Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is certainly a reasonable viewpoint based on the way the US and others have presented what is happening to the US public. I thought the Trump supporters were clever enough to see fake news for what it is. But it doesn't answer a number of troubling questions.

1. The crisis in Syria is due to climate change, they have been hit especially hard. This is what prompted the refugee crisis where Europe was virtually swamped. This is why they blame Assad and he is incapable of doing anything but bombing and gassing his own people in his pathetic attempt to hold onto power. If the West (US and Europe) took these refugees it would cost us 1/10th the price of the fighting, it would solve the problem, and it would be far more humanitarian than leaving these people to die in Syria. So explain to me why the US chooses to spend ten times more while at the same time spending much more on building a wall to keep out the projected flood of refugees while all the time denying and whitewashing govt reports about Climate change?

Climate change? Is that how we now explain the actions of totalitarian monsters who kill their own people? The weather may be nasty tomorrow, I think I'll find someone to murder! Taking these refugees is cheap? Explain to me the cost of 911 and other terrorist plots in the US, UK, and France? Walls are cheap! Take a look at how border towns like Tucson have been destroyed.

2. You still haven't explained why Russia is there arm in arm with Assad? If they aren't there to influence the middle East and protect their valuable ally Iran why are they there?
Russia gets a satellite. (They have been known to do this before, would you like me to name a few places?) Syria gives them a warm weather port on the Mediterranean. And btw, take a look at some of the Bible prophecies about Israel's enemies from the "north."

3. Assad is holding onto power by a thread. Yet the West (Europe and the US) is very clear that they do not want to remove him from power even though his behavior has been atrocious and not just two gas attacks. The list is far longer than that. Why do we want to keep a monster in power?
Because we have learned that the alternative to Assad can be worse. Libya and Iraq proved that.

4. Clear message? Are you talking about Trump's tweet days before the smart bombs were sent making sure that no significant damage was done?
Messages are only as clear as the receiving party hears them. When Obama, Rice, and Kerry told us 5 years ago that all chemical WMD's were removed thru "brilliant diplomacy, doing what no missiles could accomplish" the liberal press heard that message and believed it. You did too?

The clear message is don't do anything that will expose this charade for what it is, a charade, otherwise we are forced to slap your wrist with a wet noodle. Wake up this "strike" was clearly preceded with a 48 hour warning giving them plenty of time to move their equipment and people. It was pure theater for the American public. There is no intent to deal with Assad, there is no intent to help the humanitarian crisis. It is a classic example of following the letter of the law but not the spirit.
Wish your boy Obama would have at least used a "wet noodle." He did nothing but lie to us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

[COLOR=Blue]Climate change? Is that how we now explain the actions of totalitarian monsters who kill their own people? The weather may be nasty tomorrow, I think I'll find someone to murder!

Read the Good Earth by Pearl Buck and you will get a clear look at what Climate Change can do when there are millions of climate refugees who can't feed themselves.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Read the Good Earth by Pearl Buck and you will get a clear look at what Climate Change can do when there are millions of climate refugees who can't feed themselves.

They were not climate change refugees. Assad blew up their homes, jobs, and cities.

[Drake]

-1

I agree with Ohios points and would add these additional points.

“....there is no consensus within the growing field of climate-conflict studies on whether violence and civil conflict are in any way related to climatic variables.”

Full article here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...62629816301822

I think it was admirable that Trump telegraphed the attack to mimimize loss of life. Assad could not move buildings and infrastructure so his chemical making capabilities are now greatly diminished. It was a precision strike. Killing people would not have made a difference and killing Russians might have made a big difference.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

I agree with Ohios points and would add these additional points.

“....there is no consensus within the growing field of climate-conflict studies on whether violence and civil conflict are in any way related to climatic variables.”

Full article here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...62629816301822

I think it was admirable that Trump telegraphed the attack to mimimize loss of life. Assad could not move buildings and infrastructure so his chemical making capabilities are now greatly diminished. It was a precision strike. Killing people would not have made a difference and killing Russians might have made a big difference.

Drake

Soon these pseudo-scientists will be accusing Trump of mass murder for shutting down the Paris Climate treaty.

[manna-man]

Where is the proof of a chemical attack?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

I agree with Ohios points and would add these additional points.

“....there is no consensus within the growing field of climate-conflict studies on whether violence and civil conflict are in any way related to climatic variables.”

Full article here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...62629816301822

I think it was admirable that Trump telegraphed the attack to mimimize loss of life. Assad could not move buildings and infrastructure so his chemical making capabilities are now greatly diminished. It was a precision strike. Killing people would not have made a difference and killing Russians might have made a big difference.

Drake

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...refugee-crisis

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

I agree with Ohios points and would add these additional points.

“....there is no consensus within the growing field of climate-conflict studies on whether violence and civil conflict are in any way related to climatic variables.”

Full article here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...62629816301822

I think it was admirable that Trump telegraphed the attack to mimimize loss of life. Assad could not move buildings and infrastructure so his chemical making capabilities are now greatly diminished. It was a precision strike. Killing people would not have made a difference and killing Russians might have made a big difference.

Drake

Tens of millions of people will be forced from their homes by climate change in the next decade, creating the biggest refugee crisis the world has ever seen, according to a new report.https://www.theguardian.com/environm...refugee-crisis

Scientists have for years cited extreme weather events connected to climate change as a contributing factor in the ongoing European migrant crisis. Drought and crop failure have destroyed livelihoods and driven sectarian conflict, leading to mass migration from the Middle East and Northern Africa to Europe.

The problem is about to get much worse, according to a new study in the journal Science. Researchers behind the study evaluated asylum applications submitted to the European Union from migrants in more than 100 countries between 2000 and 2014, and found a link between dramatic temperature fluctuations and migration.

As temperatures rise, researchers say unchecked climate change could drive a 188% increase in the number of refugees seeking asylum in Europe annually by the end of the century, as migrants seek to escape temperature extremes that might disrupt livelihoods and aggravate some of the world’s thorniest geopolitical conflicts. (http://time.com/5076003/climate-change-migration-trump/)

A major contributor to the Syrian conflict? Climate change
Starting in 2006, Syria suffered its worst drought in 900 years; it ruined farms, forced as many as 1.5 million rural denizens to crowd into cities alongside Iraqi refugees and decimated the country’s livestock. Water became scarce and food expensive. The suffering and social chaos caused by the drought were important drivers of the initial unrest. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...climate-change

[Drake]

-1

ZNP

The Syria Civil War was precipitated by the Arab Spring. People are displaced in wars because they move out of conflict zones to keep from getting killed. Half of those displaced in Syria moved to another part of Syria so they are not displaced by climate change but by the conflict.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

That part of the Levant has never been a bread basket, rather its a desert climate, and once food supply lines are disrupted the refugees seek food wherever they can such as neighboring Turkey. People need to eat.

You are predisposed to climate change as a cause and there are plenty of people who hold that view so you will find support for it online. There are also people who believe UFOs are involved in the conflict in Syria. In other words, you can find support for almost any belief. Then how does one decide the most probable explanation? I think Occams Razor is best applied to this situation..... the simplest explanation is that people moved out of the way of bullets, machetes, bombs, rape, slavery, drowning cages, etc...seeking food, clean water, shelter... not fleeing the effects of climate change. In other words, even if every family in Syria had a unlimited supply of chickpea hummus on their tables they would still be fleeing for their lives.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

I think Occams Razor is best applied to this situation..... the simplest explanation is that people moved out of the way of bullets, machetes, bombs, rape, slavery, drowning cages, etc...seeking food, clean water, shelter... not fleeing the effects of climate change. In other words, even if every family in Syria had a unlimited supply of chickpea hummus on their tables they would still be fleeing for their lives.

Drake

I agree with the principle that the simplest explanation makes sense.

There would not have been any bullets, bombs, or "mother of all wars" had the US and Europe been self sufficient in energy.

But instead we have chosen a policy of developing the Middle East oil supply as part of US national policy. We have spent trillions of dollars on the various Gulf wars and "war on Terror". Had those trillions of dollars been spent on research, development and manufacture of renewable energy we would now be the undisputed leader in this major field, we would be self sufficient in energy, and probably half of the motivation for war in the Middle
East would not have been there.

The other half is a consequence of our burning that fossil fuel, also would have been mitigated by a policy of energy self sufficiency. This is the policy that Carter was pushing when he was president. However, a phony oil crisis was manufactured by shutting down a few refineries, this in turn pushed Carter out and replaced him with Reagan and the oil men. And, from that point on we have been fully committed to the "petro dollar". Our current situation is not due to Obama or Trump, it is due to that scheme in the late 70s (some say Kissinger was the architect).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with the principle that the simplest explanation makes sense.

There would not have been any bullets, bombs, or "mother of all wars" had the US and Europe been self sufficient in energy.

But instead we have chosen a policy of developing the Middle East oil supply as part of US national policy. We have spent trillions of dollars on the various Gulf wars and "war on Terror". Had those trillions of dollars been spent on research, development and manufacture of renewable energy we would now be the undisputed leader in this major field, we would be self sufficient in energy, and probably half of the motivation for war in the Middle
East would not have been there.

The other half is a consequence of our burning that fossil fuel, also would have been mitigated by a policy of energy self sufficiency. This is the policy that Carter was pushing when he was president. However, a phony oil crisis was manufactured by shutting down a few refineries, this in turn pushed Carter out and replaced him with Reagan and the oil men. And, from that point on we have been fully committed to the "petro dollar". Our current situation is not due to Obama or Trump, it is due to that scheme in the late 70s (some say Kissinger was the architect).

I find it interesting that you promote a policy of energy self sufficiency yet despise the first president to come along who actually intends to do it.

Unfortunately, this earth as we know it has become a "disposable" entity.

So if you ain't gonna blame Trump or Reagan for the world's problems, you may as well select Nixon (Kissinger.)

I guess we all have our theories. awareness blames everything on religion. You blame petroleum.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I find it interesting that you promote a policy of energy self sufficiency yet despise the first president to come along who actually intends to do it.

Unfortunately, this earth as we know it has become a "disposable" entity.

So if you ain't gonna blame Trump or Reagan for the world's problems, you may as well select Nixon (Kissinger.)

I guess we all have our theories. awareness blames everything on religion. You blame petroleum.

I have never once expressed derision for a policy of self sufficiency.

Also, anyone who has read my posts on "blame" knows that I don't blame any of the US presidents, I blame Solomon.

Also, to say I blame petroleum is a superficial and erroneous reading of what I have said. I used to work in the oil industry. I recognize that oil was a necessary bridge from an agricultural society to a clean and efficient technological one. We should have crossed this bridge at the time of Solomon.

[Drake]

-2

ZNP,

Then you’ll be happy to know that the USA is poised to become a net exporter of oil in the near future:

“A remarkable ability to unlock new resources cost-effectively pushes combined United States oil and gas output to a level 50% higher than any other country has ever managed; already a net exporter of gas, the US becomes a net exporter of oil in the late 2020s.”

Full article here: https://www.iea.org/weo2017/

Still you are missing the most obvious explanation why Assad and his chemical infrastructure were bombed. He gassed his own people.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2

ZNP,

Then you’ll be happy to know that the USA is poised to become a net exporter of oil in the near future:

“A remarkable ability to unlock new resources cost-effectively pushes combined United States oil and gas output to a level 50% higher than any other country has ever managed; already a net exporter of gas, the US becomes a net exporter of oil in the late 2020s.”

Full article here: https://www.iea.org/weo2017/

Still you are missing the most obvious explanation why Assad and his chemical infrastructure were bombed. He gassed his own people.

Drake

Did you see the movie about concussions in the NFL? "He may have died from a heart attack, but that is not why he died".

Unless you are willing to find out the root cause you cannot be a peace maker.