Correction: it will never happen so long as we have career politicians who not only have no science training to speak of, but have no incentive to learn anything about anything that does not directly relate to the 3-4 hot topics amongst their constituents. Furthermore, should one of those hot topics be a science-based issue, they need do no more than learn a few keywords to rile up the masses.
If what you say is true, and it is, then the problem is not with the politicians, but the constituents. You can't blame a politician for following the will of his/her constituency. That's their job!
Granted, there is some "riling" up of the masses that some politicians are guilty of, but a politician can't do that without the press acting as a willing accomplice. It's the press that controls what the public sees, not the politicians.
Example from the left: The run up to the Iraq war Example from the right: Global warming
(please do not try to debate me on either GW or Iraq. Those are merely prime examples of how the press, not the politicians take an issue, run with it and only report one side of the story)
What sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist to produce carbon from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen?;)
While I don't have the exact figures memorized, it would be similar to the temps and pressure required to create gold from helium (a few steps omitted, of course, but those are dwarfed by the whole idea).
They won the Nobel Prize. I'm sure you consider the Nobel Committee to be a bunch of dirty hippie leftist Islamocommies, though.
Well, YEAH! Let's see, Al Gore gives a slide show on global warming. He lives in several mansions and takes private jets to speaking engagements. He uses produces more carbon by himself than a family of four does all year. He wins the Nobel Prize. A woman saves 1500 children from the Nazi's, gets captured and through years of torture, never gives the kids up. She loses the Nobel Prize to Al Gore.
Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, more commonly known as Yasir Arafat, is a known terrorists who stole billions from the people he claimed to support wins the Nobel Prize.
Jimmy Carter also won the Nobel Prize for his work with North Korea. North Korea tested a nuclear device recently and is still starving the population.
Need I go on? I'm sorry, but the fact that these guys won the Nobel Prize is a negative as far as I'm concerned. The Nobel Prize committee is about as trustworthy as the UN, who started the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That is not going to be enough to do it. ANWR does not provide nearly enough oil to make a dent in our oil consumption, and the oil that is there is rather expensive to tap (I don't work in the field, but I've heard that the cold temperatures affect oil viscosity)
You switch America to electric cars (or ethanol hybrids), powered by nuclear power plants and drill for oil where we have it, and we can make at least an enormous dent in our energy imports if we don't become completely independent.
I guess I should have mentioned that in my original post. I was not very specific when I said "become more efficient". I should have said "switch our dependence to other forms of energy".
Thank you for saying that. Seeing people who don't understand the difference between a falling dollar in relation to foreign currencies and inflation really bugs me.
Also, may I add that a falling dollar makes outsourcing of labor less attractive as well. All of a sudden, those Indian tech support centers are not such a good deal for Dell that they once were. This may have something to do with American techies getting paid more. (although I have no idea what the exchange rate is between the dollar and whatever Indians spend)
These are state laws. They're not suing to get the implemented nationwide. They're suing to be allowed to pass laws within their own states.
You're right. I misread it. At first read of both the TFA and the summary, it appeared that these states were suing to force the Feds to regulate emission standards to the automakers. Although now it has become the citizens of LA telling the citizens in the Mojave what they can and can't drive, it's still a state issue.
Are you saying that a truck owned by somebody outside a city pollutes less per mile than a truck owned by somebody inside a city?
This depends. A truck that takes a ten mile non-stop trip at 40 mph pollutes less than a truck that travels ten miles sitting in stop and go traffic averaging 8 mph. Of course, both these trucks would be equal at 3:00am when traffic considerations are removed. Unfortunately, that is not when most people do their driving (thus the lack of traffic). So it's not the location of the vehicle, but the driving conditions.
Much of the pollution that is going to come from a big city like LA, Chicago, Houston, and NY comes could be reduced by either reducing traffic congestion during peak times of day by: 1) staggering the times of day so that not everyone is trying to get to the same place at the same time 2) build better/more freeways so that there are several alternate routes to get to same place (could be paid for by taxes on gasoline for example) 3) build better transit systems that allow people not just to get downtown, but also the business areas on the outskirts of downtown 4) give incentives to business for allowing work-at-home employees 5) and/or encourage businesses to build closer to where the people live through tax breaks and easing zoning restrictions
Not every business needs to be located downtown and have a 9-5 hours of operation.
If I had 16 million, I could do some very effective PR. I wouldn't have to do anything BUT PR here, putting me at a fiscal advantage to the real organizations.
Sure you could do some PR. You could also do research, although very little of it. You could not do both. Of course, this 16 million doesn't go to one GWSkeptic-Czar, it is spread out among many scientists, research firms and universities.
When put up against the billions that the GW alarmists receive you wouldn't stand much of a chance. First, not only do these guys NOT have to buy their own PR (see and Inconvenient Truth, CNN's Planet in Peril show that was on all night last night, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, any typical news show such as 60 minutes, daily talk shows like The View and the list goes on and on and on). Not only do they not have to pay for their own PR, but they are actively teaching this stuff to kids as fact in schools and the taxpayers pay for it! So GW Alarmists receive all 16 billion and use it pay for "research studies" that back up their claim. Now if you work for a university and your dean asks what you are doing to get grants, what do you think he'll sign off on? Do you think he wants you trying to get a piece of whatever is left from that 16 million or do you think he'll want you going for the billions that are being handed out by any number of groups that won't pay unless you come up with something alarming?
False claims of shrinking glaciers? You mean all those images of then and now are forgeries? I suggest a goggle image search. The claim that was false was due to the a mathematical error. All he did was correct the math and show that the problem was not nearly as dire as the original projection had spelled out. Also, it's really easy to take pictures of a mountain in summer and compare it a phone taken in February. It's also not very hard to find images of growing glaciers either.
Besides, few are arguing that GW is taking place. What is being argued is why, what can be done, and IF anything should be done.
I don't think you tried very hard. You could have used wikipedia's list of questioners and skeptics (it is very short!), which actually gives names, quotations, and credentials, but I suspect it is also out of date. I know that at least one past skeptic publicly recanted. The evidence has gotten much, much stronger over the past 5 years. I try to steer clear of Wikipedia. Too often you see agendas injected into the page that really puts the credibility of the whole site in doubt.
Sure. So doesn't that make preventing them from curtailing that pollution kind of counterproductive?
No, it means they want to force the government to pass laws so that all of America has to live the way that they want them to live. Take for example the types of restrictions that would make your typical LA'er who is suffering from eco-guilt feel better. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that they put a weight limit on cars for all who do not require trucks to do their jobs, like farmers. Well, I am not a farmer. I work on computers. But because I live in an environmentally sensitive zone, rivers are not disturbed by re-routing and bridges that may put an endangered rice at risk are not built (seriously... the endangered rice part is true!) That means when it rains, I have to cross a low water crossing to get to work. Even though it's only a few feet of rushing water, a Prius simply won't make that trip! Is my small town an ecological disaster? No, but we would have to abide by the rules set by people sit in traffic for four hours a day with their engines idling! What works for them doesn't exactly work for everyone else in the country. Unfortunately, these people are too blinded by their conceit and self-centered thinking that they can't understand that the best way for them might be a disaster for someone else. The type of car that works great in LA may not cut in the outskirts of Louisville KY or Springfield IL. But notice how these lawsuits are coming from the left and right coasts, where nearly all roads are paved and well maintained. These are places with public transportation systems, parking garages and paved driveways. You can get around better in Manhattan without a car than you could with one! That does not apply for Findlay OH.
So let the people in LA and Manhattan make the rules for LA and Manhattan and leave those of us that live between the two cities make our own damn rules and live how WE want to live. We shouldn't have to suffer when we are neither the ones making the pollution nor the ones complaining!
I see a moderator has called this previously unrated post, overrated (isn't that like saying that a plane on the ground is flying too high?). I'm sure he chose that particular mod because he knows that "overrated" mods are not subject to meta-moderation. This usually happens when they disagree with the post, but are unable to refute any of the points made. It's a classic example of the tactics used by the Brownshirts in 1930's Germany. Silence the opposition at all costs. This was done through protesting events or simply shouting down the opposition.
If you read my post (the parent of this one), you will see how this is also a classic example of how Global Warming skeptics are treated. They are not given grants when their research does not jive with the group think, or they are simply fired because the organization they work for can not afford to lose the grants. Sometimes, when they work for a government agency, they are let go because their science does not support the political views of whoever is in charge. Either way, their views are silenced in order to make it seem as if they don't exist, and Global Warming alarmists appear to have a consensus. This helps give credence when they say things like, "The debate is over." Sure it's over, but only because you've silenced the other side to the point where you are the only one talking!
Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.
What, five of them?
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.
Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.
Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.
Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.
Sorry, but Republicans do not rule the world. From HERE: Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."
and HERE: In a paper issued Jan. 3, 2007, UCS accuses ExxonMobil of funding "front groups" opposed to the climate-alarmist agenda of groups such as UCS and of former Vice President Al Gore. The company, said the UCS report, had distributed $16 million to 43 advocacy groups from 1998 to 2005 "to confuse the public on global-warming science." Let's leave aside the fact that $16 million over eight years can't match the $2 billion that the federally funded Climate Change Science Program spends each year on global warming, or even the $4 million annual budget of just one of the many well-funded global-warming advocacy groups, Strategies for the Global Environment (the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change). Moreover, the UCS document is hardly an investigative breakthrough. ExxonMobil itself publishes its philanthropic contributions to nonprofit organizations online.
And HERE is where the state climatologist in Oregon gets fired for questioning global warming: In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist...
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
Then there is THIS one where a scientist was fired for correcting bad data: University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains... Cliff Mass, a professo
That isn't how air quality regulations work. Under the Clean Air Act, setting auto emissions standards is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. However, because California had stricter emissions standards in place when the Clean Air Act was first passed, California (and only California) was granted a waiver to set its own standards which can be adopted by other states if they choose. This waiver doesn't apply to vehicular CO2 emissions. California (with other states) has already won a suit saying that EPA must grant such a waiver, however EPA has not done so. Thus, they are suing again, this time asking the court to order EPA to do so immediately.
As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.
As for states suing the Feds to force auto manufacturers to decrease emissions, why don't they just do it themselves? California has strict emission control policies. Why can't the rest of these states.
Better yet, they can just stop repairing their roads.
By far most Americans believe that greenhouse emissions caused by humans are causing global warming Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree. Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.
Most Americans want the War in Iraq to end now and the troops brought home
Unless you know "most Americans" or run a polling company, you probably shouldn't be making such claims. Maybe you should know the facts before you spout off.
From HERE:
"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?" Only 29% answered "remove all". This was before the news that violence has been reduced 70% since the surge. If that gets reported, who knows what that number will be.
The good news is I have a feeling the BS isn't working as well as it used to. Not as long as there are people like me who gladly look up your BS and call you out on it.
Well, now, here's where the fundamental disagreement comes in, doesn't it? What evidence do you have that Iraq supported Islamic terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda? Everything I've come across says that a) Saddam's regime was entirely secular, and b) he did his best to squash religious extremists because they posed a threat to his power. Nor was there, to my knowledge, any documented evidence of support of Al Qaeda by the Iraqi government. Unlike Afghanistan, which was known to be harbouring and supporting terrorists.
Well, then it appears you need to educate yourself. Please, take a look at this page. You will find gems like this one.
At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein's government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government's underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
"President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000."
It also has copies of canceled checks that were sent to the families of suicide bombers, along with a certificate of appreciation that was sent to families of the "martyrs".
I know what you are thinking, "These are Palestinian terrorists. They don't count." Well, first I bid you tell that to the families of those murdered for going out to eat. Next, let me point you to another quote:
After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein's guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes.
That hijacking was NOT in Israel, but on a cruise ship on the high seas.
I know what's next, "But what about Al Qaeda?"
This is Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of this man, Lawrence Foley:
Even the courts agree:
Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and -- according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge -- the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad.
Maybe you'd prefer a different link. Maybe from a source that is known to be more left of center. How about The New York Times?
Well armed and financed by both Iraq and Iran, this affiliate of Al Qaeda has since provided a haven for bin Laden followers exfiltrating from Afghanistan. They tried to assassinate an articulate Kurdish leader, Barham Salih, killing several bodyguards, but their target escaped and several killers were captured. Our National Security Council members did not learn about this bloody engagement, one of them told me a week afterwar
"Now let's take a situation I was in last week while installing Feisty on a buddy's notebook. Wireless drivers were not available for his USB Wireless NIC. I had to hit the web from another machine because...duh..."...you had not looked at what wireless NICs were supported before doing the install? Or, even better, booted the live cd and tested what worked and did not before writing to disk?
If it were me, I probably would have made sure that his NIC was supported in Linux. He is not me and I have no control over his purchases.
Also, this was an old notebook (a 1 Ghz Toshiba with 256 MB RAM). The screen didn't work any more and he wanted it to place in his kitchen to store recipes or whatever on. He came to me looking for an old Win2k server disk that he could use. That's when I talked him into trying Linux.
As for the Live CD... well, it booted, but with 256MB RAM, I wouldn't say that it ran. It was more like it fell asleep in its walker. I made to the third or forth step of the install before it would basically die. It was still running, but it would take about three minutes for the mouse to move. I left it and went to lunch. After I had come back about 1.5 hours later, it was still there, CD drive grinding away, still on the same step where I left it. I had to download the "alternate CD" to run the text-based install.
Basically, when you are salvaging an older system by installing Linux on it, you really don't have much say as to the hardware.
My point was more centered around the fact that bigger focus on community support can help non-technical people with most of the issues that can arrise when people migrate over to Linux. Your comments are taken on board though.
Tbh I'm not an "uber geek" like you describe, I love technical stuff, but at the same time I don't mind helping people getting started - but was implying that "free" phone support was too far, but within the funds of the big names promoting Ubuntu and such or through community sponsorship it would be possible to financially help those providing such a service (which would no doubt be benificial if it were widely publicised, printed on the back of Ubuntu cds etc.).
Sorry if I was a bit rough, but that first sentence brought back the rage I feel when I see posts hammering some newbie because they didn't quite know how to do something. Too often I see "RTFM", or "learn to use the damn search engine", or simply reply with a link to another post with a similar issue or, and this on is my all time favorite, the bug report page that is designed and used by the developers. Of course, these uber-geeks are the same ones who wonder why Linux has not taken off and made a dent in the MS market share.
Still, you help. That's more than most. Your idea of a support system for Linux is not bad. Linspire had something like that. It was both corporately and user supported. The help was extremely easy to find as damn near everything had a question mark button on it. The apt-get frontend (Click-n-Run) was so easy to use it was boring. I don't know if they ever made a profit, but they are still in business. I was so impressed, I donated $100 to the cause and this was back when I was a starving student!
Oh sorry, I didn't realize you had to have a even the slightest bit of technical sense to be able to do something slightly technical on a frikkin' computer!
You shouldn't make judgments like that. I said that the CLI is a bit too much for the average Joe. Me, since you've attempted to insult me, let me explain that you are a bit off base. I've used Linux since Mandrake was still called Mandrake and the only Debian based distro was Debian. I have installed Gentoo from stage one and stage three and survived many "emerge --update --deep --newuse world"'s. So please don't make assumptions about me because I said that most non-geeks won't take the time to learn the CLI. Why should they when they pay for Windows and won't have to?
People like you are part of the problem with Linux. The condescending, "I'm a uber-geek and you are all crap for not knowing the answer" attitude has turned many people off from Linux. Fortunately, you are a dying breed. Since your type has little chance of having offspring from your mother's basement, it is only a matter of time before you go extinct. Once that happens, people can use the forums you described without fear of someone belittling them for asking what you think is a stupid question.
You do realise that support channels (forums, irc etc.) exist, and personally I've helped more than a handful of people through similar issues just because they asked nicely and could follow basic instructions depending on their degree of ability.... Now take the Windows situation, you have to search the internet for drivers.. hold on, my modem or network card isn't working because Vista doesn't come with compatible drivers for it and I'm stuck in 800x600 in 16 colours.. I'll just call the Windows support line and get this sorted out...
Now let's take a situation I was in last week while installing Feisty on a buddy's notebook. Wireless drivers were not available for his USB Wireless NIC. I had to hit the web from another machine because...duh... the NIC wasn't recognized and try to figure out that trick to use Windows drivers to run a wireless NIC on Linux (NDISWrapper). Of course, then I had to find the Windows drivers, copy them both to the machine, install NDISWrapper, load it using depmod and modprobe, point it to the correct driver file and set it up to load on boot. Of course, there is a GUI that it supposed to help, but it didn't work until I had installed the whole thing using the CLI. Also, if there were no other machines around to look up the instructions and download this stuff, I wouldn't even have a pay-by-the-minute support line to call!
Now keep in mind, I'm doing this while my buddy is watching me. I had been harping on how easy Linux was and finally talked him into letting me install it. He was so turned off that he hasn't booted his notebook since!
Now what a remarkable and amazing coincidence that Gutsy has such a fall-back GUI for fixing broken X sessions. It is almost as if they are working to make it more accessible to non-technical users...
Well, it didn't seem to work for this guy.
As for my own experience, I've had X go down, which restarted GDM and moved my X console from F7 to F8. I knew to look there, but I don't think your average user is going to know that.
As for a fall-back X session, that is great. I have not seen it myself, but I have no issues with dropping to the CLI to change up my xorg.conf. I actually had to do that to keep my system from defaulting to 800x600 mode. Maybe there is a way to make that stick in X, but I didn't take the time to figure it out since the CLI and vi were easier for me. But since we are comparing this to Windows, Windows will tell you that it has found a new video card and gives you chance to put the CD in the drive to download the driver. First, Ubuntu won't do that because... Second, no video card manufacturer is going to put Linux drivers on the CD.
Here is the latest example I've run across: Is there a GUI tool in Ubuntu for disabling the power button? My daughter has discovered buttons and likes to crawl around pushing them. I found it in XP without any problems. I can't seem to find it in Ubuntu.
Anyway, I connect my HD which had Ubuntu Edgy installed on it, boot up. X complains about the video card so I change "nvidia" to "ati" in xorg.conf, type: startx, and 2 minutes latter I am reading my mail in thunderbird.
The problem with you story is that your average "End LUser" is not going to be able to edit the xorg.conf using vi, and even if they could, probably wouldn't know to change "nvidia" to "ati". The CLI is a bit beyond what most people care to know.
That said, they would have had to work around all the Windows Genuine Advantage crap. Find, download and install every driver the system used, including sound card, chipset, IDE controller, video and so on. However, they would at least have a low res "safe mode" GUI to do it all in. There would be no editing of text files.
Until Ubuntu or whatever distro user can do every single thing in the GUI that they can do through the CLI, Window will have an advantage. MS writes Windows with a GUI in mind from the ground up. Linux is designed to work with or without a GUI. On rare occasion, such as the one you listed here, there will be an absolute need to use the CLI in Linux. Some people just can't handle that.
Here is how I see it. Islamic terrorists attacked the WTC under the Al Qaeda banner. Iraq supports Islamic terrorists. So in attacking Iraq, he was taking out a source of support for Islamic terrorists, in the geographic center of where most of these terrorists come from, the middle east. As for attacking other countries with a strong terrorist presence, such as Saudi Arabia, this would be counter productive. We would literally be taking out a government that is actively helping us fight terrorism. This would mean that we would need to take over whatever support, no matter how small, that their current government is providing in addition to running the day to day security operation (police force) of that entire country. Iraq was not only refusing to help us fight terrorism, but they were actively supporting terrorists in places like the West Bank and Gaza. Bush had already stated that any government actively supporting terrorism could be attacked. Had Bush not attacked Iraq, this would have been seen by the world as hollow threat. The war against Iraq is a part of the War on Terror just as much as the war in Afghanistan. Both had the sole purpose of taking out governments that supported or provided safe haven to terrorists and install a free society that would become an ally in the world's fight against terrorism.
Iraq fired on NATO war planes patrolling the "no fly zone" as mandated by the UN. This was a direct attack on US sovereignty.
There is also little doubt that given the chance, they would support other terrorists organizations that aimed to attack the US. An actual example would be the attempted assassination of George Herbert Walker Bush when he visited Kuwait. Being the now sitting President's father aside, the government sponsored attempt at a former US president is reason enough to go to war. Clinton did not have the guts for it and Bush couldn't use it as an reason because too many people would claim that GWB was simply saying "I'm looking for the man that shot my pa!" With GWB's cowboy image the way it is, he could not politically afford to give the opposition more cowboy ammunition.
The way I think YOU see it is that Bush was trying to make a direct link between Iraq and 9-11. He used both in the same sentence. He was trying to link Al Qaeda, the group that actually pulled off 9-11, and Iraq. As we all know, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 so any linking between the two is completely dishonest.
I see where you are coming from and your view is valid. Of course, I think that way I see it is correct. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, how are why we got into Iraq is completely irrelevant today. I hope that we can agree that a defeat in Iraq would be a disaster for the US. It would provide the boost that Somalia gave to Al Qaeda multiplied proportionately to the amount of time invested and number of troops involved. It would turn Iraq into a 1990's Afghanistan with enough oil resources to finance whatever operations were desired! That is something that neither US nor the world can afford.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds great! Now if they can get it to go 80 mph for 300 miles on a single charge, it will be marketable here in the US.
It's only a matter of time!
Correction: it will never happen so long as we have career politicians who not only have no science training to speak of, but have no incentive to learn anything about anything that does not directly relate to the 3-4 hot topics amongst their constituents. Furthermore, should one of those hot topics be a science-based issue, they need do no more than learn a few keywords to rile up the masses.
If what you say is true, and it is, then the problem is not with the politicians, but the constituents. You can't blame a politician for following the will of his/her constituency. That's their job!
Granted, there is some "riling" up of the masses that some politicians are guilty of, but a politician can't do that without the press acting as a willing accomplice. It's the press that controls what the public sees, not the politicians.
Example from the left: The run up to the Iraq war
Example from the right: Global warming
(please do not try to debate me on either GW or Iraq. Those are merely prime examples of how the press, not the politicians take an issue, run with it and only report one side of the story)
What sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist to produce carbon from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen? ;)
While I don't have the exact figures memorized, it would be similar to the temps and pressure required to create gold from helium (a few steps omitted, of course, but those are dwarfed by the whole idea).
They won the Nobel Prize. I'm sure you consider the Nobel Committee to be a bunch of dirty hippie leftist Islamocommies, though.
Well, YEAH! Let's see, Al Gore gives a slide show on global warming. He lives in several mansions and takes private jets to speaking engagements. He uses produces more carbon by himself than a family of four does all year. He wins the Nobel Prize. A woman saves 1500 children from the Nazi's, gets captured and through years of torture, never gives the kids up. She loses the Nobel Prize to Al Gore.
Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, more commonly known as Yasir Arafat, is a known terrorists who stole billions from the people he claimed to support wins the Nobel Prize.
Jimmy Carter also won the Nobel Prize for his work with North Korea. North Korea tested a nuclear device recently and is still starving the population.
Need I go on? I'm sorry, but the fact that these guys won the Nobel Prize is a negative as far as I'm concerned. The Nobel Prize committee is about as trustworthy as the UN, who started the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That is not going to be enough to do it. ANWR does not provide nearly enough oil to make a dent in our oil consumption, and the oil that is there is rather expensive to tap (I don't work in the field, but I've heard that the cold temperatures affect oil viscosity)
You switch America to electric cars (or ethanol hybrids), powered by nuclear power plants and drill for oil where we have it, and we can make at least an enormous dent in our energy imports if we don't become completely independent.
I guess I should have mentioned that in my original post. I was not very specific when I said "become more efficient". I should have said "switch our dependence to other forms of energy".
Thank you for saying that. Seeing people who don't understand the difference between a falling dollar in relation to foreign currencies and inflation really bugs me.
Also, may I add that a falling dollar makes outsourcing of labor less attractive as well. All of a sudden, those Indian tech support centers are not such a good deal for Dell that they once were. This may have something to do with American techies getting paid more. (although I have no idea what the exchange rate is between the dollar and whatever Indians spend)
Or, maybe it's just a coincidence.
Funny, I thought Bush had a 30% approval rating.
Wouldn't it be just as fair to say that 70% have a bias against Bush?
Energy Independence? Does that mean the same thing as invading the Middle East? Cos, y'know, I'm having some problem with that picture.
No. It means becoming more efficient and drilling in places like ANWR.
Now, stick with the topic.
As demand for bandwidth grows, so will the supply. It's that whole supply and demand argument we learned about in Eco101.
These are state laws. They're not suing to get the implemented nationwide. They're suing to be allowed to pass laws within their own states.
You're right. I misread it. At first read of both the TFA and the summary, it appeared that these states were suing to force the Feds to regulate emission standards to the automakers. Although now it has become the citizens of LA telling the citizens in the Mojave what they can and can't drive, it's still a state issue.
Are you saying that a truck owned by somebody outside a city pollutes less per mile than a truck owned by somebody inside a city?
This depends. A truck that takes a ten mile non-stop trip at 40 mph pollutes less than a truck that travels ten miles sitting in stop and go traffic averaging 8 mph. Of course, both these trucks would be equal at 3:00am when traffic considerations are removed. Unfortunately, that is not when most people do their driving (thus the lack of traffic). So it's not the location of the vehicle, but the driving conditions.
Much of the pollution that is going to come from a big city like LA, Chicago, Houston, and NY comes could be reduced by either reducing traffic congestion during peak times of day by:
1) staggering the times of day so that not everyone is trying to get to the same place at the same time
2) build better/more freeways so that there are several alternate routes to get to same place (could be paid for by taxes on gasoline for example)
3) build better transit systems that allow people not just to get downtown, but also the business areas on the outskirts of downtown
4) give incentives to business for allowing work-at-home employees
5) and/or encourage businesses to build closer to where the people live through tax breaks and easing zoning restrictions
Not every business needs to be located downtown and have a 9-5 hours of operation.
Fine, throw the Junk Science link out. What about the rest?
If I had 16 million, I could do some very effective PR. I wouldn't have to do anything BUT PR here, putting me at a fiscal advantage to the real organizations.
Sure you could do some PR. You could also do research, although very little of it. You could not do both. Of course, this 16 million doesn't go to one GWSkeptic-Czar, it is spread out among many scientists, research firms and universities.
When put up against the billions that the GW alarmists receive you wouldn't stand much of a chance. First, not only do these guys NOT have to buy their own PR (see and Inconvenient Truth, CNN's Planet in Peril show that was on all night last night, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, any typical news show such as 60 minutes, daily talk shows like The View and the list goes on and on and on). Not only do they not have to pay for their own PR, but they are actively teaching this stuff to kids as fact in schools and the taxpayers pay for it! So GW Alarmists receive all 16 billion and use it pay for "research studies" that back up their claim. Now if you work for a university and your dean asks what you are doing to get grants, what do you think he'll sign off on? Do you think he wants you trying to get a piece of whatever is left from that 16 million or do you think he'll want you going for the billions that are being handed out by any number of groups that won't pay unless you come up with something alarming?
False claims of shrinking glaciers? You mean all those images of then and now are forgeries? I suggest a goggle image search.
The claim that was false was due to the a mathematical error. All he did was correct the math and show that the problem was not nearly as dire as the original projection had spelled out. Also, it's really easy to take pictures of a mountain in summer and compare it a phone taken in February. It's also not very hard to find images of growing glaciers either.
Besides, few are arguing that GW is taking place. What is being argued is why, what can be done, and IF anything should be done.
I don't think you tried very hard. You could have used wikipedia's list of questioners and skeptics (it is very short!), which actually gives names, quotations, and credentials, but I suspect it is also out of date. I know that at least one past skeptic publicly recanted. The evidence has gotten much, much stronger over the past 5 years.
I try to steer clear of Wikipedia. Too often you see agendas injected into the page that really puts the credibility of the whole site in doubt.
Sure. So doesn't that make preventing them from curtailing that pollution kind of counterproductive?
No, it means they want to force the government to pass laws so that all of America has to live the way that they want them to live. Take for example the types of restrictions that would make your typical LA'er who is suffering from eco-guilt feel better. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that they put a weight limit on cars for all who do not require trucks to do their jobs, like farmers. Well, I am not a farmer. I work on computers. But because I live in an environmentally sensitive zone, rivers are not disturbed by re-routing and bridges that may put an endangered rice at risk are not built (seriously... the endangered rice part is true!) That means when it rains, I have to cross a low water crossing to get to work. Even though it's only a few feet of rushing water, a Prius simply won't make that trip! Is my small town an ecological disaster? No, but we would have to abide by the rules set by people sit in traffic for four hours a day with their engines idling! What works for them doesn't exactly work for everyone else in the country. Unfortunately, these people are too blinded by their conceit and self-centered thinking that they can't understand that the best way for them might be a disaster for someone else. The type of car that works great in LA may not cut in the outskirts of Louisville KY or Springfield IL. But notice how these lawsuits are coming from the left and right coasts, where nearly all roads are paved and well maintained. These are places with public transportation systems, parking garages and paved driveways. You can get around better in Manhattan without a car than you could with one! That does not apply for Findlay OH.
So let the people in LA and Manhattan make the rules for LA and Manhattan and leave those of us that live between the two cities make our own damn rules and live how WE want to live. We shouldn't have to suffer when we are neither the ones making the pollution nor the ones complaining!
I see a moderator has called this previously unrated post, overrated (isn't that like saying that a plane on the ground is flying too high?). I'm sure he chose that particular mod because he knows that "overrated" mods are not subject to meta-moderation. This usually happens when they disagree with the post, but are unable to refute any of the points made. It's a classic example of the tactics used by the Brownshirts in 1930's Germany. Silence the opposition at all costs. This was done through protesting events or simply shouting down the opposition.
If you read my post (the parent of this one), you will see how this is also a classic example of how Global Warming skeptics are treated. They are not given grants when their research does not jive with the group think, or they are simply fired because the organization they work for can not afford to lose the grants. Sometimes, when they work for a government agency, they are let go because their science does not support the political views of whoever is in charge. Either way, their views are silenced in order to make it seem as if they don't exist, and Global Warming alarmists appear to have a consensus. This helps give credence when they say things like, "The debate is over." Sure it's over, but only because you've silenced the other side to the point where you are the only one talking!
Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.
What, five of them?
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.
Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.
Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.
Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.
Sorry, but Republicans do not rule the world.
From HERE:
Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."
and HERE:
In a paper issued Jan. 3, 2007, UCS accuses ExxonMobil of funding "front groups" opposed to the climate-alarmist agenda of groups such as UCS and of former Vice President Al Gore. The company, said the UCS report, had distributed $16 million to 43 advocacy groups from 1998 to 2005 "to confuse the public on global-warming science."
Let's leave aside the fact that $16 million over eight years can't match the $2 billion that the federally funded Climate Change Science Program spends each year on global warming, or even the $4 million annual budget of just one of the many well-funded global-warming advocacy groups, Strategies for the Global Environment (the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change). Moreover, the UCS document is hardly an investigative breakthrough. ExxonMobil itself publishes its philanthropic contributions to nonprofit organizations online.
And HERE is where the state climatologist in Oregon gets fired for questioning global warming:
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist...
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
Then there is THIS one where a scientist was fired for correcting bad data:
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains...
Cliff Mass, a professo
That isn't how air quality regulations work. Under the Clean Air Act, setting auto emissions standards is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. However, because California had stricter emissions standards in place when the Clean Air Act was first passed, California (and only California) was granted a waiver to set its own standards which can be adopted by other states if they choose. This waiver doesn't apply to vehicular CO2 emissions. California (with other states) has already won a suit saying that EPA must grant such a waiver, however EPA has not done so. Thus, they are suing again, this time asking the court to order EPA to do so immediately.
As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.
Thank you. Very informative.
Regardless, this represents more than 60 percent of the US economy filing suit, and most of the US population.
Then wouldn't it be safe to assume that this is where most of the pollution is coming from?
Better yet, they can just stop repairing their roads.
By far most Americans believe that greenhouse emissions caused by humans are causing global warming
Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree. Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.
Most Americans want the War in Iraq to end now and the troops brought home
Unless you know "most Americans" or run a polling company, you probably shouldn't be making such claims. Maybe you should know the facts before you spout off.
From HERE: "From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?" Only 29% answered "remove all". This was before the news that violence has been reduced 70% since the surge. If that gets reported, who knows what that number will be.
The good news is I have a feeling the BS isn't working as well as it used to.
Not as long as there are people like me who gladly look up your BS and call you out on it.
Well, then it appears you need to educate yourself. Please, take a look at this page. You will find gems like this one.
At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein's government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government's underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
"President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000."
It also has copies of canceled checks that were sent to the families of suicide bombers, along with a certificate of appreciation that was sent to families of the "martyrs".
I know what you are thinking, "These are Palestinian terrorists. They don't count." Well, first I bid you tell that to the families of those murdered for going out to eat. Next, let me point you to another quote:
After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein's guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes.
That hijacking was NOT in Israel, but on a cruise ship on the high seas.
I know what's next, "But what about Al Qaeda?"
This is Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of this man, Lawrence Foley:
Even the courts agree:
Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and -- according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge -- the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad.
Maybe you'd prefer a different link. Maybe from a source that is known to be more left of center. How about The New York Times?
Well armed and financed by both Iraq and Iran, this affiliate of Al Qaeda has since provided a haven for bin Laden followers exfiltrating from Afghanistan. They tried to assassinate an articulate Kurdish leader, Barham Salih, killing several bodyguards, but their target escaped and several killers were captured. Our National Security Council members did not learn about this bloody engagement, one of them told me a week afterwar
"Now let's take a situation I was in last week while installing Feisty on a buddy's notebook. Wireless drivers were not available for his USB Wireless NIC. I had to hit the web from another machine because...duh..." ...you had not looked at what wireless NICs were supported before doing the install? Or, even better, booted the live cd and tested what worked and did not before writing to disk?
If it were me, I probably would have made sure that his NIC was supported in Linux. He is not me and I have no control over his purchases.
Also, this was an old notebook (a 1 Ghz Toshiba with 256 MB RAM). The screen didn't work any more and he wanted it to place in his kitchen to store recipes or whatever on. He came to me looking for an old Win2k server disk that he could use. That's when I talked him into trying Linux.
As for the Live CD... well, it booted, but with 256MB RAM, I wouldn't say that it ran. It was more like it fell asleep in its walker. I made to the third or forth step of the install before it would basically die. It was still running, but it would take about three minutes for the mouse to move. I left it and went to lunch. After I had come back about 1.5 hours later, it was still there, CD drive grinding away, still on the same step where I left it. I had to download the "alternate CD" to run the text-based install.
Basically, when you are salvaging an older system by installing Linux on it, you really don't have much say as to the hardware.
It didn't work because he wasn't using Gutsy. If the op got the same problem now they would have seen the fall-back GUI, not a command prompt. :)
:-|
Well if YOU had bothered to read my comment, you have realized that I didn't bother reading his!
You're right, my bad!
My point was more centered around the fact that bigger focus on community support can help non-technical people with most of the issues that can arrise when people migrate over to Linux. Your comments are taken on board though.
Tbh I'm not an "uber geek" like you describe, I love technical stuff, but at the same time I don't mind helping people getting started - but was implying that "free" phone support was too far, but within the funds of the big names promoting Ubuntu and such or through community sponsorship it would be possible to financially help those providing such a service (which would no doubt be benificial if it were widely publicised, printed on the back of Ubuntu cds etc.).
Sorry if I was a bit rough, but that first sentence brought back the rage I feel when I see posts hammering some newbie because they didn't quite know how to do something. Too often I see "RTFM", or "learn to use the damn search engine", or simply reply with a link to another post with a similar issue or, and this on is my all time favorite, the bug report page that is designed and used by the developers. Of course, these uber-geeks are the same ones who wonder why Linux has not taken off and made a dent in the MS market share.
Still, you help. That's more than most. Your idea of a support system for Linux is not bad. Linspire had something like that. It was both corporately and user supported. The help was extremely easy to find as damn near everything had a question mark button on it. The apt-get frontend (Click-n-Run) was so easy to use it was boring. I don't know if they ever made a profit, but they are still in business. I was so impressed, I donated $100 to the cause and this was back when I was a starving student!
Oh sorry, I didn't realize you had to have a even the slightest bit of technical sense to be able to do something slightly technical on a frikkin' computer!
...
You shouldn't make judgments like that. I said that the CLI is a bit too much for the average Joe. Me, since you've attempted to insult me, let me explain that you are a bit off base. I've used Linux since Mandrake was still called Mandrake and the only Debian based distro was Debian. I have installed Gentoo from stage one and stage three and survived many "emerge --update --deep --newuse world"'s. So please don't make assumptions about me because I said that most non-geeks won't take the time to learn the CLI. Why should they when they pay for Windows and won't have to?
People like you are part of the problem with Linux. The condescending, "I'm a uber-geek and you are all crap for not knowing the answer" attitude has turned many people off from Linux. Fortunately, you are a dying breed. Since your type has little chance of having offspring from your mother's basement, it is only a matter of time before you go extinct. Once that happens, people can use the forums you described without fear of someone belittling them for asking what you think is a stupid question.
You do realise that support channels (forums, irc etc.) exist, and personally I've helped more than a handful of people through similar issues just because they asked nicely and could follow basic instructions depending on their degree of ability.
Now take the Windows situation, you have to search the internet for drivers.. hold on, my modem or network card isn't working because Vista doesn't come with compatible drivers for it and I'm stuck in 800x600 in 16 colours.. I'll just call the Windows support line and get this sorted out...
Now let's take a situation I was in last week while installing Feisty on a buddy's notebook. Wireless drivers were not available for his USB Wireless NIC. I had to hit the web from another machine because...duh... the NIC wasn't recognized and try to figure out that trick to use Windows drivers to run a wireless NIC on Linux (NDISWrapper). Of course, then I had to find the Windows drivers, copy them both to the machine, install NDISWrapper, load it using depmod and modprobe, point it to the correct driver file and set it up to load on boot. Of course, there is a GUI that it supposed to help, but it didn't work until I had installed the whole thing using the CLI. Also, if there were no other machines around to look up the instructions and download this stuff, I wouldn't even have a pay-by-the-minute support line to call!
Now keep in mind, I'm doing this while my buddy is watching me. I had been harping on how easy Linux was and finally talked him into letting me install it. He was so turned off that he hasn't booted his notebook since!
Now what a remarkable and amazing coincidence that Gutsy has such a fall-back GUI for fixing broken X sessions. It is almost as if they are working to make it more accessible to non-technical users...
Well, it didn't seem to work for this guy.
As for my own experience, I've had X go down, which restarted GDM and moved my X console from F7 to F8. I knew to look there, but I don't think your average user is going to know that.
As for a fall-back X session, that is great. I have not seen it myself, but I have no issues with dropping to the CLI to change up my xorg.conf. I actually had to do that to keep my system from defaulting to 800x600 mode. Maybe there is a way to make that stick in X, but I didn't take the time to figure it out since the CLI and vi were easier for me. But since we are comparing this to Windows, Windows will tell you that it has found a new video card and gives you chance to put the CD in the drive to download the driver. First, Ubuntu won't do that because... Second, no video card manufacturer is going to put Linux drivers on the CD.
Here is the latest example I've run across:
Is there a GUI tool in Ubuntu for disabling the power button? My daughter has discovered buttons and likes to crawl around pushing them. I found it in XP without any problems. I can't seem to find it in Ubuntu.
Anyway, I connect my HD which had Ubuntu Edgy installed on it, boot up. X complains about the video card so I change "nvidia" to "ati" in xorg.conf, type: startx, and 2 minutes latter I am reading my mail in thunderbird.
The problem with you story is that your average "End LUser" is not going to be able to edit the xorg.conf using vi, and even if they could, probably wouldn't know to change "nvidia" to "ati". The CLI is a bit beyond what most people care to know.
That said, they would have had to work around all the Windows Genuine Advantage crap. Find, download and install every driver the system used, including sound card, chipset, IDE controller, video and so on. However, they would at least have a low res "safe mode" GUI to do it all in. There would be no editing of text files.
Until Ubuntu or whatever distro user can do every single thing in the GUI that they can do through the CLI, Window will have an advantage. MS writes Windows with a GUI in mind from the ground up. Linux is designed to work with or without a GUI. On rare occasion, such as the one you listed here, there will be an absolute need to use the CLI in Linux. Some people just can't handle that.
Here is how I see it. Islamic terrorists attacked the WTC under the Al Qaeda banner. Iraq supports Islamic terrorists. So in attacking Iraq, he was taking out a source of support for Islamic terrorists, in the geographic center of where most of these terrorists come from, the middle east. As for attacking other countries with a strong terrorist presence, such as Saudi Arabia, this would be counter productive. We would literally be taking out a government that is actively helping us fight terrorism. This would mean that we would need to take over whatever support, no matter how small, that their current government is providing in addition to running the day to day security operation (police force) of that entire country. Iraq was not only refusing to help us fight terrorism, but they were actively supporting terrorists in places like the West Bank and Gaza. Bush had already stated that any government actively supporting terrorism could be attacked. Had Bush not attacked Iraq, this would have been seen by the world as hollow threat. The war against Iraq is a part of the War on Terror just as much as the war in Afghanistan. Both had the sole purpose of taking out governments that supported or provided safe haven to terrorists and install a free society that would become an ally in the world's fight against terrorism.
Iraq fired on NATO war planes patrolling the "no fly zone" as mandated by the UN. This was a direct attack on US sovereignty.
There is also little doubt that given the chance, they would support other terrorists organizations that aimed to attack the US. An actual example would be the attempted assassination of George Herbert Walker Bush when he visited Kuwait. Being the now sitting President's father aside, the government sponsored attempt at a former US president is reason enough to go to war. Clinton did not have the guts for it and Bush couldn't use it as an reason because too many people would claim that GWB was simply saying "I'm looking for the man that shot my pa!" With GWB's cowboy image the way it is, he could not politically afford to give the opposition more cowboy ammunition.
The way I think YOU see it is that Bush was trying to make a direct link between Iraq and 9-11. He used both in the same sentence. He was trying to link Al Qaeda, the group that actually pulled off 9-11, and Iraq. As we all know, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 so any linking between the two is completely dishonest.
I see where you are coming from and your view is valid. Of course, I think that way I see it is correct. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, how are why we got into Iraq is completely irrelevant today. I hope that we can agree that a defeat in Iraq would be a disaster for the US. It would provide the boost that Somalia gave to Al Qaeda multiplied proportionately to the amount of time invested and number of troops involved. It would turn Iraq into a 1990's Afghanistan with enough oil resources to finance whatever operations were desired! That is something that neither US nor the world can afford.