Bush's Historical Position

[BPSCG]

Get a life. "Normal" water has dissolved oxygen in it. Among other things, that's how fish manage to breathe it. If you don't have enough oxygen in the water, the fish die (or they resort to other methods of getting oxygen, such as air-breathing).

"Deoxidized" water is water without dissolved oxygen. I would not recommend using it in your fish tank for the reason above. But there's nothing undrinkable about it. And it's certainly different than elemental hydrogen.

Make fun of the woo-woo claims if you like. But at least get the real science right.

Okay, I'm not a chemist or a physicist. I thought deoxidizing water meant separating the one oxygen atom from the two hydrogen ones.

If oxygen is dissolved in water, does that mean the H2O molecules have free oxygen atoms floating in their midst, that those oxygen atoms don't bond with the H2O molecules?

If that's the case, then how do they make H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide)? (Maybe Chalie monoxide can help me here...)

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Corpse I might be didactic but I am not dogmatic like some, like,,, You! for instance are.

 

[drkitten]

Okay, I'm not a chemist or a physicist. I thought deoxidizing water meant separating the one oxygen atom from the two hydrogen ones.

If oxygen is dissolved in water, does that mean the H2O molecules have free oxygen atoms floating in their midst, that those oxygen atoms don't bond with the H2O molecules?

If that's the case, then how do they make H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide)? (Maybe Chalie monoxide can help me here...)

Yes, if oxygen is dissolved in water, then that means that there are free oxygen molecules floating in their midst. It's basically the same thing as "carbonated water" -- except that if you buy a can of soda, what's dissolved are mostly carbon dioxide molecules. Or, for that matter, lemonade -- except that that has little bits of sugar, and of lemon gook.

Hydrogen peroxide is a different creature altogether, made by chemically combining the oxygen with water or elemental hydrogen, then separating out the water that almost inevitably results as a side product. Actually, making hydrogen peroxide in any quantity is a nasty process, partly because the stuff is so damn reactive, and they usually involve some rather complicated chemicals and catalysts. (A sample quote from the research literature : "The typical catalyst for this operation is palladium, supported on carbon, at about 1 wt %. Palladium catalyzes the reduction of oxygen to peroxide, rather than water, if it is mildly oxidized by the surrounding environment.")

 

[rikzilla]

z -- this is one of those points where I have a real disagreement with you. Arguably, Afghanistan was motivated/justified by the "illumination" of 9/11 as you put it.

However, 9/11 didn't justify Iraq...

I don't believe I said that 9/11 "justified" Iraq. I was just recognizing the fact that the Iraq invasion could not have happened in the pre-9/11 world. There'd have never been support for it. Hell, there was barely any support for it in the post-9/11 world!

-z

 

[a_unique_person]

Did Reagan invade the USSR? All it may take to change some tyrannies into free nations is to challenge them politically and economically. Totalitarian governments have to hold a gun to their people's heads and they have to try and compete in the global economy. They can do both, but not well. That's one of the many reasons free nations out-perform unfree ones.

Reagan shows us that all we really need do is stop coddling dictatorships. Use economic and political pressure against them to change. Strat tying our economic policies to how a regime treats their own peoples. Instead of helping the tyrant hold that gun to the heads of their people, we should make it harder.

Reagan did that with the USSR. Gorbachev responded with more freedoms, "perestroika", the double-thinkers became dissidents almost overnight. The gun arm fell...so did the wall.


-z

Before Gorby, there were others. As I have said before, the best attack the US had against the USSR was that it was free and successful. There was no war with the USA, no one had to die for the USSR to be made free, they chose to be free.

Contrast this with Iraq. By choosing to divide the world, to divide the Muslim countries, to stoke the fires of radicalism, (not just in the Muslim world, but the USA too, which has generals proclaiming they are fighting Satan), the opposite path is being taken.

I am quite happy to let the myth of Reagan taking on and conquering the USSR survive if it keeps people happy, but not if it means the world is plunged into a stupid, reckless war.

 

[a_unique_person]

...and the lesson is we need to stop supporting them. Political stability is not worth the cost of millions living in fear as they do in NK, etc.

It's no fluke that the 19 terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi. The common Saudis likely hate us most for supporting the corrupt Al Saud monarchy. Think about it...to a Saudi living in fear the US must look like the world's greatest hypocrite espousing freedom and democracy while cozying up to Al Saud for cheap oil and political stability.

Maybe that's why they hate us?

-z

It took you this long to realise it, but congratulations.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't believe I said that 9/11 "justified" Iraq. I was just recognizing the fact that the Iraq invasion could not have happened in the pre-9/11 world. There'd have never been support for it. Hell, there was barely any support for it in the post-9/11 world!

-z

There's a stack of evidence that the neo-cons were intent on invading Iraq even before George II was elected. The intention was to create and demonstrate a tight, highly mobile force - not the lumbering 400,000 elephant of the Kuwait War. I think 9/11 was used to accelerate the process - not necessarily a wise decision, since the new force wasn't really ready. The idea was probably to go in a year later, and hit the election on a victory note.

That leaves the persuasion method. WMD and long-range rocket development were still to hand. Non-compliance with UN resolutions. Links to terrorism. Being a generally bad sort. There's no shortage of experts in mass deception to get the message across.

 

[BPSCG]

You sound like you're trying to say that collapses cause democracy.

I neither said nor meant anything of the kind. The collapse of a dictatorship doesn't cause democracy. Lots of times it causes a new dictatorship. But until a dictatorship is destroyed, there can be no democracy. And diplomatic sweet talk will never destroy a dictatorship.

The Soviet Union did not collapse due to diplomacy or negotiations or other such niceties. It collapsed because Ronald Reagan recognized that its great military power was supported by a creaky economy and that, like an arteriosclerotic, asthmatic, arthritic old man, if would, if pushed a little, collapse and die. And despite all the warnings from the bedwetting class that we dare not provoke the mighty Soviet war machine, Reagan* did just that, by building up the U.S. military, and lo and behold, the arteriosclerotic, asthmatic, arthritic Soviet economy collapsed and died in the attempt to keep up. (Of course, today, the bedwetters claim they knew it all along...)

All the diplomacy in the world was not going to change the Soviet Union. Dictators never, repeat, NEVER give up their power simply because nice diplomats persuaded them of the error of their ways. Dictators give up power when they die or get on the last flight out of town.

Bush** understands this, and after September 11, and after Afghanistan and after Libya and after the Iraq elections, more and more people around the world are finally beginning to understand it, too.

*That amiable dunce.
* Another amiable dunce.

 

[rikzilla]

It took you this long to realise it, but congratulations.

Fair enough, but when are you going to realise that Bush, Howard, and Blair are doing more to bring freedom and human rights to the ME than any so-called liberals ever have or ever will?

Liberals should be in the lead on this stuff...instead they're all busy criticizing the US, Israel, etc on human rights abuses and wartime measures like the PA.

When are you guys gonna get some moral clarity? It's easy to criticize a free nation that abuses human rights some of the time, but liberals too often give a free pass to regimes that abuse human rights all the time.

-z

 

[BPSCG]

Fair enough, but when are you going to realise

Careful, Rik - you're starting to spell like the Aussies...

It's easy to criticize a free nation that abuses human rights some of the time, but liberals too often give a free pass to regimes that abuse human rights all the time.

Bravo.

 

[rikzilla]

Careful, Rik - you're starting to spell like the Aussies...
Bravo.

I have an English wife,...so I reserve the right to intersperse my s'es and zed's like a dual national!

(err...did I really say "zed"?? yikes!)

-zee

 

[corplinx]

Fair enough, but when are you going to realise that Bush, Howard, and Blair are doing more to bring freedom and human rights to the ME than any so-called liberals ever have or ever will?

Bush, Howard, Blair are the liberals. Since their foreign policy isn't leftist oriented many people have trouble reconciling that since they usually interchange leftist/liberal.

The american leftist has turned into the foreign policy conservative. I have a feeling it deeply perturbs many.

 

[dano]

Hey dano
Welcome to the forum, hope you enjoy Your stay.
Issue dependent argument is a wise way to approach life here.
You will find however that even on this self described forum of "skeptics" there are many ( tho fewer then on most boards) who's advocey is concrete and will not be swayed by contrary evidence or argument. Such as the homeopathy threads , the Israeli VS Palestinian and the Deists VS non-believers threads . You will see their intransigence after a few dialogs. For instance You may not critique Bush without invoking the specter of Clinton , who BTW for all who live in never-land has been out of office for 5 years! That's 1825 days against Sylvia Browne's paltry 1246 days! Sorry , inside joke anyway, Its usually the same people so ...

This is unfortunately becoming a very common occurrence. While it's hardly unprecedented in history that large segments of the population hold intransigient positions, to me the problem seems to have worsened considerably over the last two decades, and most especially under this administration. Bush's intolerance of dissent and contempt for other people's opinions is well documented all the way back through his days as Texas governor, and this alarms and annoys me more than any other characteristic. I'd never before been a political active person, and during the 2000 election my family and I were living over in Amsterdam, so we were more or less spectators in Europe. I can recall prevailing opinions being expressed that there seemed to be so little actual difference between the two candidates, and that it hardly mattered which one won. I had little reason to dispute that at the time. How very different things are now. I'm a registered independent, and a firm believer that neither the "left" or the "right" hold all the answers to everything. But I've become vehemently anti-Bush, primarily because of his history of secrecy, intolerance of dissent, and contempt of others' opinions. Those characterstics are fatal to a democratic society if they become institutionalized, and you risk that if it's the common practice of your leadership. Given the current soft tack taken by much of today's Ruper Murdoch-dominated media, it's highly unlikely we'll ever see a real investigation into this administration's activities a la Watergate. It certainly happened to Clinton, but you'll never see that against Bush in today's climate. I hold sincere doubts that there's no reason for it; these people are far more skilled at covering their tracks. Nixon, by the way, was a far better statesman and diplomat than W ever was, despite his paranoia and desperate need to hold power (the latter of which is likely a common characteristic of our presidents).

 

[BPSCG]

Bush's intolerance of dissent and contempt for other people's opinions is well documented

Glad to hear it's "well documented." Please provide us with documentation for the number of people who have been jailed for expressing disagreement with Bush, the number of websites like www.democraticunderground.org and www.moveon.org shut down, and the number of newspapers and TV and radio news stations like Air America that have had their doors shuttered by the government since January 20, 2001.

today's Ruper Murdoch-dominated media,

Please tell me which of the following news media sources Rupert Murdoch "dominates":

The New York Times
The Los Angeles Times
The Washington Post
ABC News
NBC News
CBS News
Fox News
CNN
MS-NBC
PBS
Time-Warner Communications

 

[corplinx]

This is unfortunately becoming a very common occurrence. While it's hardly unprecedented in history that large segments of the population hold intransigient positions, to me the problem seems to have worsened considerably over the last two decades, and most especially under this administration.

I agree wholeheartedly. The most annoying thing is that its most often brought up by the people who suffer from it worst, like TillEulenspiegel. Its really funny to me that these physicians can't cure themselves.

Seriously, there are only a few dogmatic 100 predictable people on the forum and the ones I don't have on ignore are typically from Australia and for some reason have strong feelings about a country in the middle east called Israel.

 

[rikzilla]

But I've become vehemently anti-Bush, primarily because of his history of secrecy, intolerance of dissent, and contempt of others' opinions.

Well Dano, you're really going to need to show that #1. Bush is more secretive than other US Presidents or world leaders. and #2. That such proven secrecy is suggestive of some morally wrong conspiracy instead of being indicative simply of a nation at war.

You'll also need to show not only his intolerance of dissent, but how that intolerance is wrong. After all Randi is intolerant of the nuts that think they control the world with their minds as well as other overtly stupid and untestable claims...is this wrong? Please provide some info about dissent that Bush was intolerant of. I work in DC and see open dissent all the time, however it is no crime to ignore opinons one finds objectionable, silly, or unfounded.

It seems clear to me that these issues you have with Bush are more of personal taste that actual substance.

Those characterstics are fatal to a democratic society if they become institutionalized, and you risk that if it's the common practice of your leadership.

LOL! You're not overstating things just a tad are you? "Fatal" to democracy?? Maybe it's just me, but I haven't had a visit from the secret police yet...have you?

Given the current soft tack taken by much of today's Ruper Murdoch-dominated media, it's highly unlikely we'll ever see a real investigation into this administration's activities a la Watergate.

You sound like a person who's read too many conspiracy theories. Rupert Murdoch does not control the mainstream media. He did not tell Dan Rather to publicize false evidence against Bush. He does not dictate opinion to the NYT, WaPo, LAT, or Salon. Do I think FoxNews is biased? Sure I do, they wear it right out on their sleeve. But so what, bias is everywhere!

Besides, you are missing the entire point by a mile. Watergate was the investigation of a crime. The burglary of the DNC offices in the Watergate building. Now please explain what crime Bush's admin needs to be investigated for?

It certainly happened to Clinton, but you'll never see that against Bush in today's climate. I hold sincere doubts that there's no reason for it; these people are far more skilled at covering their tracks. Nixon, by the way, was a far better statesman and diplomat than W ever was, despite his paranoia and desperate need to hold power (the latter of which is likely a common characteristic of our presidents).

Of course it happened to Clinton! First he was hounded by the "independent council"...guess which party first came up with the bright idea of the "Independent Council"??

The Independent Counsel Act was inspired by the perceived lesson of Watergate. Participants in the events of those days typically saw that lesson as follows: when faced with malfeasance at the highest level of government, the system failed. Our highest elected officials were implicated in the scandal, and the Department of Justice had proven itself incapable of adequate response. In confirming Elliot Richardson as the next Attorney General, Congress demanded appointment of a special prosecutor, and Archibald Cox was so appointed. However, the Saturday Night Massacre proved that the special prosecutor still served at the whim of the President. The resulting crisis, many concluded, demonstrated that the system needed change so that it could better respond to the next crisis. The Independent Counsel Act was the solution to the problem, establishing an in-place mechanism outside the Justice Department for the investigation and prosecution of high level government crimes.

The Link

It was enacted in 1978...(James Earl Carter). It must be renewed by Congress every 5 years. So, the evil Kenneth Starr was really just the unintended step-child of well-meaning Democrats.

Funny that.

Let's continue....Kenneth Starr deposed President Clinton and the President did old Ken the service of perjuring himself. Lying under oath is a crime dano. It maters not if you're lying about WMD's or a blow-job. If you lie under oath you have comitted a crime just as real and tangible as the Watergate break-in.

This is the salient point most Dem's miss. Sure it was only a BJ... but that makes no difference. It was perjury, and perjury is a crime.

Again, in the interests of fair comparison, I ask you for Bush's crime. You'll need real evidence, so be careful.

-z

 

[CapelDodger]

This is unfortunately becoming a very common occurrence. While it's hardly unprecedented in history that large segments of the population hold intransigient positions, to me the problem seems to have worsened considerably over the last two decades ...

A big problem, I think, is that outdated antagonisms are being projected onto a much-changed world. The old Western dominance - and how many of us spend a lot of time conversing with non-Westerners? - of world affairs is much further down the slope than most people realise. The divide of worker/capital is less central to economic and social questions. Perceptions of nationalism et al versus individualism have changed. But most people, rather than re-assess their world-view in the light of reality, retreat into a laager of defensiveness. Everything must be made to fit into a familiar format, or everything might fall apart. The final redoubt is fundamentalism, of whatever sort.

Meanwhile younger generations, growing up in the new reality, develop a "whatever" attitude to the world except on single issues they relate to, woo-woos pocket the cheques, and nobody really knows what they're supposed to be defending any more. Suspension of habeus corpus in defence of freedom? What was all that "progress" crap I was fed in school?

 

[WildCat]

Which brings to mind Jesse Jackson. Maybe he could give them advice for how to leverage block voting. After all, blacks here are what, 10% of the electorate? Yet they vote democratic and are adminstered massive BJ's for their trouble. They have to be smart, not whiners.

Ed, you truly are a God! This is the best idea EVER!! Send Jesse to Iraq, assure him there will be lots of TV cameras there. Hell, I'll buy the plane ticket. Brilliant, just brilliant!!

 

[Batman Jr.]

Bush** understands this, and after September 11, and after Afghanistan and after Libya and after the Iraq elections, more and more people around the world are finally beginning to understand it, too.

Actually, he didn't. He didn't go into Iraq for the purpose of "freeing" them, but rather because they were supposedly an "imminent threat" with all of their imaginary WMDs. He went into Afghanistan because that's where Al Qaeda bases itself. Don't be a historical revisionist to make your guy look better than he really is. The whole liberation spiel was an ad hoc explanation for going in when the first rationale failed him. And even if military occupation were the best way to liberate them, which it is not, commending Bush for his course of action is like calling the monkey pounding away at the umpteenth typewriter that managed to crank out "Hamlet" by accident a genius on par with Shakespeare.

Originally posted by BPSCG
The Soviet Union did not collapse due to diplomacy or negotiations or other such niceties. It collapsed because Ronald Reagan recognized that its great military power was supported by a creaky economy and that, like an arteriosclerotic, asthmatic, arthritic old man, if would, if pushed a little, collapse and die. And despite all the warnings from the bedwetting class that we dare not provoke the mighty Soviet war machine, Reagan* did just that, by building up the U.S. military, and lo and behold, the arteriosclerotic, asthmatic, arthritic Soviet economy collapsed and died in the attempt to keep up. (Of course, today, the bedwetters claim they knew it all along...)

So you mean that Iraq was such an overwhelmingly virile nation that it couldn't have eventually succumbed to browbeating as the USSR did? I think you "misoverestimated" the previous regime's power.

 

[WildCat]

Actually, he didn't. He didn't go into Iraq for the purpose of "freeing" them, but rather because they were supposedly an "imminent threat" with all of their imaginary WMDs.

This is really very annoying. There were multiple reasons given for going into Iraq. That it was an "imminent threat" wasn't one of them. In fact, it was specifically stated in the 2003 SOTU address that it wasn't an imminent threat. There's plenty of valid reasons to be against the war, making up lies about the reasons Bush justified the war, or pretending there was only one reason (WMD's) tends to undermine your argument. Revisionism, indeed.