nice one Jafo

If someone could remove the link in post # 118 that would be special.

Something many here are forgetting is the fact that around the time of the invasion Islamic extremism began to rise and has blossomed since. The intent of these people is to spread Islam throughout the World. It is their view that either we convert to Islam or die as infidels. There is no negotiation with them on this point. Already they have destabilized Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Many African states and are now lining up India. Europe has become a battleground with frequent bomb attacks across the region. Terror cells are springing up everywhere under the banner of Islam. This is a direct attack on our freedom. A direct attack on our way of living. If we want to continue to live as we have become accustomed then at some point we have to defend that right to our own freedom or these people will take it away. I agree with everyone here and as a veteran I fully concur that war is not a likeable outcome. We can whinge and moan about rights and wrongs but bottom line we have a requirement currently to defend our lands against these Islamic terrorists. They are not going to go away. As for Sadam....he signed up unconditionally to agreements, sixteen in all, and he never abided by one of them. These agreements were made with the World as a whole. Not just the US. Twelve years of talking got us nowhere.We have a rightful expectation to ensure people stick to international agreements especially ones as serious as Saddam signed up to. He was openly threatening Israel and the US and Kuwait. He was using chemical weapons on his own people and massacring Kurds by the thousands. Prior to Gulf War one he was actively engaged in producing nuclear weaponry. Inspectors uncovered that after two years of hard looking which Saddam hindered all the way.No one who opposed this invasion has ever come up with an alternative solution to solving the clear threat Saddam was.Scratch talking off the list. We know that did not work. One week before the invasion both Tony Blair and George Bush were imploring Saddam to abide by his agreements. Russia and China both tried to get him to abide by them also in that week. He basically stuck his thumb up and said"Sod the lot of you...bring it on". I am still waiting for those who opposed the war to explain how they would have got compliance from Saddam.To ignore him would have sent entirely the wrong message......to leave him unattended and free to continue would have seen just as great a disaster. Kurds would have been killed to the man woman and child. Shia would likely have suffered the same fate and Israel would most definitely have come under missile attack from Iraqs new long range missiles. Bush and Blair had the conviction to hold Saddam accountable to the letter of his world agreements. It is a shame other cosignatories had not the same intestinal fortitude. That and Rumsfelds woeful mismanagement of the invasion is why we have the mess we have. Rumsfeld withdrew the need for troops to follow up the mechanised divisions to secure and stabilise the ground taken....hence the looting and damage and growth of the insurgency. He was told 500,000 troops would be required. He went in with a deficit of close on half. 250,000 TROOPS short of the recommended amount. Thank you for your expertise Mr Donald Rumsfeld!

In my reply #73 what I was attempting to convey is that with the current mind set of our Governments and Political leaders we may change the person but we won't change their actions or the outcome. Jafo makes a reference to "Every generation needs its Vietnam". If the statement was made I'm thinking that possibly it was made thinking of another statement. Mankind or if you like the human race is doomed to make the same mistakes of their fathers, grandfathers and their fathers due solely for their lack of knowledge of history. How many countless wars have taken place in the name of freedom, or the best ever religion. How many in the Middle East alone, carefull you may need a calculator.

I think you are spot on. Perhaps it is the lack of a nod to history that drives me most crazy about our current mistakes. Many just say "hind sight is 20/20". Well, that's true. But foresight can be pretty damned good when you take historical record in mind.

As far as George Bush goes, well, actions speak louder than words.....
and his actions have spoken volumes.....

I can honestly say that I didn't vote for him (either election), and I'm honestly ashamed that he got elected....twice! He lied, and those lies have cost the lives of thousands of US soldiers. Why? Money and power.

Saddam is gone...why are we still in Iraq? Peacekeeping? Bullsh!t. We are stuck in a new Vietnam. Next thing you know, they're going to start calling it a police-action.
I don't blame the soldiers; they have a job to do. I do blame our government, and all the money/power hungry politicos that started this fiasco.

For the facts on the war, click this link.....
Fact Sheet

"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) State of the Union Address, 2003 Granted, it wasn't mentioned in the speech enough to consider it a primary justification, but the fact it was mentioned shows that liberating the people of Iraq was not a recent afterthought either.

Now, you know I never said it wasn't in the rhetoric. Of course it was in the rhetoric. But it's not enough to say SH was bad and evil and the devil himself. If that was the case, we'd be reacting a bit more strongly in Darfur and North Korea. No one is wackier the Lil' Kim. There's tons of crazy dictators around the world, who brutalize their people. We used that as a reason, true, but the primary justification for war was that SH was amassing wmd's and was a direct threat to our nation. That, of course, is just not true.

That and Rumsfelds woeful mismanagement of the invasion is why we have the mess we have. Rumsfeld withdrew the need for troops to follow up the mechanised divisions to secure and stabilise the ground taken....hence the looting and damage and growth of the insurgency. He was told 500,000 troops would be required. He went in with a deficit of close on half. 250,000 TROOPS short of the recommended amount. Thank you for your expertise Mr Donald Rumsfeld!

we're not so far off, really. I take a three pronged approach to why I think Bush is incompetent: 1) He f****d up the reasons for going to war (though, perhaps, the war itself is justified) and lied to the American people with lousy and misshaped information, 2) He f'd up the campaign itself (through Rumsfeld and others) and contributed to the very insurgency that we have been facing down and 3) his nation building technique in Iraq has been --below brilliant.

One other thought: For 2000 years turmoil has existed between muslim and secular societies. It'll last another 2000. Invading Iraq will never change that. I suspect leading by example coupled with a policy of containment (read: how we handled the cold war) will do more to invigorate muslim opinion TOWARDS us than invading countries and (as they see it) setting up puppet governments. The only proplem I see with your very patriotic and well written argument is we have to lead by example to win hearts and minds. It's hard to do that in war. And some hearts and minds will never, ever be won because they are nut cases. Again, not that this war was necessarily wrong (I change my mind on that fairly regularly), but we've done a terrible job of explaining ourselves under this administration.
I've never, ever argued I think the invasion of Iraq was wrong: just the primary justifications given for that invasion. It's a fine line, I admit, but important. Why we do something, what our moral compass is that's guiding us, how we explain and justify our actions to the world: that's just as important, in my view, as taking the action itself. Maybe others disagree. Parated, I know you do.

If someone could remove the link in post # 118 that would be special.

I'm sorry, I don't believe in removing any response. Even though some believe UFO's will be the key to solving global warming, I think it's important to let everyone voice their view. Tell me why you think the link should be removed?

Yes, I know you were joking UFO's aren't gonna be the solution, no one will get rich off UFO technology and there's no ticker on wall street listing the going price for their stock. I gotta run. Time to jump into the old 'Prius and head to the gym.

Cause it was offensive. People can spread their message of Hate all they want but get off my lawn.

What link?

This is a Joe User - sourced thread....rules are a little more lenient....probably the only thing that's particularly 'no go' would be racial vilification.

I can't see a link so can't elaborate ....

Edit...

...oh...interpolating I'd say it would have been a white supremacist link...

...that'd be a 'no go' ....

it was

I can't speak for how electricity is generated at your end but locally our electricity comes from hydro power - electricity generated by flowing water which passes through a turbine to spin a generator to produce electricity. Unlike the nonrenewable fuels used to generate electricity, hydro power is clean, there are no waste products, and hydropower does not pollute the water or the air.

The infrastructure technology currently used to transmit electricity over long distances needs to be improved so that this type of power can be used by more people instead of just limiting it's use to people who live near power plants located on water sources that are capable of producing this kind of energy. I know this technology is improving, we not only provide electricity province wide but we are also sell it to our adjacent provinces and also to our US neighbors down south - this wasn't the case many years ago.

It's important to note that only a small percentage of all dams in the United States produce electricity. Most dams are constructed solely to provide irrigation and flood control and no additional funds are allocated for the creation of hydro power plants. More hydro power potential is available, the government needs to invest more money into this clean renewable energy resource.

Another form of clean electricity production is wind power - we are starting to see alot more of this locally with the construction of wind farms & such.


As for my other options, they're all serious alternatives too, especially if you're willing to invest the effort in making them work.

If everyone has the same attitude of they're not good enough, don't bother using them, you'll still maintain this oil-hungry pace which is getting us nowhere quick except for a polluted planet. Do these alternatives fix all the problems... NO. But they are a start in the right direction of reducing dependance on oil and reducing pollution. If you generate enough momentum going in the alternative energy direction, it's quite possible that other alternatives may come up as well. However continuing in the same direction as we're currently going pretty much ensures that none of these alternatives will get a chance at further development so of course they'll continue to be viewed as half-a$$ed solutions and scrutized by people who think we just have no other way of doing things.

Plus doesn't reducing our dependance on oil provide other benefits, reducing pollution and reversing damages to our environment, aren't we in a climate crisis as we speak, isn't it our duty to find a better way for the sake of the planet.

Hydrogen is going to be the fuel of the future.


Pollution, Climate Control, hello!

You're going to see 2 types of hydrogen power vehicles.
Vehicles with electric engines powered directly by hydrogen fuel cells and vehicles with engines that are converted from traditional gasoline powered combustion engines and powered by compressed hydrogen. It's going to happen - in fact it has to happen, if it doesn't, you can pretty much guarantee a planetary catastrophe.

Change is always difficult - I'll agree to that, but it's not impossible.
You can be a pessimist and say that it's too difficult to change and there are just too many obstacles in front of us preventing us from making the change. Or you can be an optimist and see that those obstacles are just challenges we will overcome.

How thick does the smog have to be before you say it's time we do something about this problem?

George Bush is the smartest, most clever person, possibly in the world.

How else can he appear to be an incompetent bumbling idiot of very low intelligence with the barest grasp of the English language (just ask any Democrat/Liberal/Bush Hater ... they will tell you what an idiot he really is) ...

... while simultaneously fooling the entire US voting population into electing him ... not just once but twice, not to mention tricking those same beforementioned Democratic Congresspersons to agree to vote to let him go to war despite their assured knowledge that he was a liar and a moron!

Diabolically clever, I tell you!


* The preceding is tongue and cheek and is not to be taken seriously.   

Bush haters regurgitating hate for Bush. BOORING!

We've heard it all before! Idiots! BOORING!!!!

Complaining is about the easiest thing to do, next to dying! Any damn fool can do it... and most do.

Bush haters regurgitating hate for Bush. BOORING! We've heard it all before! Idiots! BOORING!!!!

Truely insightful.

As for the link, I couldn't see it either. Perhaps the joe user management already got it. If I'd of realized it was a WP link, it would have gone if I could do anything aboutit.

* The preceding is tongue and cheek and is not to be taken seriously.

the sad thing is, you had to tell everyone. Do you think Troy actually read any of this thread? Troy, what is it about GW that you think is great? What makes him a great man, a great leader? Tell us. E N L I G H T E N U S with your wisdom, please.