Author Topic: Al Gore Updates the Accelerating Climate Crisis, Makes Call to save the World.  (Read 18420 times)


Driven1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
i like al gore a lot more now than when he tried to steal the election in 2000.  he seems much more sincere.  i saw on tv (60 minutes) the other day that his net worth was only $2million when he ran for president!!! isn't that crazy????  i believe their NW now is around $50 million.

RiversideGator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4476
Yes.  I have a lot higher opinion of Gore's intellect now than I did in 2000.  The way he was able to parlay this global warming nonsense into tens of millions of dollars is nothing short of amazing.  Now he and the Clintons (who have made more than $100 million since leaving office) are part of the evil rich whom they used to revile. 

Beloki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
What would the US and Jacksonville have looked like right now if he was the president for the last 8 years???!!

downtownparks

  • Guest
Thats actually a great question.

Driven1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
Thats actually a great question.
i think Saddam would still be the dictator of Iraq.  I think quite possibly he could've by now partnered with Iran and/or N. Korea and not only attacked other middle east countries - but that he would've attacked us again!!!

i think there would be more seals alive in canada, as i bet mr. gore would've used his bully pulpit to pressure canada to more aggressively limit the killing of the seals up there.

and lastly, i bet there would be a happier media.

Beloki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Maybe Iraq would still have a dictator, you are absolutely right yes...but maybe just maybe one of the following dictatorships would have been gone:
Saudi Arabia
Central African Republic
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea
Angola
United Arab Emirates
Tajikistan
Zimbabwe
Bhutan
Gabon
Oman
Qatar
And the list goes on and on and on. These are all countries with a totalitarian regime which have experienced an increase in arms trade from the US in the last 8 years!. So please do not tell me that we are against dictatorship!

Driven1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
UM!!! what do you think Iraq was Beloki!!!  I mean, we can't solve all the problems in the world, not all at once anyway!!!!!!!

btw, who the hell has ever heard of "Gabon" anyway??? 

Beloki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126

We went to Iraq because we believed they were a danger to the west, nothing more nothing less. Don't compliment ourselves for removing a tiran when we are supporting them just as hard in other parts of the world.

And about Gabon; they are very big in oil. Looking at your Gate avatar I would have guessed you knew......

Midway ®

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1501
Thats actually a great question.
i think Saddam would still be the dictator of Iraq.  I think quite possibly he could've by now partnered with Iran and/or N. Korea and not only attacked other middle east countries - but that he would've attacked us again!!!

i think there would be more seals alive in canada, as i bet mr. gore would've used his bully pulpit to pressure canada to more aggressively limit the killing of the seals up there.

and lastly, i bet there would be a happier media.


Let me remind you that Saddam was at war with Iran for in excess of 10 years, they were sworn enemies to the death. Tens of thousands of people died on both sides during that war. Somehow, I don't think that they were going to be working together anytime soon.

Now that the US has installed a Shiite government in Iraq, Iran HAS hit the jackpot, read the following article for a little background:

Quote
How Iran Is Winning Iraq

By David Ignatius
Friday, December 17, 2004; Page A33

If you had asked an intelligence analyst two years ago to describe the worst possible political outcome following an American invasion of Iraq, he might well have answered that it would be a regime dominated by conservative Shiite Muslim clerics with links to neighboring Iran. But just such a regime now seems likely to emerge after Iraq's Jan. 30 elections.

Iran is about to hit the jackpot in Iraq, wagering the blood and treasure of the United States. Last week an alliance of Iraqi Shiite leaders announced that its list of candidates will be headed by Abdul Aziz Hakim, the clerical leader of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. This Shiite list, backed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is likely to be the favorite of Iraq's 60 percent Shiite majority and win the largest share of votes next month.

 Wary of trusting Iraqi Shiites to manage the campaign, the Iranian intelligence service has been pumping millions of dollars and hundreds of operatives into the country. The Iranians have also recruited assassination squads to kill potential Iraqi rivals, according to several Iraqi officials. One Iraqi Shiite tells me the Iranians view the hit teams as a kind of "insurance policy" to make sure they prevail, even if the U.S.-backed election process should fail.

Iraqis who aren't part of the Shiite religious juggernaut are frightened by what's happening. The Iraqi interim defense minister, Hazim Shalan, this week described the Shiite political alliance as an "Iranian list" created by those who wanted "turbaned clerics to rule" in Iraq. Shalan is no saint himself -- like interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, he was once part of Saddam Hussein's Baathist network. But he and Allawi speak for many millions of Iraqis who don't want to see an Iran-leaning clerical government but are powerless to stop it.

Senior U.S. commanders in Iraq had hoped Allawi's slate would win in January, but they are beginning to assess the consequences of Shiite victory. Not only would it empower the mullahs, it would alienate Iraq's 20 percent Sunni Arab population, who mostly won't be able to vote next month because of the continuing wave of terrorism in Sunni areas. As sectarian tensions increase, post-election, so will the danger of a real civil war. What will become of the U.S. military mission in Iraq? Will we really arm one group of Iraqis in a sectarian conflict against another?

Given the stakes for the United States in these elections, you might think we would quietly be trying to influence the outcome. But I am told that congressional insistence that the Iraqi elections be "democratic" has blocked any covert efforts to help America's allies. That may make sense to ethicists in San Francisco, but how about to the U.S. troops on the ground?

I talked by telephone this week to a Sunni tribal leader from Ramadi who, in a more rational world, would be one of the building blocks of a new Iraq. His name is Talal Gaaod, and his father is a leading sheik in the Duleim tribe, which has power in what has become known as the Sunni Triangle, west of Baghdad. Gaaod, who earned his undergraduate and master's degrees at the University of Southern California, has tried various ways to help stabilize his area. He proposed a tribal security force in Anbar province earlier this year that was backed by local Marine commanders but later vetoed in Baghdad. Encouraged by Jordan, he brought about 50 Iraqi Sunni leaders to Amman in November to discuss Iraq's problems. But the Jordanians canceled the meeting after the U.S. offensive in Fallujah began. He wants to believe the United States can create a better Iraq, but he's losing hope.

"It is a miserable situation," Gaaod told me. "My people feel that Iraq is going into a deep hole. Things are not improving but getting worse. A lot of good people are leaving the country -- I'm talking about technocrats, tribal leaders, the middle class. I blame the United States for giving the clergy a front to lead events in Iraq. I am sure you will regret this one day. It will not work. One hundred years from now, it will not work."

Iraq's Shiite majority deserves its day in the sun, after decades of oppression, and the January elections should endorse the reality of majority rule. But future historians will wonder how it happened that the United States came halfway around the world, suffered more than 1,200 dead and spent $200 billion to help install an Iraqi government whose key leaders were trained in Iran. Our Iraq policy may be full of good intentions, but in terms of strategy, it is a riderless horse.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6395-2004Dec16.html

This is from 3 years ago. Tell me how things have improved.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 03:23:33 PM by Midway »

Driven1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
at least saddam doesn't rule everything with an iron fist now!!!

RiversideGator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4476
What would the US and Jacksonville have looked like right now if he was the president for the last 8 years???!!

We would be poorer, paying more taxes, would be less free, would be less safe and some of us would be dead.

Driven1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
rg is right on - definitely would be paying more taxes.   i know one times-union op-ed writer who would be all for that.  :)

also, u come correct - we would be less safe.

RiversideGator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4476
The world would be in so much better shape.

Actually River, I bet you are impressed with Gores intellect.

It took him 22 seconds to completely demolish the argument about Solar Warming that you spent months and millions of bytes to make.

Not bad.

I suspect that you havent watched the video.  But if you have an ounce of actual objectivity, I would urge you to respond to Gore's point on the subject with the same sincerity and intellectual curiousity that I approached your solar argument.

Actually, the video is 27+ minutes and, as a gainfully employed Republican, I do not have the time to spare watching such drivel.  I did like the rocket ship prop behind Gore at the start of the clip.  How futuristic and far sighted he is.   ::)

And no, I am not impressed with his intellect.  He is a charlatan and snake oil salesman of the first order but not an intellectual.

Driven1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
Actually, the video is 27+ minutes and, as a gainfully employed Republican, I do not have the time to spare watching such drivel. 

lol!!!!!  good call.