Gush or Bore?

noahbody · May 15, 2007

Iraq was imminent because of they had WMD. Gore says the result of global warming is comparable to nuclear war.

Both were had the same objective; to motivate the masses to accomplish their end goal. They both used fear to motivate. The Iraqis would have capability to launch an attack in months. If we don't act now on global warming, we are done for. No time for debate. We must act now.

Both men put their faith in questionable 'intelligence.' Bush misjudged the catastrophic consequences. The entire world was behind the States and the war against terrorism. The only catastrophic consequences to open debate on global warming is there's a chance Gore and IGPCC could look fools and lose all credibility. That's not very catastrophic in my books. But it's the same reason Bush doesn't want to admit he was wrong.

Maybe Ralph Nader was the best choice.

Figleaf · May 15, 2007

Iraq was imminent because of they had WMD. Gore says the result of global warming is comparable to nuclear war.
Both were had the same objective; to motivate the masses to accomplish their end goal. They both used fear to motivate. The Iraqis would have capability to launch an attack in months. If we don't act now on global warming, we are done for. No time for debate. We must act now.

Both men put their faith in questionable 'intelligence.' Bush misjudged the catastrophic consequences. The entire world was behind the States and the war against terrorism. The only catastrophic consequences to open debate on global warming is there's a chance Gore and IGPCC could look fools and lose all credibility. That's not very catastrophic in my books. But it's the same reason Bush doesn't want to admit he was wrong.

Maybe Ralph Nader was the best choice.

There is just SOOO much wrong with your assumptions there --

1. First of all, Iraq did not have any WMDs. It's astonishing you haven't heard that yet.

2. Bush did not 'put his faith in questionable intelligence'. He and his circle of advisors selected intelligence to match their goals.

3. The "entire world" was certainly not behind the United States 'war on "terror"'. And almost NONE of the world was behind the invasion of Iraq, a country with no rational connection to the 'terror' that prompted GWB into action.

noahbody · May 15, 2007

There is just SOOO much wrong with your assumptions there --
1. First of all, Iraq did not have any WMDs. It's astonishing you haven't heard that yet.

That's my point. But at the time, they were certain, even though there was no concrete proof, similar to Gore.

2. Bush did not 'put his faith in questionable intelligence'. He and his circle of advisors selected intelligence to match their goals.

He put his faith in theory, not proof, like Gore.

3. The "entire world" was certainly not behind the United States 'war on "terror"'. And almost NONE of the world was behind the invasion of Iraq, a country with no rational connection to the 'terror' that prompted GWB into action.

I should have said the majority of the world was behind the states after 911. Yes, some cheered. My point was Bush going into Iraq did help the enemy in Afganistan.

M.Dancer · May 15, 2007

True, almost none of the world supported the US in Iraq.

Only United Kingdom: South Korea: Poland: Australia: Romania: Denmark: Georgia: El Salvador: Czech Republic: Azerbaijan: Latvia: Mongolia: Albania: Slovakia: Lithuania:

Armenia: Bosnia and Herzegovina: Estonia: Macedonia: Kazakhstan: Moldova: Italy: Ukraine: Netherlands : Spain : Japan: Bulgaria : Thailand: Honduras: Dominican Republic: Hungary: Nicaragua:

Singapore: Norway: Portugal: New Zealand: Philippines: Tonga: Iceland:

Figleaf · May 15, 2007