>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Words are words.

Not to a bullied or harassed schoolchild they're not. Words are weapons to kids that age.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
The emotions they evoke are only hurtful if you let them be. i.e. mentally removing that taboo
Nice idea. Easier said than done, I think we could all agree? Especially for kids. I was told this so many times growing up but it's almost impossible to put into practice.

The government forced them to create CDO's? to bundle up non-AAA holdings and sell them as AAA? to extend themselves beyond their ability to cover their loses?

In a word - yes - the government forced the issue. Before the government interfered, lenders had actuarial tables and KNEW with 100% certainty who could and couldn't afford a loan the second they walked in the door. Mortgage rates were in the 8% to 10% range. Banks 'made' money on loans with the interest. People who earned less than 30K a year had a tough time getting into a house because (DUH!) they didn't really earn enough money. It was common sense. People that were POOR couldn't just go out and buy houses willy-nilly.

Then the government came along. They wanted people to get loans cheaper and more often and entirely for political reasons. But banks aren't charities and if they can't make the money on the interest (which you can't with sub-prime) then how do you make money? Hmmm... Oh yeah - let's get rid of this little thing called "Glass Steagall"! Now let's use the Fed to jack around interest rates until they are below 5%. Now you banks are commanded by government to make your profits by bundling the loans as derivatives. Now it is almost impossible to survive as a lending institution without doing what we tell you. Oh yeah, you banks? When it all blows up down the road it is YOUR fault... There you go banks!

That was government meddling with the market. They changed the rules so Barney Frank could tell voters that they had "UFFODUBBLE HOW-SING!". It was true left-wing, neolib stupidity on parade and it screwed up the entire planet. They were the ones that changed the laws. The private sector had no choice but to react to the rules that government barfed up.

The system that GOVERNMENT established turned the housing market within a very short time from a staid system of "moderate loans paid off by interest" into a crazed gold-rush of "cheap loans for everyone paid off by bundling". Banks had no choice to play that game because that was playing field that GOVERNMENT created. Any bank offering a SANE loan at an 8% interest rate and making its profits over 30 years was getting clobbered by lenders handing out loans at 2.5% ARMs that were making a bundle on the back end. Banks knew it was crazy, but those were the rules that GOVERNMENT set up and they didn't have any choice but to operate within that rubric. But government said, "Hey - if the loans blow up don't worry about it! We'll cover those bad loans with Freddie/Fannie and you won't be on the hook for it..." Government.

You see, that's what that happens when government interferes with the market and picks the winners and losers by changing rules, laws, and policy. The whole thing would have been impossible without a corrupt government starting the ball rolling for political purposes.

Everybody on the planet learned after the Great Depression that having an 'environment' where bundling and other such investments could exist was not good. That's why Glass-Stegall was created. It stopped a BAD investment practice and it worked for over 50 years without government being "involved" in a single, bloody thing. That's what !good! government does. It establishes a simple, basic set of rules and then STOPS INTERFERING. The reason for the housing failure was not because government WASN'T regulating the market. It was because the government WAS regulating the market in a terrible way.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall - a common sense law - and then ban the government from EVER interfering with the housing sector again. Things work just fine when you set up a simple, transparent system and then forbid the government from coming within a million miles of it.

You keep saying 'human CO2' as though its a different variety than 'natural' CO2. CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter if its belched out of a volcano, out of the tail pipe of a car or the tail pipe of a cow.

When we burn carbon traps like trees, oil, and coal, we release the carbon into the air in the form of CO2. While the proportion people release is smaller than that which is naturally released, it is enough to exceed what can naturally be absorbed in combination with what is naturally released. Thus we see an increase in overall atmospheric CO2.

What do you think happens to the excess CO2? Do you think because its 'human CO2' it some how doesn't contribute to overall atmospheric CO2?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.
But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.
"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"
But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.
So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.
The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.

But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.

"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"

But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.

So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.

The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

^Really?!You lucky bastard, that would be almost impossible now. Ever since I finished watching the series I haven't been able to put the books down, there's honestly never a dull moment. Each chapter's as exciting as the next.

If you ask me GRRM's almost as wicked as he is brilliant, I'm slowly coming to terms with the fact that no character is safe, though if I had to bank on anyone surviving, It'd probably be Varys.

Halfway through Clash of Kings now and I would strongly recommend reading them..

ALL OF THEM, that includes the first. Even if you've watched the series.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.
"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).
However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...
"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."
That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.
And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.
Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.
I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/
100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-ri
se-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462
It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.
The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.


annnnnd ignore

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.

"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).

However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...

"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."

That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.

And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.

Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.

I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462

It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.

The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.

I agree with Pat Condell, even as I acknowledge that the people that helped cause the GFC should be more harshly punished.

But it's hardly conducive to a better society as a whole to cause immense amounts of infrastructure damage (do they think the money to fix this will fall from heaven?) and private businesse damage and theft (insurance goes up = prices go up for everyone) to compound the issues of the GFC... Never mind the private property damage and loss of life.

The people rioting and looting never think in these terms, they only care about their own personal benefit. We're not talking about legitimate protestors here...

eg. http://videosift.com/video/Interview-with-UK-Riot-Looters

These young guys go on about all the things the government should reinstate, after boasting about the things they ripped off. Yep, great thinking guys, the increased spending on policing and replacing destroyed infrastructure and property is GUARANTEED to leave plenty of tax dollars over to subsidise your university educations... /eyeroll

And Condell is absolutely right re: countries like Somalia... Growing up in a country with a social welfare system that might not cater to every need as much as they might like it to is miles away from living in a country where the ability to steadily supply your children with food is almost impossible.

Reading a few reports on the movie, I'm not surprised to see some fairly vehement comments on the other side. Saladoff makes no bones about this being a one sided film and apparently uses a fair number of quotes out of context to make some points. However the accusation of the ones against the film that it seeks to promote the idea that "we don't sue enough" is probably incorrect. From a glass half full viewpoint I think this movie is more about the cases that have every right to sue and should, being unable or almost impossible to do so precisely *because* of all the other sue happy people out there. Having actually looked up the coffee case (shamefully I have never done so) I won't be using that case as an example again.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a worthwhile opinion you have Opus.
But I don't think my last sentence was understood. "Reason" implies some gain, need, or selfish nature behind why someone does something. The cop get's paid. Sure. And if that's his sole reason--meh, he is not a hero. But why did he do it? If she fell, he would still have his job, pay, benefits, still get good reviews. When he fucks up once or twice in life he will still face the same punishment--regardless if hero or not...
Example of what I mean by "why."
I run into the street and nearly get hit by a car to save your child! Yay, I am a hero. But I throw your kid in the back of my van afterwards for nefarious purposes! Ewww, not so hero-ish now... But I saved his/her life, that's gotta count for something..
I know ^ sounds a bit on the sensationalized lines--but that is the area where my mind is when I say why. And it is almost impossible to explain, properly my point of view without an example.
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Totally disagree with your last sentence. IMHO, the less reason you have for doing something, like saving a life, the more heroic the action.
I DO agree that it doesn't have to be in a life threatening situation to bring out heroic action in someone. But I also think that a real hero is one that you never hear about. The ones that do heroic things without recognition or reward.
You shouldn't need a why to be a hero...
Not to lessen the magnitude of this cop's actions but, if it had been some average joe that had saved this woman's life, how much more press coverage would there have been? I have to agree with EMPIRE, I think the word "hero" is misused for this situation. He was doing his job. Cops are supposed to do this. Doctors save lives every day but, hero isn't the first word that comes to everyone's mind when they do. It's only heroic if you're not obligated to do it.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think a hero can be more than a dangerous situation or accomplishments..
The man who works his fingers to the bone for his children and still has time to throw them around in the air like superman (That's to you dad.)
The woman who looks to an abusive husband and says, "Fuck you, I don't need you." (That's to you Mrs. Lawdeedaw--when she did that to her previous husband.)
The little girl who returns the penny to the man who dropped it because his mother gives 'that nod' to her. Then the man who smiles at her, and gives her a dollar for the effort.
We have sensationized 'hero' so much that few people are heroes at all. The Soldiers fighting the wars? Mecenaries. The cops? Same. It is why you do something that vastly outweights what you do.



I actually DO understand what you're saying and I also think you are sort of proving my point.

You're looking for a reason for him to be motivated to save her and if that reason is "nefarious" then he is not a hero. I'm saying having a reason at all makes him not a hero. The nature of his job obligates him to try and save her and THAT is his reason, To Protect and To Serve. He has to try and save her. His job overrides his personal motivation (as it should with every cop).

If she had fallen yes, he would still have his job but, he would have failed at it. Not sure about "good reviews" and he would probably have some guilt issues to work out.

I had this argument with a friend about altruism and being nice for no reason, which I said he never does. A few days after the discussion he said he had done this kindly, selfless act for someone. "See? I can be altruistic." he says. I said the very fact that he told someone about it negates the "kindness" of it because recognition was motivating him to do it.

If this cop had been off duty and just happened to be walking by, that would have made it an entirely different situation. It's the old argument "Is it better to have a reason for doing good than no reason at all?" IMO, it's the latter.

This is not to say there are no heroes in the police force. Or fire fighters, or doctors... But, is it more heroic if a cop saves a life (which they are trained to do and is their job) or just some average person does it (with no training and no connection to the life saved)?

It is a worthwhile opinion you have Opus.

But I don't think my last sentence was understood. "Reason" implies some gain, need, or selfish nature behind why someone does something. The cop get's paid. Sure. And if that's his sole reason--meh, he is not a hero. But why did he do it? If she fell, he would still have his job, pay, benefits, still get good reviews. When he fucks up once or twice in life he will still face the same punishment--regardless if hero or not...

Example of what I mean by "why."

I run into the street and nearly get hit by a car to save your child! Yay, I am a hero. But I throw your kid in the back of my van afterwards for nefarious purposes! Ewww, not so hero-ish now... But I saved his/her life, that's gotta count for something..

I know ^ sounds a bit on the sensationalized lines--but that is the area where my mind is when I say why. And it is almost impossible to explain, properly my point of view without an example.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Totally disagree with your last sentence. IMHO, the less reason you have for doing something, like saving a life, the more heroic the action.
I DO agree that it doesn't have to be in a life threatening situation to bring out heroic action in someone. But I also think that a real hero is one that you never hear about. The ones that do heroic things without recognition or reward.
You shouldn't need a why to be a hero...
Not to lessen the magnitude of this cop's actions but, if it had been some average joe that had saved this woman's life, how much more press coverage would there have been? I have to agree with EMPIRE, I think the word "hero" is misused for this situation. He was doing his job. Cops are supposed to do this. Doctors save lives every day but, hero isn't the first word that comes to everyone's mind when they do. It's only heroic if you're not obligated to do it.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think a hero can be more than a dangerous situation or accomplishments..
The man who works his fingers to the bone for his children and still has time to throw them around in the air like superman (That's to you dad.)
The woman who looks to an abusive husband and says, "Fuck you, I don't need you." (That's to you Mrs. Lawdeedaw--when she did that to her previous husband.)
The little girl who returns the penny to the man who dropped it because his mother gives 'that nod' to her. Then the man who smiles at her, and gives her a dollar for the effort.
We have sensationized 'hero' so much that few people are heroes at all. The Soldiers fighting the wars? Mecenaries. The cops? Same. It is why you do something that vastly outweights what you do.

Especially when being stalked by the second largest land predator in North America.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Jesus, I get so tired of these shaky videos. Doesn't anyone understand that it makes them almost impossible to watch?
Learn how to hold an f'ing camera already...

Jesus, I get so tired of these shaky videos. Doesn't anyone understand that it makes them almost impossible to watch?

Learn how to hold an f'ing camera already...

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.

I am confidant because I spend so much time studying multiple separate and independent sources. Al Jazeera being one of the ones that seems to be 'better' by and large. It's their own article here that references Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN. Admittedly he had defected from the regime at the point he said this, but clearly he isn't just some nobody he doesn't understand the situation.
"In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly"
Ibrahim Dabbashi,
Deputy Libyan UN ambassador
You can have doubts about some things, but when the evidence is overwhelming you eventually have to act on it.


How about this...have you read history. The history of the US...the history of NATO? My guess is you have...a watered down history that doesn't point to the war crimes we've committed. Yet you're just fine saying without all the information that we're doing the right thing. I'm merely pointing that we SHOULD FUCKING WAIT before just applauding ourselves like idiots.

I hope we did the right thing...however saying we know everything and that the evidence is overwhelming at this stage is just stupid. Your confidence means nothing to me, express some doubt or you're just another moron saying that God exists and there's no such thing as Global Warming.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.


I am confidant because I spend so much time studying multiple separate and independent sources. Al Jazeera being one of the ones that seems to be 'better' by and large. It's their own article here that references Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN. Admittedly he had defected from the regime at the point he said this, but clearly he isn't just some nobody he doesn't understand the situation.

"In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly"

Ibrahim Dabbashi,
Deputy Libyan UN ambassador

You can have doubts about some things, but when the evidence is overwhelming you eventually have to act on it.