The Puppet President ?

[december]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**I would not compare Bush to Hitler. HOWEVER…some of the dictators we have supported-Somoza, Pinochet, etc etc…really aren’t that much better.
**

Guina – Pinochet deserves condemnation for torturing and killing several thousand people, although with a partial excuse that he was in effect fighting a civil war against Communists who may have been even worse. On the positive side, he did give up his dictatorship voluntarily and he left Chile in excellent economic shape and with a democratic government.

Hitler murdered about 100,000,000 people! The point isn’t whether Pinochet and Somoza were better than Hitler, but that Hitler was much, much worse than they were, by a difference of around a hundred million murders.

[Guinastasia]

D’uh, of course they were. But still, slaughter of innocents, is, well, slaughter of innocents.

Also, what about Stalin, who we also were allied with?

I’m not saying that we’re as dangerous as Hitler; just that the US has a habit of supporting any brutal thug who declares himself against communism.

[Lemur866]

And how exactly does the fact that the US has supported pro-Western dictators over pro-Soviet dictators put George Bush in the same category has Hitler?

Gee, George Bush’s decisions could turn out to have bad consequences. So could anyone’s. Tony Blair’s decisions could have unforseen horrific consequences. Does that mean he should be compared to Hitler? Jean Chretien’s decisions could have unforseen horrific consequences. Does that mean he should be compared to Hitler? Yassir Arafat’s decisions could have unforseen horrific consequences. Does that mean he should be compared to Hitler?

Comparing political figures to Hitler, simply because you disagree with their political stances, is at best counterproductive. What the OP is saying is that opposing the Kyoto treaty is morally equivalant to Nazism. If so, then he’s accusing half this message board of Nazism, including me. Excuse me if that enrages me slightly.

[december]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
What the OP is saying is that opposing the Kyoto treaty is morally equivalant to Nazism. If so, then he’s accusing half this message board of Nazism…

and 95 US Senators also.

[andros]

Sheesh.

headshok had it pegged exactly from the third post in the thread. Godwin’s Law has destroyed any meaningful debate here.

Now, if I mention that G.H.W. Bush was in charge of the US-sponsored Allende assassination which put Pinochet into power, the only response will be “but how does that make anyone a Nazi?” Duh. It doesn’t. If I say that Augosto Pinochet was a cold, brutal, evil man who murdered his own people in a decades-long regime of terror, the only response will be “but he wasn’t as bad as Hitler.” Duh. No shit.
But I can address the OP.

Any US President has the power to be the most dangerous person in the world. Is Mr. Bush currently dangerous? Well, sure, just as an elephant or a lorry or a tall building can be dangerous. He has power and a will to use it. That makes him dangerous.

Is he going to break the world? Likely not. Is he going to cause another World War? Likely not. Is he a direct threat to global peace and stability? Likely not.

[Balduran]

Hijack , but I can’t let this pass,

Pinochet deserves condemnation for torturing and killing several thousand people, although with a partial excuse that he was in effect fighting a civil war against Communists who may have been even worse.

There is no excuse, there was no civil war. Allende was peacefully elected. Pinochet was a puppet dictator propped up by the US to lead a coup incited by the US.

[Guinastasia]

For the last time: I am NOT comparing Pinochet and Somoza to Hitler, all right?

I’m not comparing Dubya or any one else to Hitler.

Thank you, Balduran. Allende’s ONLY fault was that he was a Marxist. BTW, he was also a DEMOCRATIC Marxist, who, while a communist, believed in democracy.

For that, the US condemned him.

Pinochet and Somoza.
For crying out loud, driving people into arenas and just having the military fire on them is pretty nasty. The Mothers of the Disappeared, anyone?

[jshore]

*Originally posted by december *

#1 The warming trend has substantial evidence. The globe has been warming since the last ice age.

True, but the rate of change in the last half century is unprecedented and the burdens of CO2 and methane are unprecedented going back over a period of at least 420,000 years. [J.R. Petit et al., Nature 399, 429 (1999)]

#2 The role of human activity has slight evidence, but is controversial.

The current opinion of climate scientists is in the IPCC report where they state that the evidence is quite strong. If by “controversial” you mean that the opinions are not unanimous, then even evolution is controversal. There are a few PhD biologists who believe in young-earth creation theory.

#3 Models do not show that CO2 reduction will make a big difference., as I understand it. And, the models themselves are questionable.

I don’t know where your first statement comes from. Some people argue that Kyoto alone won’t lower emissions enough to make much of a difference. This is true if you assume we just go back to business-as-usual after 2010. However, the whole point of the Protocol is to get us on a new track and to incubate technologies that can be transferred to the rest of the world. These technologies won’t be allowed to flourish in the current market system which subsidizes dirty forms of energy production and inefficient use of energy.

#4 The economic cost would be quite high.

Several studies that I have pointed out in other threads on this subject argue otherwise. I’ve have cited links to them enough times (some of them in threads that I am pretty sure you have been a party in) that I think people will want to kill me if I do it again. There is also an interesting study showing how the costs of complying with environmental controls and bans have historically been overestimated (by the EPA et al., as well as by industry).

#5 The Kyoto Treaty was not going to be ratified.

Thank you for your prognostications. The details were still being negotiated. And, even if it was never officially ratified, a leader with some intelligence could still try to implement many of the changes needed to comply with it.

#6 Some scientists think other approaches are much more effective.

Kyoto is rather flexible in its approach. I.e., it deals not just with CO2 but with greenhouse gases as a whole. The negotiations were still talking about such things as carbon sequestration.

Thank goodness President Bush is haveing serious scientific and economic reviews performed! Then the best policies can be selected.

Such reviews have already been performed. Who knows, maybe he will still show some spine in the end, but chances seem good that the reviews he has planned will take into account more the opinions of the Western Fuels Association than the opinions of the scientists.

**