Iraq and WMDs by conservative columnist

[Easy E]

The Point | U.S. has gained little if Bush lied about reason for war
By Mark Bowden
For The Inquirer

It has been two months since the United States and Britain went to war against Saddam Hussein, and coalition forces have yet to discover convincing evidence of the weapons programs that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair said were its primary cause.

Some of those who supported the war beforehand did so solely on the basis of ending tyranny. The mass graves found throughout Iraq, and widespread stories of torture and atrocity, come as no surprise to those who had studied or endured the Baathist dictator's regime. Those who opposed the war for any reason ought to be doing some soul-searching about the kind of horrors they were prepared to leave in place.

But it is true that Hussein represented only one of many thuggish regimes, and that the United States is not about to go to war against them all. I supported this war because I believed Bush and Blair when they said Iraq was manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that shared Hussein's hostile designs made such a threat a defense priority - or so the argument went.

Early this month, the U.S. military announced that it had found three mobile laboratories that were most likely designed to manufacture chemical or biological weapons, the types of labs that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell referred to in making his argument for war before the U.N. Security Council. The discoveries were suggestive but hardly convincing evidence of the specific, tangible threat repeatedly outlined by the President. With the authors of Iraq's illicit-weapons program now in custody, we should expect to see soon, or to have seen already, the facilities and stockpiles we and most of the rest of the world believed Hussein possessed.

They may yet be found, but it is beginning to look as though the skeptics in this case were right. If so, I was taken in by this administration, and America and Great Britain were led to war under false pretenses.

Events have moved so swiftly, and Hussein's toppling has posed so many new pressing problems, that it would be easy to lose sight of this issue, but it is critically important. I can imagine no greater breach of public trust than to mislead a country into war. A strong case might have been made to go after Hussein just because he posed a potential threat to us and the region, because of his support for suicide bombers, and because of his ruthless oppression of his own people. But this is not the case our President chose to make.

Truth in public life has always been a slippery commodity. We expect campaigning politicians or debating journalists to pitch and spin. Facts are marshaled to support arguments and causes; convenient ones are trumpeted and inconvenient ones played down or ignored. This is the political game.

But when the President of the United States addresses the nation and the world, I expect the spinning to stop. He represents not just a party or a cause, but the American people. When President Bush argued that Hussein possessed stockpiles of illicit and deadly poisons, he was presumably doing so on the basis of intelligence briefings and evidence that the public could not see. He was asking us to trust him, to trust his office, to trust that he was acting legitimately in our self-defense. That's something very different from engaging in a bold policy of attempting to remake the Middle East, or undertaking a humanitarian mission to end oppression. Neither of these two justifications would have been likely to garner widespread public support. But national defense? That's an argument the President can always win.

I trusted Bush, and unless something big develops on the weapons front in Iraq soon, it appears as though I was fooled by him. Perhaps he himself was taken in by his intelligence and military advisers. If so, he ought to be angry as hell, because ultimately he bears the responsibility.

It suggests a strain of zealotry in this White House that regards the question of war as just another political debate. It isn't. More than 100 fine Americans were killed in this conflict, dozens of British soldiers, and many thousands of Iraqis. Nobody gets killed or maimed in Capitol Hill maneuvers over spending plans, or battles over federal court appointments. War is a special case. It is the most serious step a nation can take, and it deserves the highest measure of seriousness and integrity.

When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country. We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained.

[Cyrus]

Where exactly are the WMDs ?

Where exactly is Saddam Hussein ?

Where exactly is Osama bin Laden ?

Where exactly is the dog p*ssing in the White House lawn ?

...All questions of equal importance for the United States' foreign policy credibility.

[IrishHand]

Excellent article. He describes well (although unintentionally) why many people were against the war - it wasn't that Hussein was an evil dictator (he was), it was because our nation was lying to us about why we should go to war (Iraq poses a serious and immidiate threat). Had we declared that our goal was to rid the world of evil tyrants, I would have been far less opposed - that's a far less laughable argument than that Iraq was a threat to anyone. Of course, our government would never go so far as to declare war on tyranny and totalinarianism (as some on this site have suggested they either have or should) simply because that would ultimately involve putting good morals and beliefs ahead of economic interests - a concept utterly foreign to this nation for over 50 years now.

Irish

[Easy E]

"Had we declared that our goal was to rid the world of evil tyrants, I would have been far less opposed - that's a far less laughable argument than that Iraq was a threat to anyone. Of course, our government would never go so far as to declare war on tyranny and totalinarianism "

I don't know, Irish. I think it would have been pretty laughable, myself, if they HAD declared an overall war against tyrants.... because we'd never follow up on it en masse (Saudi Arabia could fit? Other nations that we're "friendly" with?)

[IrishHand]

It certainly would have been laughable. My point was that it would have been less laughable than the "Iraq is a serious and immediate threat" b/s they chose to spew.

Of course it's unrealitisic and impossible for our administration to declare war on tyrants, despots and other related lovelies - we have far too many allies and puppets that fall into those categories, and as we're all aware - it's not about who you are, how you came to power, or how many people you kill - it's how amenable you are to supporting US interests. If you don't (and don't have the nuclear wherewithal to discourage US "liberation" or "freedom" operations), then you will be replaced. If you do support US interests, then atrocities away, my boy! Nothing quite like the self-styled champion of democracy, I tell you.

[ACPlayer]

Right on point.

We were sold to and not led in getting into this war and the post war mess.

If the road map gets implemented and not lost in next years election selling -- at least some good may have come from it.

[Chris Alger]

"I can imagine no greater breach of public trust than to mislead a country into war."

Absolutely true. In a country committed to democratic principles, the act of making lying with the effect of leading that country to war should be considered treason. This follows from the unarguable statement that aiding an enemy during war time is, by definition (in the US Constitution), an act of treason. Therefore, if someone gives secret war plans to an enemy, allowing it to kill more US troops than would otherwise be the case, that person is guilty of treason. It follows that if US leaders use deceit in order to sacrifice US and foreign lives for ulterior purposes, those leaders are guilty of something (at least) equally criminal.

The leaders that created this war owe, at the very least, apologies to the people of the US and the people of Iraq for failing to disclose that they did not have reasonably certain information indicating the stated purposes for the war were valid.

The others that supported the war owe apologies to their fellow Americans and the people of Iraq for failing to use the minimum of intelligent skepticism required of citizens in a democracy when faced with official calls to support the use of mass violence.

In the absence of such acknowledgement of responsibility, we should regard those responsible as no better than the people that perpetrated and supported the 9/11 atrocities (which killed fewer civilans than the US/UK did during the invasion of Iraq).

[Jimbo]

"The others that supported the war owe apologies to their fellow Americans and the people of Iraq for failing to use the minimum of intelligent skepticism required of citizens in a democracy when faced with official calls to support the use of mass violence.

I think NOT!!! I supported the war against Iraq whether there were WMD's or not. Just because you chose to support the continuing torture and total disregard for basic human rights in Saddam's regime does not mean you are owed an apology. As to all the Liberal back patting going on in this thread it may be a bit premature. The WMD's have not yet been found, you seem to act like it is now irrefutable that they never existed and will never be found. Now on to the next war, it "will really cook your noodle" as the Oracle might say. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Chris Alger]

This is a contradiction in terms. You claim that those, like me, that opposed the war "support[ed] the continuing torture and total disregard for basic human rights in Saddam's regime." Yet there is a great deal of "continuing torture and total disregard for basic human rights" in many countries that you do not advocate the US go to war with. Therefore, by your own definition, your failure to advocate war with these other regimes is the same as "supporting" torture and human rights violations by those regimes, nullifying your purported reasons for supporting the war against Iraq and leaving you defined as a supporter of random acts of mass violence, just like those that supported or apologize for 9/11.

[Jimbo]

Again you are mistaken Chris. Let it be known here and now I advocate going to war with ____________ (insert name of country) at the earliest possible convenience. Any other questions? If you place a name in the blank I disagree with I will let you know.

[Cyrus]

"Let it be known here and now I advocate going to war with ____________ (insert name of country) at the earliest possible convenience."

I would suggest, in that order, FRANCE, then GERMANY, then haul a** back to the Americas to take on MEXICO.

Complete world tour by hitting on pesky ol' CANADA.

[Chris Alger]

You serisously believe that the US should go to war with every undemocratic country guilty of widespread murder and torture? Okay, start with these:
Angola (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/angola!Open)
Burundi (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/burundi!Open)
Central African Republic (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/central+african+republic!Open)
Chad (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/chad!Open)
Democratic Republic of Congo (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/democratic+republic+of+congo!Open)
Guinea (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/guinea!Open)
Liberia (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/liberia!Open)
Sierra Leone (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/sierra+leone!Open)
Somalia (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/somalia!Open)
Sudan (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/sudan!Open)
Uganda (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/afr/uganda!Open)
Indonesia (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/asa/indonesia!Open)
China (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/asa/china!Open)
Sri Lanka (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/asa/sri+lanka!Open)
Algeria (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/algeria!Open)
Egypt (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/egypt!Open)
Israel (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/israel+and+the+occupied+territories+!Open)
Saudi Arabia (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/saudi+arabia!Open)
Syria (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/syria!Open)
Honduras (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/honduras!Open)
Guatemala (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/guatemala!Open)
Colombia (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/colombia!Open)
Dominican Republic (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/dominican+republic!Open)
Bolivia (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/bolivia!Open)
Turkey (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/eur/turkey!Open)
Albania (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/eur/albania!Open)
Georgia (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/eur/georgia!Open)
Russia (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/eur/russian+federation!Open)
Uzbekistan (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/europe/uzbekistan.html)
Pakistan (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/pakistan.html)

These are just some of the recent reports from the leading international human rights monitoring organizations.

And, of course, don't forget your need to go to war with the US and yourself. As AI observed in 1996: "Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or 'disappeared,' at the handsof governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame." The foregoing list includes the largest current recipients of US lethal aid and economic support.

[John Ho]

"Again you are mistaken Chris. Let it be known here and now I advocate going to war with ____________ (insert name of country) at the earliest possible convenience. Any other questions? If you place a name in the blank I disagree with I will let you know. "

You are crazy.

Seriously.

[MMMMMM]

Obviously we should instead build up around North Korea during the Summer, do the regime change thing in the Autumn, and then turn over administration of the newly unified peninsula to the eminently capable hands of the well-educated, hard-working South Koreans.

Next Winter we can easily complete our sweep of the Middle East Problem Countries as temperatures again become conducive for desert warfare. By Spring, lesser problems like Canada, Mexico, Germany and France will have realized their irrelevance and will have quit shouting inanities into the wind.

I'll bet you think I'm kidding, don't you?

By the way, Bashar Assad, President of Syria, is now on record as saying he doesn't believe al-Qaeda exists. Another brilliant example of Current Trends in Arab Existentialism.

[IrishHand]

There are those who learn from history, and then there are those who are unaware that there is such a thing as history. The more nations one country conquers, the faster the empire will fall...

[IrishHand]

Umm...is there a point to the seemingly random use of bold and italics, or is that your way of livening up otherwise baseless arguments?

Some points...
(a) The "regime change" thing you're referring to is actually a miliary invasion of one of the larger militaries in the world. How many American deaths is that regime change worth to you? (I'll go ahead and disregard the huge numbers of South Koreans that would be slaughtered when we incite war in the region, since the deaths of foreigners rarely seems to interest you in a cost-benefit analysis.)
(b) So you want to invade N. Korea, then hand it over to S. Korea for administration? Great plan! I'm sure the N. Koreans will be thrilled that you've selected their next ruling class.
(c) Moving large amounts of military striking power isn't like driving to the lake for the weekend. You're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Keep in mind that N. Korea doesn't have oil that we can take later as compensation for our military services. (If "dropping bombs" can be called "delivering ordinance", then "invading a foreign nation" can be called "rendering military services".)
(d) Those "lesser problems" you're referring to - not sure how "most of the people on earth" can be reduced to four countries being labeled "lesser" anything - will no doubt increase their objections, as any democratic nation should when a rogue-like nation is bent on waging war without legal, moral or democratic legitimacy.
(e) Sadly, I don't think you're kidding. I long ago gave up hoping that most of your posts were in jest.
(f) Who cares what the President of Syria says? Were you thinking he was in a position to influence either US (or any other democratic nation's) foreign policies. When silly people say silly things, take pleasure in it like the rest of us do. Let's be honest - the only positive to come out of the Iraq Invasion was the wonderful Iraqi propaganda.

[Jimbo]

"You are crazy.

Seriously. "

Seriously? No Really, Seriously? I bet you don't really mean it, seriously.

[Jimbo]

OK Chris, leave off Israel and at first glance your list seems ok but who should we attack during Bush's 2nd term? Remember we will have 4 more years to tidy things up.

[Mark Heide]

The WMD, Hussein, Bin Ladin, are in Iran. We will invade them next Spring. But, these guys could escape to Syria next or even North Korea. I figure if we go to war with Iran, Syria, and North Korea we're bound to find something. One of these countries has to have WMD. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[MMMMMM]

I'm really relieved that people with views like yours aren't even remotely in charge of our foreign policy today.

You would blithely let our worst avowed enemies acquire nuclear weapons.

Your manner of reckoning only counts lives lost in preventive conflicts, rather than also estimating lives lost in future conflicts against much more formidably armed and implacable foes.

It must be reassuring to have such a simple outlook.

After the Korean peninsula is denuked and unified, the reason the South Koreans would run the show for a while is that they are the only pool of educated people on the entire peninsula. The North Koreans have been so insulated from the outside world for 50 years that they don't even know the South lives prosperously compared to them. However Koreans are generally a very bright and hard-working bunch, so the Northies would catch on quickly and it wouldn't be too long before nobody in Korea would care much about "North" or "South." They'd all be too busy working, building Hyundais and stereo systems, and studying and making money to care about such things except in a historical sense. The North Koreans would also quickly realize how they had been duped for the last 50 years and would work extra hard to make up for lost time. The country would soon be on its way to becoming one big, happy, prosperous family.

The petrodollars the Saudis owe us for their financing and export of terror and destruction could easily finance the Battle of Korea, the Battle of Iran, the Battle of Syria/Lebanon, and the military police occupation of Saudi Arabia (there wouldn't have to be a Battle of Saudi Arabia because except for our protection they are basically defenseless). Wahhabism would be banned and the people would be told that they too had been duped by their leaders for generations. However unlike the North Koreans, they wouldn't believe it...hence the need for a considerable military police presence since it would take the Saudis a lot longer to "catch on," and to start majoring in subjects other than theology.

[John Ho]

Why leave off Israel?

[Zeno]

"Another brilliant example of Current Trends in Arab Existentialism."

Perhaps there would be peace in the Middle East if there were a resurgence of Sufism (an old form of Muslim mysticism not much practiced). Once everyone becomes united with god by love a new age will begin.

A further extension would be to blend existentialism with Sufism. Sartre would become the new prophet and everyone would see that-

"Nothingness is not, Nothingness 'is made-to-be'...The being by which Nothingness comes to the world must be its own Nothingness."

- From, Being and Nothingness, by Jean-Paul Sartre.

Once everyone understands being, the nothingness will disappear and Utopia will be achieved. I believe that I have contributed nothing to this thread, thus my being is satisfied.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

This list is too short.

Please modify and resubmit for approval.

Le Misanthrope

[KJS]

Jimbo,

How about supporting a war on Burma? Their military regime discounted election results 13 years ago today and it is well known that they routinely torture people, use forced labor and portering, rape ethnic women, summarily arrest and imprison people, harass opposition leaders, etc.. Plus they are responsible for much of the heroin that ends up on the streets of North America and nearly all the methamphetamines in SE Asia. They would certainly fit the bill if you support war on regimes that don't care about human rights in the slightest. Are you in?

KJS

[Cyrus]

Are you seriously suggesting a course whereby the United States attacks North Korea, Iran, Syria and Lebanon and finances that madness with petrodollars swiped from Saudi Arabia ?

You must not have heard of the Law of Unwanted Consequences.

"I'm really relieved that people with views like yours aren't even remotely in charge of our foreign policy today."

Well, you should not be surprised to know that people with views like yours are very much in charge of U.S. foreign policy today.

[MMMMMM]

It was a partially serious post.

I would only support such madness if North Korea and Iran keep forging ahead with their nuclear programs and supporting organized terror. Of course they should be given fair warning first. They should realize by now that Bush doesn't kid around on such things. Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon are lesser but very real problems which must be dealt with too. Syria must give up the Iraqi WMD it has buried 100 meters below the surface in freshly planted groves in the Bekaa valley, and dismantle all terrorist groups and headquarters within its borders. Lebanon itself is not a problem but Syria and Hezbollah are.

Regarding Saudi petrodollars, the Saudis probably do owe us vast sums for their financing of terror. However their continued nurturing of young radicals through state-sponsored teachings of Wahhabism is a greater problem than past injuries, so if they institute some serious reforms that would be better than petrodollar compensation.

[MMMMMM]

The world is overpopulated too. I can think of better uses for that $15 billion dollars Bush pledged to fight AIDS in countries that can't even feed their current populations.

[MMMMMM]

Some time after we take care of the more pressing problems involving North Korea, Iran, etc., Burma can be given a choice to reform and democratize or face regime change.

It will be as I predicted a while back...eventually only democratic-style governments will be recognized as legitimate. For most despotic countries it won't even take a "war" to effect regime change. China however will be the tough nut to crack eventually.

[IrishHand]

The fact that Africa is a net exporter of food sort of wrecks that argument.

[MMMMMM]

Please try thinking precisely Irish--I said countries that can't even feed themselves, not continents that can't even feed themselves. In other words, countries with serious malnutrition/starvation problems have more pressing concerns than AIDS that should be addressed first.

[Jimbo]

KJS, Burma sounds good to me. Mark it down, any more suggestions? We don't want to miss any now.

[Jimbo]

John Ho asked "Why leave off Israel?"

Why not John? After all I am crazy!

[IrishHand]

I believe his point was that whatever mental disfunction causes you to want WWIII should also lead you to want to invade Israel, since they are a better fit with your 'criteria' than most of the other nations on the initial list.

[andyfox]

The world is underpopulated. Let's not blame overpopulation for hunger: it is politics that causes starvation. China manages to feed all of its people because it made a political decision to do so (despite making other not so wonderful political decisions). During the worst of the famous famine in Bangladesh some years ago, Bangladesh was a net exporter of food.

It is more accurate to say some countries wont feed their current populations than they cant.

[Jimbo]

IrishHand I must assume you meant dysfunction. I do not believe I have a mental impairment nor abnormal functioning of my mental abilities. Now for you, I never said I wanted WWIII, nor have I listed my complete personal criteria regarding whom to attack.Do you think you might try reading a thread before commenting for a change?

[MMMMMM]

The world is overpopulated as evidenced by the fact that the Earth's natural resources are being strained excessively. The seas are being fished out. The percentage of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere has dropped from over 30% at the turn of the century to the mid-teens at present. There is too much pollution. Even the National Parks are being trashed.

Proper population may be something like everybody has around 100 acres of personal land. People need their space to be psychologically healthy and not antagonistic towards each other.

Cities are unhealthy but they should be there for those who want to live in them, work in them or visit them. However cities should be balanced by rural areas and tracts of wilderness, and today the imbalance is great in favor of cities.

The world doesn't need more people, it needs less people. Hopefully declining fertility rates will help remedy current trends somewhat.

When the world has enough people--to provide necessary work, research, services, innovations and various things like art--then adding many additional people just decreases the quality of life for everyone and further strain the Earth's resources and the Earth's ability to repair and heal itself. Plastic molecules are created but never destroyed--plastic molecules become a permanent part of the Earth's biosystem. PCB's don't disappear. Oil does biodegrade however.

You are correct that in many countries the problems of food shortages are due to the fact that the government won't allow the people to be fed, rather than that the country can't feed itself. Another argument for regime change.

[andyfox]

None of the things you talk about are evidence of ovepopulation. They are the results of carelessness and political arrangements. No question that regimes more attuned to these problems could make efforts to address them. The earth's carrying capacity would support a much greater population than we currently have.

I want my 100 acres of personal land in Yellowstone National Park. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Cyrus]

. . . and pretty sure you're talking about serious damage.

Come to think of it, no one would miss one billion Chinamen if they'd simply disappear. The how is not that important -- SARS, AIDS, USMC, any kind of initials that can do the job is fine.

I don't know any Chinaman personally so I will not be missing anyone terribly. And I'm sure the same goes for all of you. This would lighten up the planet from its heavy burden at a stroke! (I vote Nuke-tacs, personnaly.)

[Cyrus]

The planet currently houses more people than ever before and those people are multiplying at an accelerating pace. The graph of Human Population viewed against Time is zooming upwards like a vertical take-off warplane, after staying low for millenia.

This is statistically and logistically an untenable situation. A statistician cannot accept that this is a step towards a new plateau, and that it will soon "level off". And the operations mgr will look hopelessly for ways to alleviate the logistics burden.

So, the question is not whether the planet is overpopulated or not -- it is, in both absolute and relative terms. The question is whether the finite resources of the planet will continue to supplant the human population and the rest of the fauna like they do, or whether those resources prove to be very unstable.

My solution (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=265007 &page=0&view=expanded&sb=6&o=14&fpart=&vc=)

[John Ho]

But why leave off Israel?

The reason you are starting to joke around instead of answering questions is you don't really know why you hate certain countries and support others.

I'll answer it for you....you blindly follow the policies of the political group you associate yourself with but don't know why they believe the things they do. This doesn't just apply to right wing nuts either. Lots of liberals are just liberals because that's all they know how to do.

Since you hated Matrix Reloaded I'll quote from it: "Without why you are powerless." You don't have the why or haven't explained it and thus you are a sheep!

Maybe this will get you to explain yourself.

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

Even if it were true that the Earth's carrying capacity could support a much greater population, does it then follow that it should? Why strain the Earth to the utmost? What if we are wrong and it can't carry that much?

All species suffer in the quality of life department when they overpopulate.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus' "solution":

"A billion her and a billion there. . . and pretty sure you're talking about serious damage.

Come to think of it, no one would miss one billion Chinamen if they'd simply disappear. The how is not that important -- SARS, AIDS, USMC, any kind of initials that can do the job is fine.

I don't know any Chinaman personally so I will not be missing anyone terribly. And I'm sure the same goes for all of you. This would lighten up the planet from its heavy burden at a stroke! (I vote Nuke-tacs, personnaly.)"

Though you're satirizing, what you say has import beyond satire. Overpopulation increases tensions and competition for resources, and in the human species is a pressure towards war. So if we can't or won't control our Earth's population, we can expect either natural or man-made calamities to do the job for us eventually. As population continues it's upward spiral, expect to see disease and war reduce the surplus population--but not without a great deal of leading misery, and then massive trauma when it actually happens.

[Jimbo]

I love the internet. It really brings the psychics out such as John Ho. Tell me John do you substitute on Crossing Over for the Sci Fi channel? I have this long lost uncle who died before telling me where he hid his booty from a bank robbery years ago. I would like you to have him tell you where he hid the money. I will split 50/50 with you. How about it? Heck, you can even donate your share to those poor starving Africans Nicky G and Chris are so concerned over.


It is absurd to suggest I do not know why I left Israel off the list. It is further quite sanctimonious of you to presume you know my motivations. For all you know I consider this other topics forum a joke and simply enjoy jacking with the people who take these topics much too seriously. I may have just flipped a coin and taken a radical conservative stance. Gee, if it had been tails I could have become a bleeding heart liberal just as easily. Aren't those possibilities as well? Of course they are!

[andyfox]

I don't know if it should. My point is that many of our problems are blamed on overpopulation when other causes are more relevant. For politicians and other policy makers, this is an easy cop-out.

[andyfox]

Fly cross-country and then tell me about "surplus population." There's plenty of land. Once we learn to live in what formerly were regarded as insalubrious environments (Las Vegas comes to mind, although perhaps the "formerly" is incorrect here /forums/images/icons/smile.gif ) and under the oceans, the world will sustain a much, much higher population.

But again, my main point is that blaming our ecomomic, political, and social problems on excess or surplus or over-popuation is simply wrong. The leaders of the kinds of regimes you rightly criticize are the people who usually talk about "surplus" people.

[MMMMMM]

OK then suppose you put an arbitrary figure on what population our Earth can reasonably maintain. If it's not 5 billion or 6 billion, how about 10 or 20 or 40 or 400 billion? At SOME freakin' point there has to be overpopulation. So let's find a way stop the endless upward spiral before we find out very painfully and tragically just where that limit point is.

Yes, many other factors contribute to the types of problems that are loosely said to result from overpopulation. That doesn't mean overpopulation isn't a problem or that it won't be. And can you give me ANY reason the world should need more than 6 billion people? Surely with 6 billion there are enough for all services, research and creative endeavors, and plenty of diversity.

And so you imagine that the disappearing fish in the sea may be replaced with people living under the sea. Somehow I don't think such a trade is a good idea;-)

I most seriously hope you're wrong, and that the world never sustains a much higher human population.

[John Ho]

That's entirely possible...if so you should ask yourself why you want to waste others' time by playing games like this. Perhaps a new hobby would be appropriate.

Otherwise, this forum is here for real discussion. People can disagree without getting hysterical like you're becoming.

Most likely your true reasoning for not answering the question is embarassment at not knowing the answer. Humor is a very common escape mechanism when confronted with something uncomfortable.

[Jimbo]

Wasting peoples time John? Give me a frigging break!! I don't remenber charging you a fee to read my posts nor one to enter the forum. The only waste of time would be justifying my position to you. As far as humor I believe you need a little to help you relax.

You should research your dictionary and read the definition for hysterical. Then get back to me with a few quotes of mine from this thread that qualify. That ought to keep you off the streets for a little while.

Now a reason for excluding Israel: I might be Jewish John. Feel better now?

In addition what qualifies you to psychoanalyze someone from afar simply because you may disagree with their opinion.

[IrishHand]

IrishHand I must assume you meant dysfunction.
As always, you assume too much. "Disfunction" and "dysfunction" are equally valid in the English language. Feel free to consult a reputable dictionary.

I never said I wanted WWIII
Umm....my mistake. I never realized that your genius allowed you to figure out a way that the US could invade 20+ foreign nations without that eventually being defined as WWIII. You're thinking that every other nation with international clout will simply sit there and watch? Seems to me that there have been any number of leaders who thought they could engaged in an endless series of unprovoked international aggressions without bearing the consequence for those actions. They were all wrong - as are you, to the extent you think the US can invade nation after nation without inciting worldwide reaction.

[gdaily]

Interesting,

Iran is a democratic ruled country. And Bush the selected put them next on the list?

[MMMMMM]

Iran claims to be a Democracy but it is not. It is a Theocracy. The hard-line ruling mullahs do not tolerate any dissent--religious, political or otherwise--and routinely employ torture, imprisonment and execution as tools to maintain their hold on power.

As an example, a few months ago a citizen was sentenced to death for merely questioning why only the clerics should be allowed to interpret the Koran. This incident became widely publicized.

The people of Iran--the street, the young and and students--are among the most liberal in the Middle East. However the aging mullahs are among the most hard-line in the Middle East and they maintain their grip on power through brute force. The country would by itself reform considerably if the mullahs were not in control.

[Jimbo]

"Disfunction" and "dysfunction" are equally valid in the English language. Feel free to consult a reputable dictionary.

Feel free to provide a link to a reputable dictionary IrishHand. Mine all seem to be irreputable and have no listing for disfunction. We have invaded close to 20 countries in the last few decades without causing a world war, what is different now? Who said anything about unprovoked? You should keep your words pertinent as i attempt to keep mine in context. As for the nations with international clout, they are our allies, you know like on our side.

[andyfox]

I agree that at some point there would be too many people. My point is that we are nowhere close to that point and claims that we are are a cover-up for political decisions that create the problems this so-called overpopulation is blamed for.

There is not a continuous upward spiral. China, for example, in addition to developing food policies that, for the most part, eliminated hunger and starvation, adopted policies to encourage people to have fewer children.

People are as asset, not a liability. There is nothing magical about 6 billion or 2 billion or 100 billion.

[MMMMMM]

Yeah but too many people get on your nerves. It's unhealthy to be crowded on a consistent basis. As for undersea living, it exists now in military vessels called submarines. My understanding is that it's extremely stressful.

There is a continuous upward spiral--just look at any chart of world population growth. It's not a good thing beyond a certain point. We aren't ants. Space is one of the most important things in psychological and physical health. Germs spread far more in crowded conditions too, and overcrowding encourages new mutant viruses.

Don't you ever get sick of being around people? Well just imagine that the population was increased enough that you couldn't get out into the country for a break. Just packed cities and massive conglomerate farms everywhere. Now there's a nightmare for us all. And just as rats fight a lot more when forced to live under crowded conditions, so do humans. It's a near certainty that if population growth continues unabated, we will eventually have a catastrophic war which will tremendously reduce the population.

I can't see any need for a larger population than we currently have. You haven't given me any argument for it, either, other than to vaguely say that people are an asset. Sure they are but they're also a liability. So can you conjecture anything we could do with 10 billion people on Earth that we can't do with 6 billion people? If so, what?

[Cyrus]

"I agree that at some point there would be too many people. My point is that we are nowhere close to that point."

I am not a latter-day Malthussian but ..how do you know this??

Homo sapiens has been around for some hundreds of thousands of years and only in the last 50 years or so, a blink in Historical time, his numbers have exploded out the graph! The human population now alive is greater that the total of all the people who have ever lived on Earth -- plus we have managed to spend/burn a colossal amount of earthly resources (fossil fuels), material that has taken millions of years to be created. This is as sure a recipe for failure as they come.

"Claims that we are [overpopulated] are a cover-up for political decisions that create the problems this so-called overpopulation is blamed for."

I don't know what you're talking about. All I know is that obsolete thinkers such as the Catholic Pope won't hear of birth control, and the same goes for most religious fundamentalists, be they in Mecca or the White House.

"There is not a continuous upward spiral."

Well, so far it is, if you look up the graph. (And I do mean up!..)

"China, for example, in addition to developing food policies that, for the most part, eliminated hunger and starvation, adopted policies to encourage people to have fewer children."

The crude birth control system of the totalitarian Chinese government has resulted in a sharp increase in the murder of newborns (Chinese families are officially allowed only 1 child and they don't want that child to be a girl) among other consequences. As to the Chinese "food policies that eliminated hunger and starvation", the less said the better : Mao's Great Leap Forward resulted in a famine that wiped out in China the equivalent of Poland's population in 10 years.

"There is nothing magical about 6 billion or 2 billion or 100 billion."

Sorry but this is simply absurd. When you ride an elevator do you also think there's nothing magical about 5 or 25 people onboard?

[John Cole]

Cyrus,

"The human population now alive is greater than the total of all people who have ever lived on Earth."

Isn't there something wrong with this?

However, a stat from Harper's Index a few years ago: 20% of all people who have ever lived past the age of sixty-five are alive today. To which a student writer added: "and every time I get on the highway, there they are, driving really, really slowly in front of me."

[Cyrus]

C > "The human population now alive is greater than the total of all people who have ever lived on Earth."

JC > "Isn't there something wrong with this?"

Yes, there are.

First, I should have written "...than all the people who have ever lived and died", for the phrase not to be about some infinite series!

Second, yes, there is something terribly wrong indeed, and quite scary, about this situation! I invoke the arithmetic to show that it is all too precarious for us to go on pretending nothing's wrong, but should I have to?

[MMMMMM]

You have a sharp eye, John;-)

Cyrus is quite correct in his correction, though.

Interestingly, from some of my readings (I think this may have been from the wonderful poet and Zen monk, Soen Nakagawa) I recall something along these lines:

"To die is to join the majority."

A poetic expression of something that used to be true.

[andyfox]

My insurance agent was once trying to convince me to buy disability insurance instead of increasing my life insurance. He argued that the statistics showed that I had a much greater chance of being disabled than of dying.

And here I thought I had a 100% chance of dying.