Global Warming or Global Warring?

Fri, 2007-09-07 19:24Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Global Warming or Global Warring?

Our second video blog from the Society of Environmental Journalist National Conference. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now asks George Schultz, former US Secretary of State, the question global warming or global warring?

Schultz claims that the Iraq war “has nothing to do with oil.” As our friends at ThinkProgress say: Watch it!

 

 

Comments

Incredibly, the far-left is still clinging to their "It's all about the oiiiilllll!" shibboleth.

If that's true, then why didn't the US invade it's number one source of foreign oil: Canada?

Not only is Canada largely unarmed, but it's right next door. If the only reason for invading Iraq was oil, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble.

Rob, you've outdone yourself. Canada is a stable nation, no foreseeable threat to the US losing our oil imports. The US requires stability in the middle east to ensure the oil continues to flow to the US -- unfortunately, they just aren't very good at nation building.

The US dependence on oil to drive the economy, forces (or motivates) intervention in regions that have the potential to disrupt the flow.

 

"The US dependence on oil to drive the economy, forces (or motivates) intervention in regions that have the potential to disrupt the flow."

So, by that reasoning, the US was motivated to intervene in Afghanistan because of the potential to disrupt the flow of ... rocks?

The intervention in Afghanistan is an international UN sanctioned operation, but let's not quibble. It's all conflict & it's all Middle East.

If it was really about terrorism & who was responsible for the WTC attacks, the US would have focused all of their efforts on Afghanistan & had a serious talk with their buddies in Saudi Arabia. No question Saddam was a bastard, but let's face facts: he was basically a tin-pot dictator installed by the Americans. He had no great stockpile of WMDs and posed no threat to the American people. And the old line "He tried to kill my dad" ranks among the most lame pronouncements of any president, anywhere, ever. So you tell me -- if not oil, then WHY?

"The intervention in Afghanistan is an international UN sanctioned operation, but let's not quibble."

No, let's do "quibble": The invasion and overthrow of Iraq is also sanctioned by several UN resolutions, and has many international participants. Specifically UN resolutions 660, 678, and 687. Feel free to look it up.

"If it was really about terrorism & who was responsible for the WTC attacks, the US would have focused all of their efforts on Afghanistan"

I'm glad you're not in charge of setting US foreign policy. Are you seriously telling us that Saddam had absolutely no ties to terrorism?

In any case, the invasion of Iraq hinged on much more than Saddam's terrorist connections. You may want to look into those UN resolutions right about now.

"No question Saddam was a bastard, but let's face facts: he was basically a tin-pot dictator installed by the Americans."

If that's a "fact", then you'd be able to support it with some evidence. As it is, you don't, so I'll just assume you're parroting something you heard Michael Moore say.

Secondly, even if this were a "fact", how would that prevent the US from subsequently removing Saddam? Your argument is facile in that it is both factually incorrect and logically flawed.

"He had no great stockpile of WMDs and posed no threat to the American people."

I'm glad you feel all safe and cozy now. I don't know how you explain the removal of several hundred chemical warheads and then claim he never had them?

You'll find that anyone espousing the notion that Saddam did not posses WMDs prior to 2003 were few and far between.

In fact, here are a few quotes from your own idol:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
(Speech before The Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, as quoted in the Washington Post)

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
(ibid)

There's LOTS more were that came from.

"And the old line "He tried to kill my dad" ranks among the most lame pronouncements of any president, anywhere, ever."

How so? It is a statement of fact; it was not cited as a justification for launching the Iraq invasion. You seem to be a bit confused on that point.

And, finally, perhaps you need to also be reminded of a few other points:

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998, speaking at The Pentagon.

Clearly, you have forgotten the doctrine of regime change in Iraq was a policy originating from the Clinton administration, which, as you may or may not recall, included Vice President Al Gore.

No, let's do "quibble": The invasion and overthrow of Iraq is also sanctioned by several UN resolutions, and has many international participants. Specifically UN resolutions 660, 678, and 687. Feel free to look it up...

Lies. Your lying president and your lying vice-president and their lying accomplices lied the foolish Americans into a war they could not win. Suckers.

"Lies. Your lying president and your lying vice-president and their lying accomplices lied the foolish Americans into a war they could not win. Suckers.

Yeah, I guess that explains why Saddam and the Socialist Ba'ath regime are still running Iraq.

BTW kid, does your mom know you're up past your bed-time on a school night?

Out of curiosity I checked those UN resolutions that you quoted above. They are from 1990 & 1991, responding to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and have nothing to do with the decision of the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" to go into Iraq without a specific UN resolution to back them up in 2003. That is the difference, from the Canadian point of view, between the Iraq invasion and the situation in Afghanistan. The Canadian Prime Minister refused to involve the country in an action that did not have broad-based international support and the validation of a UN resolution.

Your remarks re: what if the US DID install Saddam? "How would that prevent the US from subsequently removing Saddam?" suggests that you approve of arbitrary and unilateral meddling by the US in the affairs of other countries. We must agree to disagree on this point.

I have found a number of wildly inaccurate statements in your lengthy posts, but I am not going to get drawn into this any further. If, as VJ points out below, you are indeed a blogger from North Dakota, none of your input has any basis in truth. Even if you aren't, I am tired of being shrieked at and called names. My son had to explain to me what a "moonbat oxygen thief" is. Very nice. So mature. Thank you.

"Out of curiosity I checked those UN resolutions that you quoted above. They are from 1990 & 1991, responding to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and have nothing to do with the decision of the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" to go into Iraq without a specific UN resolution to back them up in 2003."

Allow me to quote from United Nations Resolution 678 (1990). It states:

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area

What part of "all necessary means" do you not understand?

Iraq consistently and deliberately failed to comply with previous and subsequent resolutions. Iraq consistently and deliberately acted in a provocative and beligerent manner and continued to do so over a course of twelve years.

"The Canadian Prime Minister refused to involve the country in an action that did not have broad-based international support and the validation of a UN resolution."

Yup, and that's one of the many reasons he and the Liberal Party are still in power today. Oh, wait. I forgot. Actually he's not, is he?

"Your remarks re: what if the US DID install Saddam? "How would that prevent the US from subsequently removing Saddam?" suggests that you approve of arbitrary and unilateral meddling by the US in the affairs of other countries."

So you are seriously telling us that overthrowing Saddam was completely "arbitrary"? Saddam did absolutely nothing to provoke an invasion?

My God, what planet are you living on?

"I have found a number of wildly inaccurate statements in your lengthy posts, but I am not going to get drawn into this any further."

Funny how you keep saying that, and yet, here you are. As usual, you fail to back that statement up.

"If, as VJ points out below, you are indeed a blogger from North Dakota, none of your input has any basis in truth."

Huh? Your "logic" eludes me. I'm not a blogger from North Dakota (wherever you get that bizarre notion??); and even if I were, how on Earth would that exclude my statements from having a basis in fact?

"My son had to explain to me what a "moonbat oxygen thief" is."

No, seriously? You actually needed someone to explain that to you?! The mind boggles.

Liar; you are indeed that blogger from North Dakota, even though you claimed above to be Canadian, which you are obviously not.

"Saddam did absolutely nothing to provoke an invasion?"
Well, he had nothing to do with 9/11; Osama Bin Laden did that. Remember Osama, who is still a free man? Your president swore to get him, but then he pulled his troops away from Afghanistan where Osama was, and sent them instead to Iraq, where there was no Osama, and no weapons of mass destruction, and no good reason for invading at that time. Remember your administration said they knew where the weapons were? They lied. There were no weapons there.

It is touching to read of your exceeding loyalty to Me, and the Revolutionary Socialist Ba'ath Party of Iraq!

Your seething hatred of the infidel Yankee goat fornicators, led by the camel thief Bush, reminds me of my own martyred sons, Uday and Qusay. I consider you my son and will award you the Order of the Golden Scimitar and Mustache. I will also have General al-Sahhaf thrown into a wood-chipper in your honour, and you shall take his place as my Information Minister. Allah Ackbar!!!

Or, at least I would, if I weren't dead.
But keep up the good work! Or else.

Yours Truly,
-Ghost of Saddam

BTW, "moonbat" is an Americanism, not much used up here. Further evidence that VJ is right. How's the weather in North Dakota?

Yet another brilliant piece of deduction, Matlock. Then again, having witnessed your standards of evidence, what more proof could you possibly need?

you state: "I'm not a blogger from North Dakota (wherever you get that bizarre notion??", and "As a Canadian, I certainly hope. . ."

The internet is a wonderful tool, isn't it? With a few keystrokes I was able to identify the person behind www.sayanythingblog.com/ as Rob Port of Bismarck, North Dakota. Would that be a different Rob?

Case closed.

Whaaaaaat?!!!!

You mean there's someone else who also has the name "Rob"?!! Well of all the nerve!

Incredible!

Yep. That's a pretty amazing coincidence alright. Sort of like two people having the same DNA.

Don't bother, Rob. South Park does it better. And anyway, the invasion of Canada is being carried out in other ways, far more subtle. You can't rush in and take over a country that superficially at least looks pretty much like yourself. Far better to invade a place where everyone is used to seeing mobs of foreign-looking religious fanatics on television, shouting anti-American slogans, and the President is known to be a Very Bad Man. Bush was counting on nobody in the US really knowing the difference between Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and all of those other places over there where the people wear long flowing robes & you can't tell them apart.

And you don't really suppose that Bush is interested in the Northwest Passage as a shipping lane for transporting electronic components and lumber? There's OIL up there, by God!

"And anyway, the invasion of Canada is being carried out in other ways, far more subtle."

The US must be so exceedingly crafty and subtle, I hadn't noticed any sign of this. Since you are obviously more astute than the rest of us, why don't tell us exactly how the US is "invading" Canada, and let us all in on the secret?

"You can't rush in and take over a country that superficially at least looks pretty much like yourself."

Strange how that didn't seem to stop them from invading Germany? As I recall, the invasion was even led by a guy named Eisenhower.

"Far better to invade a place where everyone is used to seeing mobs of foreign-looking religious fanatics on television, shouting anti-American slogans, and the President is known to be a Very Bad Man. Bush was counting on nobody in the US really knowing the difference between Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and all of those other places over there where the people wear long flowing robes & you can't tell them apart."

Could you possibly be any more offensively racist and bigotted?

"And you don't really suppose that Bush is interested in the Northwest Passage as a shipping lane for transporting electronic components and lumber?"

As a Canadian, I certainly hope the US, like everyone else would be interested. Something like that could prove to be very economically beneficial to us. What's your point?

"There's OIL up there, by God!"

If there is, and it resides in Canadian territory, then how is that a problem? Again, this benefits Canada. If the US wants to pay us good money, then it benefits both of us. What's your point? Do you have one?

When someone starts calling me racist that's the end of the conversation. My remarks are a commentary on the awareness (or lack thereof) of the American people in general of foreign countries and cultures. Perhaps I should have put them in quotation marks so you would "get it". If you don't see my point now, you never will. But for your own edification, have a look at A Lie, Repeated Often Enough, Becomes "Truth" posted earlier today by Jim Hoggan. For the record, I don't get my information from Michael Moore, but rather from reading extensively and questioning everything.

"When someone starts calling me racist that's the end of the conversation. My remarks are a commentary on the awareness (or lack thereof) of the American people in general of foreign countries and cultures."

Ah, I see. So it's quite acceptable for you to accuse Americans -- as a whole(!) -- of being ignorant racists, but if someone points out that you yourself blatantly exhibit these tendencies, you take your ball and stomp off in a huff. Hilarious.

"Perhaps I should have put them in quotation marks so you would "get it"."

Oh, we "get it" alright.

"If you don't see my point now, you never will."

Considering the effort you spent parotting inane left-wing slogans, I don't believe you got around to actually making any sort of point?

"But for your own edification, have a look at A Lie, Repeated Often Enough, Becomes "Truth" posted earlier today by Jim Hoggan."

Coming from a self-employed PR shill, I guess he'd know! I refer you to this very web site as evidence.

"For the record, I don't get my information from Michael Moore, but rather from reading extensively and questioning everything."

Maybe you're going about it the wrong way, as it doesn't seem to have done you much good. Your "questioning" evidently is restricted to anything which doesn't flatter your prejudices. If you wish to avoid being mistaken for yet another moonbat oxygen-thief, you may want to add critical thinking to your to-do list.

When the conversation deteriorates to the level of your last post, it becomes clear to me that there is no point carrying it any further, because no matter what I say, you will persist in characterizing me as a racist, left-wing "moonbat oxygen-thief" (whatever that is). If that translates to you as taking my ball & stomping off in a huff, so be it. I've been called worse by better.

"When the conversation deteriorates to the level of your last post..."

Excuse me? I submit that your snotty, bigotted remarks about Middle-Easterners and Americans pretty much marks ground-zero here.

" ... it becomes clear to me that there is no point carrying it any further"

Since you have neither withdrawn nor apologised for those odious statements, I'll have to agree with you.

Rob, you are not Canadian. As I showed on an earlier post at DeSmogBlog, you are a political blogger in North Dakota. As an American, you clearly do not understand the problem with this: "...I certainly hope the US, like everyone else would be interested..." or with your ignorance of the concept and meaning of invasion. Stop lying.

Edited to add: and your reference above to Cindy Sheehan is more likely to be made by an American. Canadians were against the war in Iraq from the beginning, which is why our prime minister was smart enough to keep us out of it. We didn't need Cindy Sheehan to tell us how wrong it was.

Rob's blog:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/nasa_drastically_revises_global_temperature_numbers/

He copied that post on his blog to his first comment on this DeSmogBlog article:

http://www.desmogblog.com/scientists-countdown-to-boiling-point

I pointed this out near the bottom of the first page of comments there, but Rob did not respond.

This explains a great deal.

Are you geniuses for real?

Evidence, Rob. It wins global warming arguments and all sorts of other arguments. You should try it some time.

"I'm not a blogger from North Dakota (wherever you get that bizarre notion??)"

Oh really? Perhaps you can explain, then, why your post "NASA Drastically Revises Global Temperature Numbers" by Rob on August 9, 2007 at 05:40 pm at http://sayanythingblog.com/ is verbatim identical to your post of the same title at http://www.desmogblog.com/scientists-countdown-to- boiling-point that you posted the next day? And why "North Dakota's Most Popular Political Blog" would be run by someone who claims to be Canadian? And why a Canadian would be concerned with "Taking Back North Dakota", or raising campaign funds for Fred Thompson?

You have dedicated considerable space in this comments forum to insulting me and citing volumes of rationalization and justification for the Iraq war. Sorry. Not buying it. I watched the buildup to invasion, too, and took note with what care the US avoided a direct and definitive vote at the UN on whether to invade before the inspectors looking for WMDs had finished their job.

You have misrepresented yourself, and your agenda is pretty obvious. A glance through your postings at Say Anything is very educational.

And as for the "moonbat oxygen thief" business, people who refrain from flinging insults around themselves tend to find these quaint expressions a bit baffling.

Have a nice day. It's supposed to be sunny in Bismarck today, but a bit chilly at 6.7C (that's 44F).

see above, "You want proof?"

OK, Rob, VJ, and Femack, time to end this heated tennis match. You are ripping each other's heads off and not being civil (though I admit that it's tough given Rob's recent antics). It's getting a bit tiresome to read (though I suppose it's getting tiresome for you as well).

Regarding the war in Iraq, I was part of the anti-war crowd for the first two or three years of the war. However, my opposition has softened recently as I have realized that, due to the Bush Administration's mishandling of the war and trying to go about it "on the cheap", that not only Al-Qaeda, but also that psychopath Ahmadinejad of Iran have moved in and if coalition forces leave, Iraq will become a wasteland (far worse than it is now) after civil war (which it almost seems to be in right now).

I feel that it was right to get rid of Saddam, especially given his gassing of the Kurds in the north, destruction of the Marshes in the south, and support both financially and verbally of Palestinian terrorists like Islamic Jihad and Hamas. He personally signed the death warrants of thousands of innocent people.

Had the war been handled properly and been given the necessary resources, I don't think the US forces would be in the situation they are in, fighting on all sides and trying to rebuild Iraq at the same time. Also, if other nations had joined up, there might have been the chance that the UN would have sent some peacekeepers to help stabilize the nation once a certain level of progress was made.

I realize that this sentiment won't go over well with my fellow members of the Liberal Party here in Canada. However, sometimes difficult choices need to be made and sometimes people have to go with the lesser of two evils (the biggest evil being allowing Saddam Hussein to continue as dictator of Iraq). It's just tragic seeing how many other innocent people have lost their lives in Iraq, mostly as a result of Shia-Sunni battles, though also attacks on Kurds and the Yazidis (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Kahtaniya_bombings).

We probably should not discuss the Iraq war in detail here or I would dispute quite a few of your statements; for instance, Bush's war has killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did (edited: outside of the war with Iran), over a million people now. It was not worth it.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/06/deaths_in_iraq_updated.php

Incidently, who cares what the Liberal Party thinks? I don't.

I agree that this isn't the forum to discuss Iraq. However, I do disagree with your statement "Bush's war has killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did". The war itself as waged by coalition forces hasn't killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. The Sunni insurgents' attacks and suicide bombings by the Shia extremists are the cause of the vast majority of civilian deaths. Mistaken targeting, poor aim, and accidents by American troops have killed far fewer civilians than the above two causes.

Regarding the Liberals, I think all Canadians should care about and listen to what they say, though I don't say that everyone should agree with them. I certainly don't every time. (All Canadians should care about what every party says or else the state of democracy deteriorates to the point now where the situation is pretty awful to say the least.)

All of that chaos is a result of Bush's unnecessary war. Roughly a million people have died as a result of the war, that number would not have died if Bush had not decided to start a war. It's not likely that Saddam would have killed a million more people from 2003 to now if he had been left alone; evil as he was, Bush is as bad or worse.

Some of these people were killed by American air strikes or American and British cluster bombs or American bullets (probably many more than you realise or admit, remember in at least one of the Fallujah massacres American snipers targetted ambulances), some by insurgents, some by suicide bombers who came into the country as a result of the chaos, some by the breakdown of law and order, some because so many hospitals were destroyed by the Americans along with so much other infrastructure; etc, etc. But every one of the million or so who died because of this unnecessary war is a victim of George W. Bush and the Americans.

You might want to check Deltoid's other blogs on the Lancet reports. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lancetiraq/

As for political parties, I read a number of political blogs; some spend as much time and energy fiddling with poll numbers as they do talking about issues; and the ones who identify with specific parties do a lot of spinning. Funny, they don't talk about democracy that much. Some independent bloggers do, but not the partisan ones. We need more democracy and less petty partisan politicking.

I agree that the US and the "coalition of the willing" should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. OTOH I don't think that leaving Saddam Hussein alone was the answer either. The issue for me was always that Bush side-stepped the UN when it looked as though they weren't going to support invasion. We can't know how it would have panned out if he had kept a grip on himself and proceeded within the UN schedule.

Trouble is, "what if" is useless in the present situation. They've made a mess of it, and the UN shouldn't just stand there saying "I told you so". Something has to be done. First order of business, send Bush to his room without dinner & let the grown-ups sort it out.

In the context of this forum, the original point was that the US has done all of this in the quest for a stable oil supply. Think of the human and financial resources that have been poured into this fiasco, all to ensure that they can continue to burn fossil fuel indefinitely. A spectacular case of misplaced priorities.

"I agree that the US and the "coalition of the willing" should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. OTOH I don't think that leaving Saddam Hussein alone was the answer either."

I think the US and the CotW shouldn't have gone into Iraq without a clue as to how they would secure that nation once Saddam et al. were deposed. Sure, there was no Iraqi connection to 9-11. However, there was an Iraqi link to terrorism.

The one thing that the UN completely botched up was that they never punished Saddam for flouting the 17 resolutions agreed upon by the UN's own Security Council. It was all talk. Instead, the UN rewarded him and some UN personnel "on the take" in the corrupted Oil-for-Food program, the money from which Saddam actually purchased armaments from nations like Russia, China, and France, who are permanent members of the Security Council.

If the UN continues with the "I told you so" attitude without helping secure Iraq, that shows the lack of morality of the UN as they seem to be saying that they have no responsibility in preventing mass murder. (Heck, that's what it seemed to be like in Rwanda, where 800,000 people were slaughtered in ten days without UN intervention, despite the pleading of Romeo Dallaire.) If the UN does nothing to prevent mass murder, they have no right to call themselves the world's moral compass.

I think the UN does some good. However, it has lost its way and needs meaningful reform, which is apparent in that nations like Syria, a nation that tortures people, is (or at least was) on the UN Human Rights Commission. How's that for hypocrisy!

The US also tortures people, remember? I believe the US opposed any intervention in Rwanda, and probably other countries did as well, like the rest of the Security Council, maybe? Maybe the main problem with the UN is that some big rich countries have too much influence there.

You are quite right. It was getting very tiresome. I will try in future to consider the source and not to rise to the bait.

[x]

Two Colorado legislators announced they are introducing a ballot initiative aimed at punishing cities and towns that vote to ban fracking within their borders.

Rep. Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling, both Republicans, announced they will attempt to get an initiative on the ballot to block local jurisdictions from getting severance tax revenues or...

read more