuring communication networks.
Despite the opposition by the Marine Corps, I put together a proposal
that involved researchers at several universities and a couple of
companies, all to no avail. The last I heard, a Defense contractor had
won a contract to pursue the idea further, but I lost track of the
program after I retired.
This workshop was held not long after I retired and just reading it
gives me a headache! http://tinyurl.com/krv7aed
Not surprisingly, there was a lot of interest at the time in technology
to detect landmines and I imagine that interest is still there.
Unfortunately, it is a very difficult problem.
I vaguely remember seeing some devices that the U.S. built (or jury
rigged) to detonate landmines. Maybe I saw them on TV; it's been so
long I can barely remember it. As I recall, the device consisted of a
battle tank fitted with a large gizmo on the front, that whipped
chains around or something that stired up the soil.

Speaking of very, very vague memories, I seem to recall that our
troops, in Vietnam, sometimes used to use a certain kind of insect,
placed in small cages, to protect against ambush. So, there obviously
would be a use for the sort of thing you mention. I don't think it
would necessarily be a substitute for landmines, but it would probably
be useful in jungle warfare, for instance.

As I recall, something like 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed by
unexploded US landmines since the end of the war. That's probably 3 or
4 times the number of people ISIS has killed so far. I believe that
landmines are right up there on the top of the list as being immoral
-- if there is such a thing in war -- along with chemical weapons, for
instance. Yet, we refuse to sign the treaty and we don't appear to be
doing much of anything to clear out the landmines we left behind in
Vietnam.
Bill Bowden
2014-10-30 02:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed.
I think that your wholesale/retail metaphor is a good one and involves
more than numbers. America is the world's largest wholesaler of
weapons. The military-industrial complex has gone global.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
Yes, its the modern weaponry that is responsible and the fact that we
have large quantities of it. It's not that radical Islamists wouldn't
kill more people than they do, if they had half a chance.
The US, for example, dropped 7.8 million tons of munitions over
Vietnam. That's more than we unleashed in WWII on Germany and Japan
combined.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/40-years-after-vietnam-bombing-victims-still-fall
Corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages are at an all time
low and a lot of those profits are undoubtedly being made in the
defense industry. Sometimes I wonder how low and medium income people
survive at all, when you consider how much money the defense industry,
the medical industry, the banks, and the oil industry take out of the
economy.
Yes, and some of those defense industry profits are going into my bank
account and maybe your bank account from stock ownership in the defense
industry. Where else would the profits go?
Post by mg
Sometimes I will see something advertised for sale, on Craigs List,
for example, for a very low amount, like maybe $5, for instance, and
I'll wonder why someone would even go to all the trouble of selling an
item like that, instead of just throwing it away, but then I realize
how broke a lot of people in this country must be.
They sell the stuff cheap to get rid of it and make other people happy who
buy it. I sold a 1 foot tomato plant last week for $2 at a swap meet just to
get rid of it. The customer was happy and I was happy. Another time I sold a
small old refrigerator for $20 on Craigslist and the customer drove 20 miles
to pick it up. It was a good fridge (Norcold RV) that operated on both 120
and 12 volts DC originately sold in 1972 for $300. The 12 volt DC operation
had failed so it only worked on the 120 AC line. It even had a key to lock
it up to secure your 6-pack. The buyer was happy and I was happy to get rid
of it.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
mg
2014-10-30 02:40:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:00:32 -0800, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed.
I think that your wholesale/retail metaphor is a good one and involves
more than numbers. America is the world's largest wholesaler of
weapons. The military-industrial complex has gone global.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
Yes, its the modern weaponry that is responsible and the fact that we
have large quantities of it. It's not that radical Islamists wouldn't
kill more people than they do, if they had half a chance.
The US, for example, dropped 7.8 million tons of munitions over
Vietnam. That's more than we unleashed in WWII on Germany and Japan
combined.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/40-years-after-vietnam-bombing-victims-still-fall
Corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages are at an all time
low and a lot of those profits are undoubtedly being made in the
defense industry. Sometimes I wonder how low and medium income people
survive at all, when you consider how much money the defense industry,
the medical industry, the banks, and the oil industry take out of the
economy.
Yes, and some of those defense industry profits are going into my bank
account and maybe your bank account from stock ownership in the defense
industry. Where else would the profits go?
Thank Gawd for trickle-down economics. If it weren't for trickle-down
economics, we wouldn't have a healthy, thriving middle class today.
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by mg
Sometimes I will see something advertised for sale, on Craigs List,
for example, for a very low amount, like maybe $5, for instance, and
I'll wonder why someone would even go to all the trouble of selling an
item like that, instead of just throwing it away, but then I realize
how broke a lot of people in this country must be.
They sell the stuff cheap to get rid of it and make other people happy who
buy it. I sold a 1 foot tomato plant last week for $2 at a swap meet just to
get rid of it. The customer was happy and I was happy. Another time I sold a
small old refrigerator for $20 on Craigslist and the customer drove 20 miles
to pick it up. It was a good fridge (Norcold RV) that operated on both 120
and 12 volts DC originately sold in 1972 for $300. The 12 volt DC operation
had failed so it only worked on the 120 AC line. It even had a key to lock
it up to secure your 6-pack. The buyer was happy and I was happy to get rid
of it.
It's true. There are some good reasons to sell stuff like that.
islander
2014-10-31 16:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bowden
They sell the stuff cheap to get rid of it and make other people happy who
buy it. I sold a 1 foot tomato plant last week for $2 at a swap meet just to
get rid of it. The customer was happy and I was happy. Another time I sold a
small old refrigerator for $20 on Craigslist and the customer drove 20 miles
to pick it up. It was a good fridge (Norcold RV) that operated on both 120
and 12 volts DC originately sold in 1972 for $300. The 12 volt DC operation
had failed so it only worked on the 120 AC line. It even had a key to lock
it up to secure your 6-pack. The buyer was happy and I was happy to get rid
of it.
We used to have an "Exchange" here on the island were one could donate
stuff and also pick up stuff for a cash donation. It operated for years
and I loved to "shop" there. Unfortunately, it burned down a couple of
years ago and efforts to rebuilt it ran afoul of building regulations.
Before, it had just evolved as a rough collection of structures, tents,
and tarps, but the permit department wasn't about to allow that to
happen again. There is a group that is attempting to raise the money
for a more substantial structure, but the energy seems to have faded.

Here is a video about the former Exchange featuring the founder:

rumpelstiltskin
2014-10-31 17:27:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:00:32 -0800, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by mg
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed.
I think that your wholesale/retail metaphor is a good one and involves
more than numbers. America is the world's largest wholesaler of
weapons. The military-industrial complex has gone global.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
Yes, its the modern weaponry that is responsible and the fact that we
have large quantities of it. It's not that radical Islamists wouldn't
kill more people than they do, if they had half a chance.
The US, for example, dropped 7.8 million tons of munitions over
Vietnam. That's more than we unleashed in WWII on Germany and Japan
combined.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/40-years-after-vietnam-bombing-victims-still-fall
Corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages are at an all time
low and a lot of those profits are undoubtedly being made in the
defense industry. Sometimes I wonder how low and medium income people
survive at all, when you consider how much money the defense industry,
the medical industry, the banks, and the oil industry take out of the
economy.
Yes, and some of those defense industry profits are going into my bank
account and maybe your bank account from stock ownership in the defense
industry. Where else would the profits go?
Post by mg
Sometimes I will see something advertised for sale, on Craigs List,
for example, for a very low amount, like maybe $5, for instance, and
I'll wonder why someone would even go to all the trouble of selling an
item like that, instead of just throwing it away, but then I realize
how broke a lot of people in this country must be.
They sell the stuff cheap to get rid of it and make other people happy who
buy it. I sold a 1 foot tomato plant last week for $2 at a swap meet just to
get rid of it. The customer was happy and I was happy. Another time I sold a
small old refrigerator for $20 on Craigslist and the customer drove 20 miles
to pick it up. It was a good fridge (Norcold RV) that operated on both 120
and 12 volts DC originately sold in 1972 for $300. The 12 volt DC operation
had failed so it only worked on the 120 AC line. It even had a key to lock
it up to secure your 6-pack. The buyer was happy and I was happy to get rid
of it.
I live in a very urbanized area, so we can just leave stuff out
that we don't want and others might like, and it usually disappears
quickly. I did give away my classical record collection to Goodwill
though, about eight or ten feet of records, because that stuff, like
old books, wouldn't move fast if left on the street. It sells for
about a dollar a record at the Goodwill store, for those few
people who still play records. I sent most of my much smaller
pop collection to my sister and my niece, after I asked them if
they wanted them and to my surprise they did. I don't know
why. My sister has never played a record or a CD when I've
been visiting, but she does have a lot of records left over from
when she was a teenager.

Now I have tons of CD's which are becoming obsolete just
as records did. Most of them I haven't played in years
because I just bought them when I was going through a
phase. The new technology will be all digital in a
computer-like system, in which individual recordings take up
no space except for the initial setup of the computer and
speakers. That's a lot more practical, but I won't live to
really see it fully in use.

I have tons of books too. There was a Seinfeld show in
which Jerry asked why people keep books that they've
already read and will never read again. It's a very good
question.
chatnoir
2014-10-29 16:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:41:52 -0700,
<snip>
Post by mg
I remember once seeing a cartoon with two generals talking to each
other and one of them said, "We could help the world with the
over-population problem, but damn little thanks we would get". :-)
There's a website showing the very familiar charts that we've all seen
many times over the years showing the world's explosive population
growth. This one also has some more unusual charts showing how excess
death rates will eventually bring down population growth.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
While in my early 20's, I had a class once taught by a professor at
BYU who was an almost fanatical population control advocate. He used
to tell all us students to turn off our tape recorders when he would
start lecturing (for obvious reasons). I remember one of the text
books he used in his class was "Population, Evolution and Birth
Control". It's an interesting read and it looks like you can still get
a copy of it from Amazon for $4.50 (used). One of my favorite quotes
from that book is from Thomas Malthus. He said that if we are going to
multiply like rabbits, we will die like rabbits.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/B0014IW66I/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414561881&sr=8-12&keywords=population+growth+birth+control
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking.
That is true. How they kill them and what they believe is so
hateful to me that I got carried away with what they'd actually
succeeded in doing so far. I certainly thank Sky-Monster that
I'm not in a place where ISIS is in control, though.
Post by mg
One
of the differences, I think between the U.S. and Muslims, with their
various, sundry wars is that they tend to kill people more on a retail
basis, while we do it more on a wholesale basis.
Now I think perhaps you're going too far. There have been
some massacres, I think.
When I said that we kill on a wholesale basis and Muslims kill on a
retail basis, I was only speaking numerically, of course -- the total
number killed. I wasn't speaking about moral repugnance. When it comes
to that subject, religion always takes the prize. Although, as Obama
said, we did torture some folks.
Speaking of wholesale killing, incidentally, I forgot to mention
Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson got 58,000 Americans killed in that one and
153,000 wounded. It has been estimated that a total of approximately
882,000 Vietnamese were killed. We are still killing people in Vietnam
with the landmines left behind, by the way. The Vietnamese government
estimates that it will take about 100 years to clean up all the
unexploded ordnance and about 42,000 Vietnamese have been killed in
such accidents so far.
More than 4 times as many people have been killed by leftover US
landmines in Vietnam than have been killed by ISIS so far this year.
From what I have heard, we use to drop booby traps that looked like toys!
Post by mg
Although it's not ISIS, I also remember those schoolgirls
kidnapped in Nigeria or someplace like that by an Islamic group,
who haven't been heard from since and who I assume are now
functioning as slaves, including as sex-slaves, for their Islamic
masters, except for the ones who've been killed for not
submitting.
Post by mg
In fact, if ISIS
hadn't captured some of our equipment, the number of deaths they have
inflicted would probably be even less. In a recent UN report for
instance, an estimate 9,347 civilians have been killed so far in 2014
and all of those deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone. Contrast
that, for instance, with the total killed as a result of our invasion
of Iraq. Latest estimates are put at about 500,000. Then too, I for
one, cannot forget that the embargo of Iraqi oil has been estimated to
have killed 500,000 Iraqi children alone, adults excluded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html
rumpelstiltskin
2014-10-29 15:51:28 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:41:52 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking.
That is true. How they kill them and what they believe is so
hateful to me that I got carried away with what they'd actually
succeeded in doing so far. I certainly thank Sky-Monster that
I'm not in a place where ISIS is in control, though.
P.S. Shortly after I posted this, I saw video on TV, from
after Mosul was taken I think, of fifty or a hundred Shiite
soldiers lying face down in a pit, some of them looking like
teenagers, being executed en masse by ISIS gunmen.
mg
2014-10-29 21:17:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:51:28 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:41:52 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking.
That is true. How they kill them and what they believe is so
hateful to me that I got carried away with what they'd actually
succeeded in doing so far. I certainly thank Sky-Monster that
I'm not in a place where ISIS is in control, though.
P.S. Shortly after I posted this, I saw video on TV, from
after Mosul was taken I think, of fifty or a hundred Shiite
soldiers lying face down in a pit, some of them looking like
teenagers, being executed en masse by ISIS gunmen.
Looking at the bright side, it does expidite their meeting with Allah
and maybe they'll get some virgins, too.

One of the differences, by the way, between the Shiites in Iraq and
ISIS, is that ISIS likes to broadcast their atrocities while the
Shiites (like we Americans) like to keep our misdeeds secret and
control the media as much as possible.

I think I read somewhere that Al-Sistani, in Iraq, has declared a
Fatwa, too, and now the Shiites in Iraq are killing Sunni civilians.
First they kidnap them and hold them for ransom. Then, after they get
the ransom, they kill them, anyway.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/31/iraq-pro-government-militias-trail-death
http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/10/iraq-shia-fighters-guilty-war-crimes-2014101311251478369.html

"Shiite Militias Are Kidnapping, Killing Sunnis In Iraq, Amnesty
International Charges

By Marcy Kreiter, October 13 2014 10:47 PM

"Amnesty International charges Shiite militias in Iraq are abducting
and killing Sunni men to avenge attacks by Islamic State militants. In
a report dated Tuesday, the human rights organization says the
militias also are extorting money from the families of those they have
kidnapped.

In recent months the extremist group also known as ISIS has overrun
parts of Syria and Iraq, killing non-Sunni Muslim residents and
forcing tens of thousands to flee their homes. The group also has been
issuing propaganda videos depicting the beheadings of journalists and
aid workers.

The Amnesty report says Iraqi government forces have been "unable or
unwilling" to protect civilian populations from both ISIS'
depredations and the militias, which "have been operating with
unprecedented freedom and … impunity" in the wake of the ISIS
onslaught.

Amnesty said it collected its information in six weeks of field
research in northern and central Iraq during August and September. The
report cites numerous incidents described by victims, their relatives
and medical personnel.

Amnesty estimates more than 170 "mostly young Sunni men" have been
abducted from the area around Samarra since June. Dozens have been
found dead and others still are missing, the report said.

Amnesty said the militia actions constitute war crimes and condemned
Baghdad's failure to control them. . . ."
http://www.ibtimes.com/shiite-militias-are-kidnapping-killing-sunnis-iraq-amnesty-international-charges-1704315
rumpelstiltskin
2014-10-30 00:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:51:28 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:41:52 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking.
That is true. How they kill them and what they believe is so
hateful to me that I got carried away with what they'd actually
succeeded in doing so far. I certainly thank Sky-Monster that
I'm not in a place where ISIS is in control, though.
P.S. Shortly after I posted this, I saw video on TV, from
after Mosul was taken I think, of fifty or a hundred Shiite
soldiers lying face down in a pit, some of them looking like
teenagers, being executed en masse by ISIS gunmen.
Looking at the bright side, it does expidite their meeting with Allah
and maybe they'll get some virgins, too.
One of the differences, by the way, between the Shiites in Iraq and
ISIS, is that ISIS likes to broadcast their atrocities while the
Shiites (like we Americans) like to keep our misdeeds secret and
control the media as much as possible.
I think I read somewhere that Al-Sistani, in Iraq, has declared a
Fatwa, too, and now the Shiites in Iraq are killing Sunni civilians.
First they kidnap them and hold them for ransom. Then, after they get
the ransom, they kill them, anyway.
Well, it takes both of their attentions away from "KILL THE
AMERICANS", so I think we should just let each side kill the
other off and STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Too bad about the kids who are going to die, but if we
saved them without that entire Islamic mindset getting
flushed down the toilet the way it should be, the kids would
very likely grow up to be just like the present generation.
It's just going to take some growing up before enough
people in the Islamic world learn, as people in the
Christian world learnt more than two centuries ago, that
theistic religion holding sway among a people is, and
always has been, really bad news.
Post by mg
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/31/iraq-pro-government-militias-trail-death
http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/10/iraq-shia-fighters-guilty-war-crimes-2014101311251478369.html
"Shiite Militias Are Kidnapping, Killing Sunnis In Iraq, Amnesty
International Charges
By Marcy Kreiter, October 13 2014 10:47 PM
"Amnesty International charges Shiite militias in Iraq are abducting
and killing Sunni men to avenge attacks by Islamic State militants. In
a report dated Tuesday, the human rights organization says the
militias also are extorting money from the families of those they have
kidnapped.
In recent months the extremist group also known as ISIS has overrun
parts of Syria and Iraq, killing non-Sunni Muslim residents and
forcing tens of thousands to flee their homes. The group also has been
issuing propaganda videos depicting the beheadings of journalists and
aid workers.
The Amnesty report says Iraqi government forces have been "unable or
unwilling" to protect civilian populations from both ISIS'
depredations and the militias, which "have been operating with
unprecedented freedom and … impunity" in the wake of the ISIS
onslaught.
Amnesty said it collected its information in six weeks of field
research in northern and central Iraq during August and September. The
report cites numerous incidents described by victims, their relatives
and medical personnel.
Amnesty estimates more than 170 "mostly young Sunni men" have been
abducted from the area around Samarra since June. Dozens have been
found dead and others still are missing, the report said.
Amnesty said the militia actions constitute war crimes and condemned
Baghdad's failure to control them. . . ."
http://www.ibtimes.com/shiite-militias-are-kidnapping-killing-sunnis-iraq-amnesty-international-charges-1704315
mg
2014-10-30 02:32:34 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:22:50 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:51:28 -0700,
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:41:52 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Switching the topic to the war(s) in the Middle East, I think ISIS has
only killed a small number of people so far, relatively speaking.
That is true. How they kill them and what they believe is so
hateful to me that I got carried away with what they'd actually
succeeded in doing so far. I certainly thank Sky-Monster that
I'm not in a place where ISIS is in control, though.
P.S. Shortly after I posted this, I saw video on TV, from
after Mosul was taken I think, of fifty or a hundred Shiite
soldiers lying face down in a pit, some of them looking like
teenagers, being executed en masse by ISIS gunmen.
Looking at the bright side, it does expidite their meeting with Allah
and maybe they'll get some virgins, too.
One of the differences, by the way, between the Shiites in Iraq and
ISIS, is that ISIS likes to broadcast their atrocities while the
Shiites (like we Americans) like to keep our misdeeds secret and
control the media as much as possible.
I think I read somewhere that Al-Sistani, in Iraq, has declared a
Fatwa, too, and now the Shiites in Iraq are killing Sunni civilians.
First they kidnap them and hold them for ransom. Then, after they get
the ransom, they kill them, anyway.
Well, it takes both of their attentions away from "KILL THE
AMERICANS", so I think we should just let each side kill the
other off and STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!
Too bad about the kids who are going to die, but if we
saved them without that entire Islamic mindset getting
flushed down the toilet the way it should be, the kids would
very likely grow up to be just like the present generation.
It's just going to take some growing up before enough
people in the Islamic world learn, as people in the
Christian world learnt more than two centuries ago, that
theistic religion holding sway among a people is, and
always has been, really bad news.
I think George Bush turned a blind eye to the terrorist threat when he
took office. I think he was hoping for a terrorist attack that he
could use as an excuse to invade Iraq, but I don't think he thought it
would be a big one. I think he probably thought it would be something
like the one in the parking garage of the WTC like they had in 1993.

In any case, his failure to prevent 9/11, and his invasion of Iraq,
has created one helluva a mess for America and we are now up to our
eyeballs in homeland defense spending, and the NSA, and military
spending, etc. And we are up to our eyeballs in a Middle-Eastern,
fundamentalist cesspool trying to figure out whose shit smells the
worst.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/31/iraq-pro-government-militias-trail-death
http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/10/iraq-shia-fighters-guilty-war-crimes-2014101311251478369.html
"Shiite Militias Are Kidnapping, Killing Sunnis In Iraq, Amnesty
International Charges
By Marcy Kreiter, October 13 2014 10:47 PM
"Amnesty International charges Shiite militias in Iraq are abducting
and killing Sunni men to avenge attacks by Islamic State militants. In
a report dated Tuesday, the human rights organization says the
militias also are extorting money from the families of those they have
kidnapped.
In recent months the extremist group also known as ISIS has overrun
parts of Syria and Iraq, killing non-Sunni Muslim residents and
forcing tens of thousands to flee their homes. The group also has been
issuing propaganda videos depicting the beheadings of journalists and
aid workers.
The Amnesty report says Iraqi government forces have been "unable or
unwilling" to protect civilian populations from both ISIS'
depredations and the militias, which "have been operating with
unprecedented freedom and … impunity" in the wake of the ISIS
onslaught.
Amnesty said it collected its information in six weeks of field
research in northern and central Iraq during August and September. The
report cites numerous incidents described by victims, their relatives
and medical personnel.
Amnesty estimates more than 170 "mostly young Sunni men" have been
abducted from the area around Samarra since June. Dozens have been
found dead and others still are missing, the report said.
Amnesty said the militia actions constitute war crimes and condemned
Baghdad's failure to control them. . . ."
http://www.ibtimes.com/shiite-militias-are-kidnapping-killing-sunnis-iraq-amnesty-international-charges-1704315
d***@agent.com
2014-10-29 04:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by GLOBALIST
Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'
By Matt McGrath, Enviro correspondent, BBC News
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of
sustainability in the short term, new research says.
A worldwide one-child policy would mean the ## of people
in 2100 remained around current levels, according to a study
published in the Proceedings of the NAS.
Even a catastrophic event that killed billions would have
little effect on the overall impact, it said.
We need to stop preventing measles, mumps, chicken pox,
pertussis, influenza, malaria, & tuberculosis, to achieve
sustainability.
Loading...