Loading…
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Current Weather
Loading Current Weather....
Published: Tuesday, 2/6/2007

Questions about global warming

A new Associated Press report says that the world is getting warmer and that humans are to blame. The report also stated that scientists from 113 countries have no doubt that this warming is due to human behavior. If this report is true, then we better do something before we are all doomed, right?

Well, I have some questions.

First question: How did we get scientists from 113 countries working on the same thing? Does the United Nations come to mind?

Second question: Hasn't global climate change been occurring since recorded history? I doubt that man could have made any contribution to global warming before the industrial revolution.

But we sure did have climate change: Ohio used to be covered with ice. I am not alarmed by global climate change. Also, I do not believe that man is causing it.

I am more inclined to believe that the United Nations and other liberal organizations are using this argument to scare the peoples of the world in order to submit to more and bigger governments. This American says, "Just say no to global warming!"

Donald Jones

Oregon

It is truly exciting to know that Hillary Clinton is running for president. George Bush is nothing more than a figurehead for special-interest groups. Turn off the TelePrompter and end the coaching. Mr. Bush would have nothing to say.

Sad when the Republican Party has only the abortion and gay marriage issues to sway and brainwash the so out-of-touch voters.

The latest State of the Union address? Enough. The administration says everything to perpetuate a smoke screen. This do-nothing President and his agenda must be stopped.

I believe Hillary Clinton is the person we need to turn this country around. She is an exciting, modern, very intelligent speaker and candidate. She is a joy to listen to. This will be the most exciting presidential election in the history of politics in the U.S.A.

Wade Born

Streicher Street

Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent trip to Iraq gave her two days of firsthand war experience.

On her way home and now on the campaign trail, she says "If I knew then, what I know now" I would not have voted to give President Bush authorization to go into Iraq.

I think we have all had situations in our lives in which we could apply the same type of statement. So much for the political arena!

Donald O. Harrington

Walbridge

A Readers' Forum contributor asked if Sen. Hillary Clinton is up to the task of being president.

For eight years she did handle the action in the White House. Her husband cheated and lied to her, and not only did family and her close friends know about it, the whole world knew every detail. She held her head up high and now she's running for president of the United States. She's come a long way.

So the answer to the gentleman's question is "yes!"

Linda Shade

Perrysburg

I love The Blade's editorial pages for the range of views offered. Just contrast Lafe Tolliver's Jan. 27 Saturday Essay with that of Thomas Sowell's insightful column on Feb. 1.

Raymond A. Heitger

Darlington Road

By withdrawing or restricting the President's ability to call up troops, we will lose the war in Iraq, which would fall into even more disrepair, requiring future military action.

To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to them so they cannot bring it us. We need to eliminate their headquarters and training camps, and disrupt their financial and arms supply lines, which can only be done by military action.

Ben Konop's thinking has clearly gone awry. How would withdrawing from Iraq put us in a better position to win the war on terror? This would only create a safe haven for radical Islamists, who could then launch direct attacks on the United States. Mr. Konop's call for an end to the war is clearly a political ploy that was given little or no thought.

Stephen Masters

Maumee

I am a serious fan of Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop. but I'm sadly disappointed in the view he put forth in his recent letter to the editor. I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams what gives the young man the vision or knowledge to even compare Iraq to Vietnam or to compare what is occurring now to what happened then.

The two are completely different. The Middle East has a far-reaching history of religious intolerance toward all religions other than Islam, and more so even within their own religion.

Sunni against Shia, there you have the strife that is taking place today. Throw in al-Qaeda to stir the pot on both sides and that is where we are. Vietnam was at best a civil war managed by a bunch of civilian wannabe generals in Washington who decided what we would bomb, when we would bomb, and how we would bomb. I am a retired serviceman who served in Vietnam in 1968-1969 and I can tell that it didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling to be listening to Armed Forces Radio on Christmas Eve and hear that our president had declared a bombing halt for the holidays, and within two minutes we have rockets falling on our position. All this uproar and dissension on the home front does not help our troops at all. We must all support what will help our nation overcome this evil before us.

ROBERT L. McDOUGALL

Utah Street

"America must not fail in Iraq - because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching." (State of The Union, 2007).

Football and basketball fans know what usually happens when a team is more concerned with not losing than with winning. Our troops probably sense our President's pessimism.

President Bush's speechwriters have apparently seen irony in predicting a decisive victory in Iraq. Their "new strategy" sounds like something announced last spring - concentrate military forces to secure Baghdad and suppress insurgency, allowing U.S. troops to begin coming home in autumn 2006. Who wants to wager (a case of St. Pauli Girl) that we begin withdrawing troops from a peaceful, democratic Iraq by January 2008? 2009? Put that in writing in this Forum.

White House strategy is now more about pinning blame for failure in Iraq on liberals, Iraqis, Osama bin Laden (just why is he still at large? Could it be because President Bush needed the troops fighting in Afghanistan to invade and occupy Iraq?), or Bigfoot than winning what even our President's statements and attitude suggest is now, at best, the battle to avoid losing.

"To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred." I agree. What conservatives need to answer: Is the U.S. soldier in Iraq saying, "I'm from the government of the United States and I'm here to help you," credible?

I have no doubt that, individually, our men (including my godson) and women made many friends, but all it takes is one accident, reckless shooting, or bad decision to undo months of building trust with an occupied community. Occupying armies get old and unwelcome faster than house guests or fresh fish. There are better ways.

Why didn't President Bush factor the cost of failure into his decision to invade?

Don Stierman

Meadowwood Drive

As another letter writer noted, driving 50 mph through the construction zone on I-280 is dangerous for everyone on the road. But it is also dangerous for drivers to crawl along at 20 mph. If you're afraid of the construction zone, use the surface roads.

Linda Detrick-Jaegly

Northwood



Guidelines: Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. If a comment violates these standards or our privacy statement or visitor's agreement, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report abuse. To post comments, you must be a Facebook member. To find out more, please visit the FAQ.