What Should We Do about the Islamo-Terrorists?

Introduction 

As of February, 2015, there are a number of Islamo-Terrorist groups, such as ISIL and Al Qaeda. These groups seemingly want the entire world to convert to their perverted view of Islam. Those that don't have frequently been murdered. Of course, on 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda murdered 3000 innocent Americans. Recently, ISIL burned alive a Jordanian pilot and recorded it so it could be posted on the Internet. And they just murdered a number of Coptic Orthodox Christians in Egypt. The Jordanian and Egyptian governments, along with the rest of the world, were horrified by this and are attempting to track down and kill the perpetrators, who have murdered tens of thousands of innocents.

These terrorists have even attacked schools and murdered school children in Chechnya, the Middle East, and North Africa. Their heinous murders of innocent men, women and children seem incomprehensible to us, especially since they believe they are doing this in God's name. 

What should the United States NOT do about this?

A recent CBS poll shows that a majority of Americans, about 57%,  now believe we should send ground troops into the Middle East and Northern Africa to defeat ISIL. (See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/majority-of-americans-now-support-us-troops-on-the-ground-against-isis-10061247.html).

This would be a woeful mistake.

Since 9/11 our intelligence agencies and the FBI have thwarted most terrorist attacks in the United States. The ones that have succeeded were awful, yet resulted in relatively few deaths.

The job of the United States government is to protect the United States. It is NOT to be the policemen of the world.

While we all empathize with the tremendous suffering caused by these terrorists, dealing with them should be done by the countries whose citizens are murdered or controlled by them. After all, we did not ask Jordan, Syria, Great Britain or any other country to send troops to the United States after 9/11.

So what should the United States do?

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.” 

Thomas Jefferson

We should have cordial relations with all countries or groups who act peacefully.  No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will regret it.  “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be.  This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions. 

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow.  What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same.

And what this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place.

So what should the United States military do?

The United States military and intelligence agencies should defend the USA if it is attacked, and to attempt to prevent an attack against us. 

This also includes eliminating or incarcerating those who have already attacked us.

(A possible addition to this is that if a close ally of ours is attacked, and if they request our assistance, and if we are able to help, we should carefully consider whether to use our military to aid the ally). 

Specifically, we should not send ground troops to other countries unless we are at war because we were attacked.

Rather, we should use our intelligence-gathering capabilities and our Special Forces to attempt to locate threats to the United States. When threats are found, we should eliminate them. 

I approve of the current way the Obama administration is doing this, by directing drones to eliminate such targets, or to bomb them.

I am also in favor of bringing the troops home that we have stationed in over 100 bases in other countries.

Some of these troops can be used to protect our porous borders and ports, further enhancing our safety.
  
But when hunting down terrorists, who can move from place to place and country to country, using our ground troops to fight them puts our soldiers in harms' way, which I do not wish to happen to protect other countries. 

What should the countries whose citizens are attacked do? 

The Arab League consists of about twenty countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The population of these countries is almost 400 million, more than the US population. 

So they have the people to take on and eliminate the terrorists themselves, if they would cooperate with each other. And it they aren't willing to cooperate, that is none of our business.

Conclusion 

The United States military should protect the United States. Other countries have the right and duty to protect their own citizens.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

We Have Nothing to Fear about Global Warming Except for the Fear of Global Warming Itself

Introduction 

First I wish to apologize for not using the much more scientific term 'climate change' instead of the term 'global warming'. The reasons for this are simple. The climate has always changed throughout Earth's history. Thus, everyone believes in climate change. Also, the Earth has not warmed or cooled significantly since around the turn of the century, and those climate scientists and politicians who keep telling us to be alarmed, much prefer the term 'climate change', to keep from being embarrassed.

Enough having fun at the expense our beleaguered climate scientists.

Since my last post on global warming, not much has changed about what the climate data shows: The Earth is warming at a rate of less than 2C per century.

A warming of 2 to 3C might be better for humanity, so maybe we should be celebrating. 

What does the current data show?

I've looked at the temperature data from many sources, and as mentioned in the introduction, the actual data shows a warming at a rate of less than 2C per century.

And the climate models, which take many decades to verify, have mostly been wrong so far. Here's a telling graph that gives actual data compared with the predictions of 90 climate models:

 

The actual data are the blue and green dots. The black dots are an average of the climate model predictions. The actual data shows about a 0.4C increase over the last 30 years, which extrapolates to about a 1.4C increase over a century.

 

According to this chart of actual satellite and surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated actual temperatures. 

So when you hear the, “95 percent of scientists believe in global warming” talking point, you can now reply with “95 percent of reality thinks your climate models are garbage." (Credit to Sean Davis for this creative reply).

And therein lies the real reason why so many global warming alarmists are so desperate to change the terms of the debate. Rather than discuss the actual science, they’d rather marginalize anyone who disagrees with their policy prescriptions. 

The global warming alarmists aren’t attempting to shut down debate because they’re worried the dissenters are wrong; the alarmists are attempting to shut down debate because they know their models are wrong, and they’d rather nobody focus on that inconvenient little fact. 

What should we tell the plants? 

Tell them that our scientists at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) have declared that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Tell the plants that the EPA must have forgotten what they learned in 9th grade biology about the Oxygen Cycle and how plants absorb CO2 and give off oxygen, which animals tend to breathe in on occasion. 

What should we do now? 

Don't give in to any of the 'carbon tax' proposals. And don't lose sleep over your 'carbon footprint'. 

But go ahead and support cost-effective conservation efforts, and support the reduction of real pollutants such as mercury and lead.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________