Daily Wisdom

June 30, 2008

Climate Change Crisis: It's All About Control


Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.

--Herbert Hoover, 31st US President

In the grand scheme of things, humans are a rather pathetic lot. Among God's creatures, they are neither the strongest, nor the fastest, nor the most ferocious. In self-defense they boast neither camoflage, nor armor, nor poisonous venom. They have no wings to soar above the heavens. They cannot swim the ocean depths. They are naked against the cold, and oppressed by the heat. Even the tiniest microbe or virus can fell them. Save for their intellect (or what sometimes passes for it), humans are a pretty helpless bunch.

Mazlow's hierarchy of needs suggests how humans seek to get some control into their lives. First, they seek control by addressing their basic needs for survival: breathing, food, water, sleep, etc. Then they seek more control by looking after their safety: shelter, employment, resources, health and property. They seek more control by establishing relationships: friendships, family, sexual, membership in clubs, societies or gangs. Then they seek to control how they are viewed by others: by developing self-esteem, pursuing respect, achievements, recognition, or acquiring expensive goods.

Finally, Mazlow would have us believe that humans ultimately attempt to achieve "self-actualization" -- that is, becoming the "best one can be"; fulfilling one's personal dreams. This last one is more difficult as it can be different for each person. For some it might be achieved through creativity, for example: art, music, theater, or photography. For others it might be achieved through problem solving, such as: science, mathematics, technology, invention. But for some, it can only be achieved through the continued acquisition of power (ie, ultimate control) whether financial, political, corporate, military, or a combination thereof.

Throughout history, humans have sought control. They have sought control by harnessing fire and domesticating animals. They have sought control by seeking the favor of the gods. They have sought control through witchcraft and sorcery. They have sought control by building pyramids, castles, and 'great walls'. They have sought control over disease. They have sought control over ignorance. They have sought control over morality. They have sought control over their enemies. They have sought control over public opinion. They have sought control over their fellow human beings.

And so, the 'Global Warming' or 'Global Climate Change' CRISIS is simply another human effort to control. The naive would have us believe that it is about control of the climate. But in reality, it is nothing more than a manufactured crisis which is part of a more sinister plot to impose a form of socialism on the entire planet. Its proponents say the time for debate is over because there is a "consensus" of scientists supporting it. They highlight the fact that the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boasted 2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, and 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries on its 4th Assessment Report in 2007. Meanwhile, nearly 32,000 scientists (9,000 with Ph.Ds) have signed the Oregon Petition disputing the "established truth" of global-warming. Thus, the "consensus" argument rings a bit hollow.

To deflect criticism away from the flawed science of global-warming, the socialist elite employs the ranks of their friends in the mainstream media to help make the case for them. The media generally describes the case for man-made global-warming as if it is a fact, rather than an unproven theory. They have even gone so far as to prejudice their stories...

The news media promote global warming alarmism through selective reporting. Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado noted that a paper published in an obscure scientific journal that argued there was a link between hurricanes and global warming generated 79 news articles, while a paper that debunked the connection published in a far more prestigious journal generated only three.

--Jack Kelly, "Media Promotes Global Warming Alarmism", January 8, 2008

To divert attention from their lack of consensus, they mock legitimate scientists who question the veracity of man-made global-warming by labeling them as "deniers", as if to associate them with the ludicrous deniers of the holocaust. They use high profile liberals like former Vice President Al Gore to make their case with glitzy productions which envision worst-case scenarios.

And when Al Gore's production of 'An Inconvenient Truth' was determined to be full of statements that were "one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative or wrong", the socialist elite naturally rewarded Al Gore by giving him an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize. Gore was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Heidi Sørensen, a member of the Norwegian parliament for the Socialist Left Party (SV). Interestingly enough, the UN's IPCC (a political rather than scientific organization) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

As President Hoover warned, an 'emergency' is the "Trojan Horse" which collectivists use to attain power. And the Climate Change Gestapo are the worst form of collectivists. They want to control you for the "good of mankind", for the "good of the planet". They want to control how you live, the temperature on your thermostat, how much "carbon" you are allocated, what kind of light bulbs you can use, and what type of car you can drive. What does it matter if compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) cost more? You MUST pay the price, in the name of mankind. What does it matter if hybrid or hydrogen-powered vehicles cost more? You MUST pay the price, for the good of the state... excuse me, the PLANET. These socialists WANT you to pay high gas prices, so it will change your behavior.

And God forbid that some countries should use more energy than others. There's a discrepancy there. That's not fair! So the Climate Change Politburo will correct that situation. They have created international "regulations" under the auspices of the UN on how much CO2 can be produced. Those regulations can be found in international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. Although the US has not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it is conceivable that an Obama presidency would push for ratification. It should be pointed out that Kyoto is underwritten by governments, but is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis.

It is also likely that an Obama presidency will impose a carbon tax. And this tax of course, will be paid by you, the consumer. However, the carbon tax advocates assure us that such a tax would be "progressive", that is, "the wealthy will pay more" -- another strategy right out of the liberal-socialist playbook.

And oh, by the way, you can't have any more energy -- you'll just have to get by with less, and pay dearly for the privilege. Just listen to the arguments of the socialists... Drilling for oil will not reduce the price of gasoline in the short-term, therefore we shouldn't drill for anymore oil. Nuclear energy is not the answer, therefore we shouldn't build any nuclear plants. In their view, the answer lies completely in solar, wind, and geothermal. Yet, I have not seen too many solar-powered automobiles, or wind-powered 18-wheelers, or geothermal-powered railroad trains that appear to be viable. And I don't happen to buy the notion that...

We need to power down and prepare for a different kind of existence than we have known for nearly a century. This does not mean we necessarily need to "tend sheep." It does mean using ingenuity to live in harmony with nature vs. plundering and poisoning this home we share.

--Eric Teegarden, "Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer", June 3, 2008

So where will all those carbon tax dollars go? Well, to the poorest countries of course who need the dollars more than you do. It is the ultimate form of socialism: "From each nation according to its ability, to each nation according to its need". American carbon tax dollars will go to poor countries through a proposed UN tax on Americans called the Global Poverty Act. Senator Barack Obama, the most left-wing of the liberals in the US Senate, is proposing that the US pays a tax to the United Nations in an effort to eliminate Global Poverty.

Apparently the "War on Poverty" fiasco was before Obama's time. So then, he who has failed to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends on foreign aid. Again, this tax will be paid by you, the American consumer and taxpayer. It is merely another step in the road to global socialization.

But somehow, I suspect that not all of those tax dollars will actually get to those poor countries. Some of it will no doubt be siphoned off along the way by the UN Climate Change Direktors or the UN Poverty Eradikators -- as a management fee, naturally. And more of it will be stolen by the leaders of the countries those dollars are intended to help. The UN's Oil-For-Food Program is a good example of how well such international programs can be managed. It is no different than the two-tier arrangement which existed in the Soviet Union. Although according to Marxist theory, everyone was supposed to have "equal income", Communist party leaders somehow found a way to make sure they received a bit more...

What was most striking was people’s dissatisfaction with the communist system. The main complaint was against the inequalities within the system. People claimed that the Soviet Union had a two class system. The ruling class were officials of the Communist Party. Everybody else were members of the second class (the same thing was said when I was in China). People pointed out the differences in goods that existed in shops set aside for party officials and foreign tourists with those available for the rest of the population.

--John Simkin, History Teacher, Brighton, Sussex, May 30, 2004

So why then, should we expect anything less from a cabal of socialist elitists who are using the Climate Change "crisis" to gain power on a global scale. Václav Klaus, the second President of the Czech Republic and a former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic (1992 – 1997), said it best in a Financial Times article...

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the 'truth versus propaganda' problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth...

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This (ambitious environmentalism) ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

--Václav Klaus, "Freedom, Not Climate, Is At Risk", June 13, 2008

And if perhaps you believe that Václav Klaus is somewhat paranoid, then consider that there are people and organizations that are covertly working towards global government, and have been for many years. As we can see from the following quote, such organizations are working towards a "super-state" organization, and they recognized early the need to influence "popular education" in the process...

The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization. Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further popular education.

--Council on Foreign Relations, "American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments", 1944

Have you been educated yet? Have you learned the "truth" about global-warming? Have you been trained to believe that we are facing a "crisis"... an "emergency"? Of course you have, Comrade Citizen.

This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.

--Herbert Hoover, 31st US President


11 Comments:

At 6/30/2008 10:04 PM , Blogger Beerme said...

Hawkeye®,

You are fast becoming an extremely good blogifier, my friend!

Excellent article!

 
At 6/30/2008 10:38 PM , Anonymous nicholas Johnston said...

As always your on the dead center of the Truth. Did you get themail about Pelosi? She is one ugly woman?

 
At 7/01/2008 8:04 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Beerme,
Thanks! I'm just a "blogifying fool".

(:D) Best Regards...

 
At 7/01/2008 8:09 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Nick,
Thank you! And thanks for stopping by. Yes, I got the e-mail. I must agree with you about Pelosi. I once said of her, "She rarely blinks, and her face looks like it is made of high-tensile strength steel."

(:D) Best Regards...

 
At 7/01/2008 11:09 AM , Anonymous R.A.M. said...

Very good article my friend!

My thought after readintg it is, IF Obama wants change then why is he against "climate change". Isn't ALL change good to him?

As for Demoncrats being for the protection of the Constitution, they seem really set to eradicate the second amendment and the free speech part with their "Fairness Doctrine" don't they?

What part will be next?

Check out: http://www.hcsfjm.com/videos.html

The video "Dirty Barack Obama" let's us see the REAL Obama.

PS: Full disclosure, this guy is a Hillary supporter but--"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Well--maybe?

 
At 7/01/2008 11:13 AM , Anonymous R.A.M. said...

I have to agree with you and Nick about Pelosi. Whenever I see her or Joan River I think about that movie, "Death Becomes Her" with Goldie Hawn and Meryle Streep and "bondo" body filler!

 
At 7/01/2008 12:14 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

R.A.M.,
Obama IS in favor of climate change! He wants to change the climate from free enterprise to socialism.

(:D) Best Regards...

 
At 7/02/2008 3:32 AM , Blogger Elroy said...

I see what you mean by ‘satire’ – this is a very droll piece indeed!

The Hoover quote is interesting – the demagogues of the right have certainly taken it to heart. The ideology of Milton Freidman has been ushered in on the back of emergencies across the world over the past 30-odd years, with 9/11 being the most recent example, and possibly the most egregious since the burning of the Reichstag.

I see you have little time for Maslow; you say he would ‘have us believe’, as if you do not put much weight behind his theory, yet you are quite happy to use to bolster your ‘argument’. Hypocritical? Nah – you’re a Christian conservative! But I am struck by how you misrepresent Maslow – it’s the Hierarchy of Needs, not the Hierarchy of control. It is about what we need, as humans, as carbon-based life forms, to stay alive, and what you describe as ‘control’ could merely be taken as attempts to achieve and consolidate those achievements, however humble or grandiose they may be.

You appear to be in contempt of ‘control’, amusing to say the least coming from a Christian conservative, yet ‘control’ as you describe it is vital to life itself – without it we would die, so if we do seek to ‘control’ the planet, that’s because we ‘need’ it.

By choosing to deliberately confuse ‘need’ with ‘control’ you kinda defeat your own argument – maybe the Global Warming crisis is not so much another human effort to control but the recognition of another need.

Your ‘socialism’ paranoia is getting obsessive; you actually benefit from ‘socialism’ everyday, but you seem to have it fixed in your brain that ‘socialism’ is all about serge suits and five-year tractor quotas while observing a curious respect for the Chinese communists who are now closer to fascists than anything else. What you do not want to recognize is that we, the human race, are pre-programmed to act collectively and so we will, especially when the planet is at stake.

Aligned with your fear of socialism is your One World Government terror, despite the fact that we have had one for years, the WTO, although I suppose that one is OK with you because it is run by, and for the principal benefit of, the USA, as are its adjuncts the World Bank, the IMF and the UN.

What I don’t understand is that you are totally freaked out that Obama and his scheming pals are going to erode your freedoms and choice while totally ignoring the undeniable fact that the Republican administration and corporate America have done exactly that.

If the erosion of freedom and choice are your concern then the Democrats are the natural choice for you as they may put a brake on corporate power, state military/security/industrial networks and the unitary executive which should be anathema to a freedom lovin’ guy like y’all.

I see you are full of praise for the Oregon Petition, but if that’s the best you’ve got, well, um, there are questions about that too. Poke about on this guy’s page for a bit and see what you come up with, there a very healthy argument in which the Oregon Petition does not come out awfully well.

http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/

I am often struck by the way conservatives use one argument to strike down another, but are then quite happy to abandon that argument. For instance, if I were to start banging on about the composition of the dust at the WTC on 9/11, or conservation of movement, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the physics of structural engineering, you would dismiss me out of hand by saying that I was a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who was patently unqualified to do, yet the conservative blogosphere is alive with amateur climalologists quoting figures about the con that is GW and droning on about how it is a socialist conspiracy all day long.

Likewise, conservatives will label 9/11 ‘troofers’ as ‘deniers’ with all the anti-holocaust connotations that you whine about being hit with. ‘But we’re only asking questions!’ you bleat, ‘What have they got to hide?’ Well, you might have noticed that the GW skeptics are getting quite a bit of press – I certainly have – yet the troofers are still heavily marginalized, which brings into question the boring old trope to which you subscribe – that the MSM has a liberal bias.

Another example is with the Iraq war. The conservatives spread fear and panic throughout the world with tales of how Saddam was going to irradiate the planet, and blow up New Jersey, and slowly kill every Iraqi and gas every Kurd unless he is stopped NOW! Gotta do it NOW! Tomorrow is TOO LATE!

When chumps like me said, ‘Well, where’s the evidence?’ we were told ‘There!’, and when we said ‘But that evidence is not conclusive’ we were told ‘That’s all there is! We gotta GO!’, despite many credible witnesses saying that it wasn’t all there was and that there was evidence to the contrary’.

Well, guess what? Five years later, it turns out that we were right. The objectives outlined by Condi Rice, to minimise the risk of a WMD attack against the United States, to contribute to regional instability, to minimise the chance of internal instability in Iraq, to improve the conditions of the life of the Iraqi population and to end Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists, have not been met – in fact, the operation has done the complete opposite, and what the opponents of the war said would happen, happened.

Now the boot’s on the other foot, and it is the lefties and environmentalists saying we don’t have time to stuff around any more while the conservatives say ‘No, we have to wait, there’s some guy in Tierra del Fuego that disagrees with you’ but here’s the difference – the Iraq war has caused, as it was always going to do, untold death and a global humanitarian disaster, and will cost upwards of $3 trillion, while easing Global Warming will save lives and avert a humanitarian disaster – the worst thing that can happen is that we learn to do things differently and stop pouring gunk into the air, to get back to more localized ways of being – the best thing that can happen is we can save the planet from destruction.

So let’s talk, let’s talk about global warming, let’s talk about Iraq, let’s talk about the holocaust, let’s talk about 9/11, but let’s talk about all of it, everything, nothing off the table, the lot. What about it?

Stopping global warming does not have to cost money; there is more money to be lost by ignoring it than dealing with it, but your pals the oil companies and their pals the White House are not that interested in taking part. Yet.

So it’s not a matter of being able to tell you how hot you can heat your house – you can heat it to 280º C if you like, whatever – but if we all do it then these technologies, the CFL, the hybrid car, the solar heating panels, the thermal-powered freight train, the wind-driven 18-wheeler will become cheaper. Economies of scale, baby!

And so what if we are collectivists? The capitalists have been proved to be completely and utterly wrong about just about everything they ever claimed, especially over the past 40 years and particularly for the past eight. The extreme capitalists, the capi-fascists, have been given the opportunity to show us how good the world could be and they have blown it.

There is more poverty, disease and war than ever before, and it must end, but what worries me is that the conservatives will not accept that their turn is over and be sore losers and grizzle endlessly, despite having had their chance. What will they do? Start the second civil war? Secede?

Why we, the rest of the world, want to see a change in the status quo is that we, too, are scared of a one world government that seeks to control us and our lives by force, that takes what it wants and damn the rest of us – the problem is that we know it is here and that we know who it is – and it is you.

Cheers

Elroy

 
At 7/02/2008 11:22 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Elroy,
What is your problem with Milton Friedman? Oh wait, I know... he's your polar opposite. He was a Nobel Laureate, and you are not. He was brilliant, and you are not. He believed in free markets, and you believe in state control. He believed in freedom and democracy, and you believe in subjugation. He was Right, and you are Left. He was right, and you are wrong. His beliefs were shown to be correct in practice as well as theory, yours were not. It's tough to argue against success, isn't it? No wonder you hate him so much.

And thank you for illuminating us with your incredibly lucid statement comparing Friedman's "ideology" to "the burning of the Reichstag". Simply brilliant. And your attempt to create a moral equivalence between the imagined "emergency" of global-warming, with the real emergency of 9/11 that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in one day, was also entertaining. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect".

Concerning Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it is merely a theory. It has been debated by others more qualified than myself. Feel free to investigate the arguments against it. It does however, provide a simplified approach for understanding human needs. As such, it happened to provide a useful format for my suggestion that humans have a "need" to control. However, I am not convinced that humans have a "need" for "self-actualization". If they do, then as Maslow implies, it is a human's lowest-priority "need".

I will ignore your ad hominem attack suggesting I am a hypocrite because I am a Christian conservative.

Regarding my "contempt of control", I would posit that the "need to control" is instinctual in humans. Hence, my illustration that such needs follow Mazlow's hierarchy well. I would also consider this "need to control" as one of humanity's baser instincts. Enlightenment (IMHO) should bring with it LESS need to control, not more. To illustrate, who seems more enlightened: those who want to control others, or those who want live in peace with others? Who seems more enlightened: Hitler and Stalin, or Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr? Who seems more enlightened: radical Islamo-fascists who impose Sharia law, or those who favor freedom and democracy?

In my opinion, the most "enlightened" person to live on this planet was Jesus Christ. You may recall that He said things such as: Blessed are the meek, Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (within themselves), Blessed are the merciful, Blessed are the pure in heart, and Blessed are the peacemakers. He taught us to 'turn the other cheek' and to treat others as we would wish to be treated. He said the greatest among us should be a servant to all. He described Himself as "The Good Shepard" and said we should be His flock (sheep are not very controlling animals). He said we should take up our cross and follow Him... meaning His example. If anyone's life exemplified "self-control", and the rejection of controlling others, it was the life of Christ.

Now in our complex world, clearly not all people are "enlightened". And by that, I do not mean to suggest Christianity equals "enlightenment". People are "all over the map" when it comes to enlightenment. Some are psychologically disturbed or mentally deficient. Some are uneducated. Some rely on instincts rather than logic. Some are Christian, but not enlightened. Some are highly enlightened, but not Christian. Still others assume that because they are highly educated they therefore have a responsibility to tell others how to live. But clearly, education does not equal "enlightenment" as I have defined it here.

And because not all are "enlightened", I agree that we need some amount of control on a governmental level. We can neither tolerate nor survive anarchy, that is, a state of lawlessness and disorder. If all people were enlightened, it might be possible. If all people respected the rights of others, it might be possible. But they do not, so some measure of "control" is needed. There are criminals, so we need laws. Our country has enemies, so we need a military. But I favor limited government as you might imagine. Totalitarianism, whether fascist or socialist, is right out.

Just some other comments in response to your statements (I have to speed this up)...

you actually benefit from ‘socialism’ everyday -- Doubtful. Examples?

(you have) a curious respect for the Chinese communists -- I never said that. I'm not exactly sure why you got that impression. I have said that their government does not seem to hamstring its industry the way our US government does. But then, their support of industry does not in any way erase their abysmal human rights record.

we, the human race, are pre-programmed to act collectively -- Oh yeah? Says who? Proof?

the planet is at stake -- Hardly.

your One World Government terror -- You got that right.

the WTO... is run by, and for the principal benefit of, the USA -- Hardly, but because the US has the single largest economy in the world, it does have a particular interest in fair competition and trade.

as are its adjuncts the World Bank, the IMF and the UN -- I have little use for any of those organizations.

the undeniable fact that the Republican administration and corporate America have done exactly that (erode your freedoms and choice) -- Please explain. I think I know where you're going, but if you want to debate then you have to state your positions more clearly.

Democrats... may put a brake on corporate power, state military/security/industrial networks and the unitary executive -- I agree. That's why I'm a Republican. I have no problem with corporations which create wealth and jobs. I have no problem with the military. I have no problem with security. I have no problem with industry. I have no problem when the military, the security agencies, and industry all work together for my protection. I have no problem with the executive branch when it is occupied by someone like Reagan or GWB. I have been sadly disappointed when it was run by Clinton and Carter. I wasn't crazy about Johnson, Nixon or Gerald Ford either. Kennedy had his ups and downs: talks with Khruschev - bad; Cuban missile crisis - good; Bay of Pigs - bad; "Ich bin ein Berliner" - good; incursion into Vietnam - bad; moon program - good.

Poke about on this guy’s page for a bit and see what you come up with -- Poked about as requested. Found the page to be way out of date (May 17th, 2004). It refers to the original Oregon Petition signed by 17,000 scientists. The Oregon Petition was re-issued more recently, and 32,000 scientists have signed it. Get with the times Elroy.

you would dismiss me out of hand by saying that I was a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist -- Yes, I would... and often do. (:D)

yet the conservative blogosphere is alive with amateur climalologists [sic] -- Perhaps. And a few legitimate ones as well.

quoting figures about the con that is GW -- Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but if figures are being quoted, then they must have sources. You are free to challenge the figures, just as I have challenged figures quoted by libs.

and droning on about how it is a socialist conspiracy all day long -- You don't mean 24/7 do you? C'mon. You're pulling my leg... (:D)

Likewise, conservatives will label 9/11 ‘troofers’ as ‘deniers’ -- No, I prefer to label them as paranoid and delusional.

you might have noticed that the GW skeptics are getting quite a bit of press -- That's because the mainstream media is controlled by the Liberals. No surprise there. GW "skeptics" and antagonists have gotten nearly all the press for the last 7-1/2 years. Duh!

the troofers are still heavily marginalized -- I guess that means even the Liberal press think they're a bunch of wackos. Although I have often referred to libs as 'idiots', it's not because they are stupid or uneducated. It's because they occasionally do or say things that are ludicrous, contradictory, unfathomable, mean & nasty, or down right dumb.
But they are not stupid. That's why they don't buy that 'troofer' stuff either.

you subscribe – that the MSM has a liberal bias -- I do indeed, because it does.

The conservatives spread fear and panic throughout the world with tales (about Saddam) -- Not conservatives alone my friend. There were a few libs in there as well. See HERE.

When chumps like me said, ‘Well, where’s the evidence?’ -- You did say that? When? Where? Documentation please. A lot of chumps like you said nothing until after we were in Iraq, then tried to make people believe they had actually said something beforehand. Without proof, I ain't buying it.

Well, guess what? Five years later, it turns out that we were right. -- You were? I don't think so.

The objectives outlined by Condi Rice -- By Condi Rice? When did she outline these objectives? Documentation please.

...have not been met -- Oh really? Assuming that those objectives were indeed outlined by Condi Rice, then let's have a look at them...

to minimise the risk of a WMD attack against the United States -- Accomplished and verified. The US has not been attacked by any WMD coming out of Iraq. The risk has been minimized to zero percent possibility.

to contribute to regional instability [sic] -- I assume you mean "stability"? Accomplished. The region is definitely NO LESS stable today than it was in 2003, and undoubtedly it is MORE stable. Kuwait does not have to worry about Saddam. Saudi Arabia does not have to worry about Saddam. Iran does not have to worry about Saddam. The Iraqi Kurds don't have to worry about Saddam. The Iraqi Shia don't have to worry about Saddam. Coalition pilots who were flying missions over Iraq's "No-Fly Zones" don't have to worry about Saddam firing missiles at them. NOBODY has to worry about Saddam. Saddam was one of the de-stabilizing elements in the region. That element has been eliminated.

to minimise the chance of internal instability in Iraq -- Well, Iraq was certainly unstable internally for quite awhile following the 2003 invasion, I'll grant you that. Today however, it is far more stable internally than it was a year ago. The reconciliation process is happening. The militias are seemingly under control. Iraq is taking responsibility for its own security. The tension between Sunnis, Kurds and Shia is at an all time low. Violence is at an all time low since the invasion began. It ain't perfect, but it's progressing.

to improve the conditions of the life of the Iraqi population -- Accomplished. The Iraqis don't have to worry about Saddam's rape rooms or torture cells any more. The Shia and Kurds don't have to worry about Saddam attacking them with nerve gas. They don't have to worry about Saddam shooting them and throwing their bodies into a mass grave. Iraq is no longer under economic sanctions. Saddam and the UN are no longer stealing money from the Oil-For-Food Program at the expense of Iraqi citizens. The Iraqis are now getting more electricity, water and sewage disposal than they got under Saddam. They can now vote for the representatives of their choice. Business is booming. GDP is up. Oil production is up. The inflation rate is down. Hospitals, schools and infrastructure are being rebuilt. And things will continue to improve.

and to end Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists -- Accomplished. It took 5 years, but Iraq is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Al-Qaeda is nearly defeated and on the run. There are no more terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or Abu Nidal walking about freely in Iraq like they did under Saddam. Ansar al-Islam, a jihadist organization with links to Al-Qaeda, no longer finds a home in Iraq as they did under Saddam. There may be a few remaining terrorists, but they can't consider Iraq a "safe haven".

it is the lefties and environmentalists saying we don’t have time to stuff around any more -- Yes, but again, you are trying to create a moral equivalence between global warming, and a rogue dictator (who killed his own citizens, invaded his neighbors, provided safe haven for terrorists, fired missiles at Coalition aircraft, and misled UN weapons inspectors). I just don't buy it. Saddam was a real threat. Terrorism is a real threat. Global warming is not a real threat. It is a manufactured 'crisis' based on the worst-case projections of faulty computer models. Everyone knows the models are faulty. Anyone who tells you the models are accurate is kidding himself. There are way too many variables concerning physical processes whose inter-relationships are not well understood. The facts are in dispute by legitimate scientists. And since it is the US economy that enviros want to set back 50 years, I have a certain stake in the issue. Americans have a legitimate right to question whether ruining the US economy would really be beneficial. Why don't you ruin your own economy and get back to me with the results on how useful that was, OK?

conservatives say ‘No, we have to wait, there’s some guy in Tierra del Fuego that disagrees with you’ -- Get real. Those 32,000 scientists opposed to Kyoto don't live in Tierra del Fuego and you know it. It's not like there's only "one guy" either. And why pick on Tierra del Fuego? There might be a respected climatologist who lives there, I don't know.

easing Global Warming will save lives and avert a humanitarian disaster -- I strongly disagree. There is plenty of proof to show that more people and animals die from periods of low temperature than warm temperature. This winter was a good example. Over 2,000 people died in Afghanistan alone from the cold. MILLIONS of livestock died between Afghanistan, China and Vietnam. Half a million homes were destroyed by the snow in China, forcing 1.5 million people to become homeless. Talk about a humanitarian disaster. Cooler temps have also resulted in a shorter growing season and lower crop yields. How cold do you want it? Maybe you want 5,000 people to die in Afghanistan? Maybe you want BILLIONS of livestock to die? Maybe you want food prices to go even higher?

stop pouring gunk into the air -- CO2 my friend, is not "gunk". It is an absolutely essential nutrient for all plant life on earth. If you reduce it, you will reduce plant life. If you think it is "gunk", then why not stop breathing since you are exhaling CO2 even as you read this.

Stopping global warming does not have to cost money -- Nice platitude, but wrong. It will cost more for everything. It costs more for CFLs than ordinary light bulbs. It costs more for hybrids than ordinary cars. And don't get me started about the carbon tax. That is "PURE COST" with "NO BENEFIT". At least with a CFL or a hybrid car, I'm getting something for my money... like a bulb or a car. With a carbon tax, I get NOTHING! I pay additional money in the form of a tax that gets tacked onto my purchases of carbon-based fuels like gas or oil, for which I already have to pay high prices, and I get NOTHING in return. How do you figure that doesn't cost money?

And so what if we are collectivists? -- Then I will choose to be sad for you and your "collectivist" friends. I could insert here my psychoanalytical musings about those who choose to live in a collectivist society, but I will refrain.

The capitalists have been proved to be completely and utterly wrong about just about everything they ever claimed -- Grandiose accusation. No specifics. Very arbitrary. And completely false. It's a childish statement that deserves a childish response... NO! NO! NO! SOCIALISTS are wrong about EVERYTHING! So there! (:D)

The extreme capitalists, the capi-fascists -- Such as? Names? Do you mean the "really" rich guys? Like George Soros perhaps?

There is more poverty, disease and war than ever before -- By comparison to what? The Roman Empire? The Middle Ages? The Dark Age? The Bubonic Plague? World Wars I or II? Get real.

what worries me is that the conservatives will not accept that their turn is over and be sore losers -- Oh, you mean the way the Liberals acted when "their turn" was over? You should be worried. We conservatives have every right to push our agenda as much as the Left does theirs. Liberals didn't roll over and play dead when they lost the White House and both houses of Congress... why should conservatives?

we, the rest of the world, want to see a change in the status quo -- And you may get it. But as the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for... you just might get it".

we, too, are scared of a one world government that seeks to control us and our lives by force, that takes what it wants and damn the rest of us – the problem is that we know it is here and that we know who it is – and it is you. -- I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess it was that 'one world government' that defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan. It was that 'one world government' that prevented ALL of Korea from becoming a miserable impoverished totalitarian dump. It was that 'one world government' that told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall". It was that 'one world government' that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. It was that 'one world government' that freed Afghanistan from the Taliban. It was that 'one world government' that keeps breaking new records every year for charitable donations. You're correct. We're such bad people really. Evil imperialists. Oh... by the way, I'm coming over in a few weeks to take over your house. I just want it and I don't give a damn about the rest of you.

(:D) Cheers

 
At 7/09/2008 10:02 PM , Blogger Ms RightWing's Ink said...

Yes, yes, I know. I am as slow as molasses but sooner or later I get where I am going. You, my friend got there rather quick. Good stuff and keep it rolling

 
At 7/10/2008 8:00 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Ms RW,
Thanks! Hope you're feeling better after your recent surgery.

(:D) Best regards...

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home