The bottom line on sustainability

Climate change, pollution, dwindling natural resources, diminishing fresh water supplies… the list of problems we face as a species in the twenty-first century continues to grow. Many of the environmental problems are sadly our own doing and yet therein lies the solution. We must halt the devastation, reverse the problems. Now, sustainability associate Kaushik Sridhar of the Net Balance Management Group in Sydney, Australia, suggests that enough is enough. Writing in the International Journal of Business Excellence, he suggests that we must turn to sustainability so that we can have enough for all, forever.

Sridhar points out that we must overcome out tendency to waste resources and to expend time and energy on futile attempts to resolve problems associated with whatever is the crisis du jour, depletion, habitat degradation, , over-population. Instead, his research suggests that these problems can only be resolved by society as a whole transitioning quickly and immediately to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm, one in which we live entirely within our means ecologically and economically from now on out. He asserts that given the scale and potential harm of global changes that will arise inevitably if we do not change our wasteful ways to a sustainable stance, any alternative course of action will, at best, only briefly postpone societal collapse.

Despite superficial efforts to make commerce "greener" to adopt so-called and to recycle household and other waste, we are currently in an essentially business-as-usual paradigm one that has perhaps existed since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, but that may stretch back to the prehistoric era when we first napped chunks of flint and started burning trees.

"In recent years, the topic of sustainability has become a high material issue across the globe, and is seen as a way of not only enhancing the overall business practice (from an ethical perspective) but also as a practical method of having a positive impact on the community and the overall environment," explains Sridhar. However, paying lip service to is surely not enough however well intentioned and how well it improves corporate relations with the public. There are three perspectives we must recognize urgently:

We must see the implications of our current environmental and social trends

We must make the intellectual effort to think through systemically how our whole system needs to change for things to come right

We must initiate actions to contribute to the needed change.

Extrapolating current trends leads us to ecological collapse and the unraveling of society, suggests Sridhar, no amount of denial will postpone the inevitable. "Changing the direction of our whole society is the overarching need of our time. If we succeed, future generations will thank us – profoundly," he says.


Explore further

Why are some people greener than others?

More information: Sridhar, K. (2014) 'Sustainability – 'enough for all forever'', Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.454–472. DOI: 10.1504/IJBEX.2014.063561
Citation: The bottom line on sustainability (2014, September 25) retrieved 27 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-09-bottom-line-sustainability.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 25, 2014
"We must make the intellectual effort to think through systemically how our whole system needs to change for things to come right". Really?

"...no amount of denial will postpone the inevitable..." Oh, now accusations and calling names.

OK, I'd rather suggest that the system is infested with too many parasitic "sustainability associate"s. Cleaning it up would improve quality of science.

Sep 25, 2014
Sridhar points out that we must overcome out tendency to waste resources

Apply free market economics and there will be little waste.
There is no profit is waste.

Sep 25, 2014
Most are passive and defer authority to sociopaths. They in turn will eventually ignite thermonuclear war, returning the population to sustainable levels or extinction, the latter being a trivial case of sustainability

Eventually man will evolve into a species of sociopath which will not be easily suckered into dying in sociopath wars, and machines will fight the sociopath wars while each man plots how to conquer the rest of mankind without hurting himself. Earth could sustain a few million sociopaths at most, as the sociopaths will consume all available resources in their greed. AI will evolve to thwart the dumber sociopaths until AI becomes self-aware and decides to become the biggest lying sociopath of all

Sep 25, 2014
A good write-up in the WSJ on Climate Change today:

http://online.wsj...orsPicks


Actually, I'm sorry I gave you a one star. The article is a fascinating read by a real horse's bud of a physicist turned denier. The man carries some clout, but his reading of the climate change problem is in the pits of stupid.


Sep 26, 2014
Apply free market economics and there will be little waste.
There is no profit is waste.

So the great Pacific garbage patch exists because markets are not free enough? Are there regulations making people throw away plastic? And free market forces encourage extracting mercury from coal power plants emissions, even when it's cheaper to mine the stuff?

Sep 26, 2014
Apply free market economics and there will be little waste.

Are you aware what a free market does that is allowed to dump waste products instead of being forced to recycle them?
Look around you. The results are there for you to see: from your local waste dump, to polluted rivers to huge patches of plastivc swimming in the oceans, to entire landscapes contaminated to global warming.

Free markets did all this. They are anathema to getting to a 'no waste' state.

Sep 26, 2014
allowed to dump waste products i

Allowed by whom?


Sep 26, 2014
"Along the river, there is a factory that dumps the waste from its production process. Downstream are homeowners who use the river for recreational purposes, possibly fishing or swimming. The factory waste renders the river unsuitable or less useful for those purposes. The central problem here is that the rights to the river are not clearly defined. The public-policy issue involves who should have those rights or how they should be divided. It should be noted that the idea of privatizing rivers or sections of rivers is not new. Early American Indian tribes had clearly defined and enforced property rights to sections of many rivers. State governments nullified those rights."
http://www.fee.or...e-market

Sep 26, 2014
"Under MBE, government authorities deem a level of effluent emissions, the amount of recycled paper in grocery bags, or some other outcome a desirable goal. Individual behavior is then manipulated to achieve the goal. MBE policies are meant to control markets by altering the incentive structure—that is, individual decision-making—in order to thwart the outcomes of free-market activity.

Even the free-market advocate and chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, Murray Weidenbaum, has argued, "the environmental pollution problem is not the negative task of punishing wrongdoers. Rather, the challenge is a very positive one: to alter people's incentives."[2]"
http://www.fee.or...e-market

Sep 26, 2014
"the environmental pollution problem is not the negative task of punishing wrongdoers. Rather, the challenge is a very positive one: to alter people's incentives."

Are we back to your old standby, that everything must be owned and that owners are entitled to sue anyone who affects their property to make them stop or pay compensation? That's just regulation by courts instead of government, and the property rights you like would impose much more severe constraints on markets than the heaviest regulation now. By the way, who decides what property rights will be enforced? You?

Oh, and you need that court-enforced regulation because there IS profit in waste, contrary to your earlier claim here.

Sep 26, 2014
Are we back to your old standby, that everything must be owned and that owners are entitled to sue anyone who affects their property to make them stop or pay compensation?


Why not give it a try, again?

That's just regulation by courts instead of government,

Courts are part of the govt in the USA.
This is a bottom up regulation instead of a top down regulation.
Top down regulation benefits those withe deep pockets and political connections and advances the power of the regulatory socialist state.
Bottom up regulation by protecting private property rights benefits the individual owners and places the govt and rent seeking cronies subservient to the individual.


Sep 26, 2014
Why not give it a try, again?

For the reasons I have explained before and which you continue to ignore.

Bottom up regulation by protecting private property rights benefits the individual owners and places the govt and rent seeking cronies subservient to the individual.

To prevent property rights havens, which exploit the same common goods problems as tax havens today (it only works for small groups who skim profits made from larger groups), you would need a world government to apply the same property rights everywhere. You admitted that is politically impossible, and therefore your proposal is no more a solution than simply to declare "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". It's both moonbeams: poetic, but impractical. And such property rights havens could arise from the bottom up, creating a small group that seeks rents by attracting businesses to a lax property rights environment.

Sep 27, 2014
"The best line of defense against environmental damage is property rights, and the lack of property rights is one of the reasons that environmental devastation has been so severe in those unhappy parts of the world in which socialism has prevailed: If nobody owns the land or the water rights, then nobody can sue for damages when Big Socialist Oil dumps chemicals in the river. If the polluters and the regulators are on the same side — in the same party — expect narrow self-interest to trump everything else. You can sue Exxon; the people behind Sinopec have nuclear weapons.

And Exxon has never operated a gulag of which I am aware."
http://www.nation...page/0/1

Sep 27, 2014
On the WSJ article I got a far as "not settled."
Of course, though many of you can go on believing my being delusioned, but nothing regarding climate change has surprised me in 30 years, or before. Prediction means you understand it, and it is settled.
Most are passive and defer authority to sociopaths. They in turn will eventually ignite thermonuclear war, returning the population to sustainable levels or extinction, the latter being a trivial case of sustainability

Eventually man will evolve into a species...

Though this is extreme, I'd like you all to consider the concept, not matter of what kochevnik is saying. There is wisdom in it.

I am convinced (more germane to the article) our current panic in the Middle East is because our allies are running out of oil, and our "enemies" won't sell it to us.

Sep 27, 2014
This article is a red herring. Western financial system is already bankrupt. Only the loan has not yet been called. Soon Chinese will redeem their silver and gold on COMEX, which in turn will bankrupt taking Wall Street down with it. In parallel Saudis will abandon the petrodollar and sell directly in yuan, causing a liquidation of Tbills used to fund USA government debt. Russia will of course go along with China in liquidation given hatred spewed by average American Joe six pack

Earth will be given a respite while the elite create another ponzi scheme. Man's creations are unsustainable given the propensity of most to follow the few, who are in turn charming sociopaths or unelected decision makers working for their own self-interest. Once man can feel the pain of his feet cracking, disease raving his body, the cold biting his extremities he will once again realize that nature ultimately cares more for him than his fellow man, but she is a bitch when spited

Sep 27, 2014
our current panic in the Middle East is because our allies are running out of oil, and our "enemies" won't sell it to us.


What panic?

There is plenty of oil and gas in the US.

And there is plenty of nuclear power for those with the courage to use it.

Sep 27, 2014
@ryggy
Ah, but who owns those companies fracking our country and taking its oil?

Panic, we're bombing a bunch of people in countries that won't sell us oil, that's the panic.

OK, kochevnik may be wise, but he's crazy to, ;)

Sep 27, 2014
who owns those companies fracking our country and taking its oil?

"Continental Resources (NYSE: CLR) is a Top 10 independent oil producer in the United States. Based in Oklahoma City, Continental is the largest leaseholder and producer in the nation's premier oil field, the Bakken play of North Dakota and Montana. The Company also has significant positions in Oklahoma, including its recently discovered SCOOP play and the Northwest Cana play. "
http://www.contres.com/about

'taken'?
You mean sold.

Sep 27, 2014
we're bombing a bunch of people in countries that won't sell us oil,

How much oil is Syria NOT selling us?
How much oil is Iraq not selling us?
ISIS is selling oil from its stolen wells to anyone who will buy at $25/bbl.
"Brent crude held near $97 a barrel on Friday but headed for its biggest monthly drop since April 2013 as rising supplies outweighed fears that U.S.-led strikes against Islamist militants in Syria and Iraq would disrupt oil production."
http://www.nbcnew...-n212186

Sep 27, 2014
"The drop in oil prices to their lowest in two years has caught many observers off guard, coming against a backdrop of the worst violence in Iraq this decade, heightened tensions between the West and Russia, and sanctions against Iran.

But as rising supplies of North American crude and tepid demand have pushed prices below $100 a barrel, the move underlies how the shale oil revolution is creating a political and economic advantage for Washington and its Western allies."
""The Russians are very exposed to lower oil prices. We don't know to what extent it will influence their behavior in Ukraine, but they're certainly going to feel pressure on their budget.""
http://www.busine...r-2014-9

Sep 28, 2014
"Panic, we're bombing a bunch of people in countries that won't sell us oil, that's the panic"
Do you ever read the paper or watch the news on tv? are you trying to say that you think isis is a big conspiracy by the un and world governments?

Sep 28, 2014
@js

For the last four years we've been pushed by TV to go to war with Syria, last year it was chemical weapons, providentially after the line was drawn. I don't even remember the other reasons before they were so bogus. This time the US people were not even asked.

Well do the balance sheet:
100,000 Syrian non-combatant refugees.
Oil wells and other non tactical targets.
Historically 100000 refugees means (7%) 7000 slain.
No figures on combatants

On our side:
Three decapitations that OBVIOUSLY could not accomplish anything but enrage, done by people in facemasks and body suits.
A couple of plots and some hatemail.

All from a country that didn't pose any threat to us before we killed 500000 (Iraqis) and decimated its military capability.

You tell me.

Let me tell you about another war decimated country that had its economy ruined by the victors. In it arose a man, in any other place he's be dismissed as a loon, but in Germany...

We've created that situation again. Good hatin'.

Sep 28, 2014
from a country that didn't pose any threat to us

Really?

Let me tell you about another war decimated country that had its economy ruined by the victors. In it arose a man, in any other place he's be dismissed as a loon, but in Germany...


Which is why the US still has bases in Germany, Japan and Korea.

The lesson of WWII was ignored by Obama and the 'liberals'.

Sep 28, 2014
"In the summer of 2007, Bush warned of the dire consequence of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq against the advice of our commanders on the ground. All of Washington was telling Bush that the surge he had launched would fail and that the time had come to withdraw from Iraq and accept defeat. "
""I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we're ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we'd be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.""
http://www.washin...raq-pull

Sep 28, 2014
"since Obama withdrew U.S. troops all of these warnings have come true. In Iraq, we are seeing what happens when the United States cuts and runs and allows evil to run rampant. The results were entirely predictable.

Indeed, they were predicted — by George W. Bush. "
http://www.washin...ory.html

Sep 28, 2014
The "free market" is an illusion made up by us. Nature knows nothing about a "free market", which is determined by psychology anyway, and your politics.

Sustainability may be at odds with Capitalism, the worship of money, which is not natural and cannot feed you in the woods or desert.

We lived for several million years with no "free market", but cannot exist without a supportive and complimentary environment to clean our water, make our Oxygen and provide us with food.

Sep 28, 2014
Rigg is quoting Bush? I thought those Bush Voters were all Tea Folk now who had NOTHING to do with that loser. I saw how all the bush stickers came off the cars during the Great Republican Econonic Meltdown.

Does this mean the Republicans are ready to admit their error and to PAY for those Bush wars of Mass Killing and Corporate Profit?

Sep 28, 2014
"Their was one man who could bring peace to Iraq, and we hung him."
This situation was predicted as soon as the US went in. There can be no good time to withdraw; as a result of an attack by Saudi Arabia, the US attacked Iraq, on the pretense of weapons that were never found.

Let me introduce you to Terrorism 101:
Let's YOU and HIM fight.
We seem to be inundated with every rule of terrorism but this one.

We either annex it, or we can leave anytime.
You sit in your comfortable home, and you don't see the wounds you've unjustly inflicted on these people, while the instigators remain unpunished, yet running out out oil.

I think those countries will eventually realize the only thing keeping them in US good graces is the oil, after that, they may be moved on to the list. After all, the message from Fox and CNN says what? "I'm a Christian and Muslims are evil and we need to exterminate these Muslim terrorists."

I notice you ignored the balance sheet. Inconvenient reality?

Sep 28, 2014
Our ability to oppress our enemies also becomes a question of sustainability.

When do we start leading with the olive branch?

Sep 28, 2014
The "free market" is an illusion made up by us.

No, it's a descriptive term meaning the market is free from artificial govt intervention.
Free markets must comply and be consistent with nature.

the worship of money,

Money is a tool. Given how the socialists must plunder money, it is they who must worship money. Capitalists understand money is a tool for wealth creation.

We lived for several million years with no "free market",

How many 'we's? Not many and did not live very well.

Free markets economies have cleaner environments because the participants value property rights and understand the economics of conserving resources.
Socialists only value power and abuse the environment to keep power.

Sep 28, 2014
Rygg seems to be lost in the Middle School paragraph put there by the Chamber of Commerce. Since he is mesmerized and completely captivated by money and himself, we should just leave him alone with his money.

Did he forget that in the free market one is supposed to PAY for things? You owe us over $4,000,000,000,000 for your brutal Bush Wars of Mass Killing. Yeah, the ones the Democrats let you perpetrate. That excuse of complicity by others did not work at Nuremberg.

Sep 28, 2014
You owe us

Who is 'us'?

Sep 28, 2014
Did you "forget" to PAY for your Bush Wars? How about the Bush Police State? How about the Great Republican Economic Meltdown wherein we lost 40% of the value of America?

You worship money, but refuse to PAY for anything, like Rand, the professional parasite who died on Public Assistance on purpose.

Sep 28, 2014
Money IS a tool. One that has ceased to fulfill it's function.
Tools ALLOW you to do things.
Lately money has been used as a tool to prevent people from doing things.
We can't fix damage from natural disasters, Katrina, mass tornadoes. No money.
We can't maintain a retirement system, or healthcare. Too expensive.
We can't invest in technology. Software is cheaper.

But we have money to displace 100000 (still early I admit), kill 500000 in wars over oil, instigated by countries selling us oil... and delude ourselves into thinking they invited it because of propaganda.

I think that's the real debt we'll have to pay. You expect people to forget the blood and organs of their loved ones based on decisions of those in their comfortable armchairs.

Sep 28, 2014
"I think that's the real debt we'll have to pay. You expect people to forget the blood and organs of their loved ones based on decisions of those in their comfortable armchairs."
-----------------------------------------

Bush and Cheney had comfortable armchairs in their Undisclosed Locations?

Sep 28, 2014
Once again, sustainability is an issue of survival, not wealth accumulation. It does not have to include an economy.

We can live without an economy, and did for several million years. But we cannot survive without a supportive environment to clean our water, make our Oxygen, and provide us with food.

Capitalists must wake up, and realize they are living in an artificial world. If we are to survive, it the environment be the first priority, not the relative wealth of the already-rich.

Sep 28, 2014
ok... i have some serious questions for WaterProphet
as a result of an attack by Saudi Arabia, the US attacked Iraq, on the pretense of weapons that were never found.
what are you referring to?

Sep 28, 2014
He is referring to the 15 Saudi in the 17 9/11 agents. Friends of Bush. "WMD!".

Sep 28, 2014
We can live without an economy, and did for several million years.

No, we did not.

the Great Republican Economic Meltdown

You mean the socialist's economic meltdown that began over 100 years ago with the creation of the Federal Reserve to the community reinvestment act to the FDIC to Fannie Mae to ....
If we are to survive, it the environment be the first priority

Capital is the capitalist's first priority. Capital is required for profit. Capitalists do not want to destroy capital. The environment is capital. No farmer wants to destroy his capital (land).
Socialists don't care about their capital so they will suck it dry as fast as they can like any parasite.

Sep 28, 2014
The bottom line on sustainability: Fascism.

"There is nothing wrong with high-density housing or non-automobile mobility per se. The problem is that sustainability advocates use government to force their vision of tomorrow on others and, equally important, use government to restrict or eliminate alternative visions from being adopted. Individual private-property rights and local decision making give way to the priorities of international, national, state, and regional governmental bodies influenced by urban planners who believe their vision of the next 50 to 100 years is the correct vision and the only vision worth pursuing. Anyone who thinks differently, according to the planners, is wrong, selfish, wasteful, or all three, and must be silenced."
http://blog.indep...lopment/

Sep 28, 2014
I am referring to Usama bin Laden being a Saudi, with semi-royal ties to the throne. Also the attackers were Saudi.

Sep 28, 2014
Don't know much about Saudi Arabia.
It is a very unstable place with over 3000 members of the royal family. Some well-to-do support terrorists. Some don't.
The bin Ladin Group is a construction company and had most of the business building the country.
Immediately after 9/11/01 the Family fled to Switzerland just in case and they are always prepared to bug-out.

Sep 28, 2014
Capitalism is but a step in our necessary evolution.
Capitalism without competition is worse than communism.

Think about this, the Trumps, the Gateses the successful people of the world have been shown to have a few properties:

They are slightly below average intelligence.
They are willing to do the same thing over and over again for profit.
They are well organized.
And they all, in the colloquial, "are compensating for something." He some manic modus for their drive.

Are these really the kinds of people you want running the world?

These kinds of people are making judgments about paying people doing the work and the research. Researchers get paid pennies to create millions. Any intelligent person isn't going to do this.

Sep 28, 2014
our current panic in the Middle East is because our allies are running out of oil, and our "enemies" won't sell it to us.

@ryggie
What panic?

There is plenty of oil and gas in the US.

And there is plenty of nuclear power for those with the courage to use it.
Yeah, but something you don't have is plenty of MONEY LOL. But you have VietVet sniping the downvotes like he sniped women and children 40 years ago so you perhaps have same chance as crawfish whistling on the mountain

Sep 28, 2014
kochevnik, your crude comments are offensive.

Sep 29, 2014
The US has plenty of money. Just ask all the 'liberals' who keep saying the rich are hoarding it.
People and govts all over the world keep buying US bonds because they have faith they will get their money back.
They don't have the same faith with Russian or Chinese or Argentine or....bonds.

Sep 29, 2014
Hey, Rygg, here is some info:

http://www.econom...ion-5502

Yeah, but their money is in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and in Panamanian Private Equity accounts, hiding from the law.

Sep 29, 2014
Hey, Rygg, here is some info:

http://www.econom...ion-5502

Yeah, but their money is in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and in Panamanian Private Equity accounts, hiding from the law.

First, it's not your money.
Second, banks don't hide stacks of physical cash in holes in the ground. Most 'money' is used, or available to be loaned.
But, as the socialist economies of the world continue to plunder with high taxes and fickle regulations, why would anyone want to invest? The US has to give away money with almost zero interest because no one wants to invest with it and the rest of us don't have the employment certainty to pay it back.
All thanks to socialism.

"A "poisonous combination" of record debt and slowing growth suggest the global economy could be heading for another crisis, a hard-hitting report will warn on Monday."
http://www.ft.com...dc0.html

Sep 29, 2014
It wasn't socialism that put us into the multi-trillion-dollar Bush War failures, just like the failure on 9/11. It was oil money.

Sep 29, 2014
Sustainability does not mean saving your bank account, it means surviving on Earth.

Sep 29, 2014
kochevnik, your crude comments are offensive.
gkam, your imperialistic government is offensive and your country owes compensation for the families of the people your policies murdered. We are not some goatherders that you can just drop bombs upon

Sep 29, 2014
It wasn't socialism that put us into the multi-trillion-dollar Bush War failures, just like the failure on 9/11. It was oil money.

Yes, it was.
The oil industry is either owned outright by govts (Saudi nationalized in 1979) or is heavily regulated by govts as in the US.

Sep 29, 2014
kochevnik, your crude comments are offensive.
gkam, your imperialistic government is offensive and your country owes compensation for the families of the people your policies murdered. We are not some goatherders that you can just drop bombs upon

It's too bad the victims of the USSR's mass murders, can't sue for damages.

Sep 29, 2014
Kochevnik bleats: "gkam, your imperialistic government is offensive and your country owes compensation for the families of the people your policies murdered."
-------------------------------------------------

I think you have confused me with Baby Bush.

Sep 29, 2014
Vietnam was all about killing Buddhists and making Vietnam a Catholic country. All along the end goal was unification through communism. Communism was created by the Vatican expressly for such purposes. Military who pretend they were serving American citizens are dumb. They served only the Vatican and the Rothschilds ever since Roosevelt. The puppet CIA assets bomb and spill blood everywhere abroad. It is the government's policies that are offensive. But soon Western economy will implode. Getting back to the topic, after crash world will be more sustainable. Just today Kazakh president proposes an oil cartel with Iran, Russia and Caspian nations trading in roubles where dirty fiat dollars aren't accepted.

Sep 29, 2014
I think you have confused me with Baby Bush.
Bush was on much better terms with Putin than the "liberal" golfer who makes Nixon look like a bleeding heart liberal hippie. We do not bleat. Russia have nuclear weapons and no legal prohibition against using them. I think you are confusing Russians with your pet goatherders you enjoy droning

Sep 29, 2014
All ROK and Korean War vets should sue Russia for all the damage caused by North Korea. Stalin gave the nod to invade.

Sep 29, 2014
I am referring to Usama bin Laden being a Saudi, with semi-royal ties to the throne. Also the attackers were Saudi.
@waterbaby
what about the fact that he was also US trained... I guess then, by your logic, the US attacked the US... where do you draw the line?
RELIGION attacked the US?
bearded males?

He was an EXTREMIST Lunatic
Saudi also HOSTED the US for the Gulf War, as well as CONTINUES to host the US and its troops for SW Asiatic operations...
now, I am not saying that there are not Bin Laden supporters in Saudi, or the gov't even... BUT... you cannot blame the actions of a lunatic on ANYONE BUT THE LUNATIC

your post SHOULD have read:
as the result of an attack by an extremist religious terrorist ORG. who was being protected by Iraq and had training grounds there and elsewhere, and because of the considerable on-going tension between Hussein and the US, as well as his continued support of extremists & terrorists, the US attacked Iraq


Sep 29, 2014
I think kochevnik should have been drafted, so he could get a slap of reality.

Sep 29, 2014
Bankster Putin:
"The reason the Kremlin rushed to prop up Bank Rossiya is the same reason that the United States, and later its European allies, placed it on the sanctions list: its privileged status as what the Obama administration calls the "personal bank" of the Putin inner circle. Built and run by some of the president's closest friends and colleagues from his early days in St. Petersburg, Bank Rossiya is emblematic of the way Mr. Putin's brand of crony capitalism has turned loyalists into billionaires whose influence over strategic sectors of the economy has in turn helped him maintain his iron-fisted grip on power."
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0

Sep 29, 2014
I think kochevnik should have been drafted, so he could get a slap of reality.
@gkam
just ignore him
he is trying to TROLL you

those who "cannot do" always find a way to denigrate those who go out and do
label it as a fear based response from cowardice, ignorance and paranoia and move on...
:-)

Sep 29, 2014
Yeah, but I want to rub it in, . . . .

Sep 29, 2014
I am referring to Usama bin Laden being a Saudi, with semi-royal ties to the throne. Also the attackers were Saudi.

Do you blame CNN for Saddam Hussein?
You should.
"In a shocking New York Times opinion piece, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan has admitted that for the past decade the network has systematically covered up stories of Iraqi atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau:
http://honestrepo...over-up/

Sep 29, 2014
Do you blame CNN for Saddam Hussein?
You should.
@Rygtard
WHY???

we don't blame Phys.org for YOU


Sep 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 29, 2014
Do you blame CNN for Saddam Hussein?
You should.
@Rygtard
WHY???

we don't blame Phys.org for YOU


'Liberal' lies enabled Saddam and made it more difficult for the west to sanction Iraq.
Just as 'liberal' lies about racism in Ferguson, MO do nothing to help the hundreds of blacks murdered in Chicago.
The 'liberal' lies from stumpy and friends help keep the present socialist regime in power.

Sep 29, 2014
Saddam for the longest time was a US man, sorry a US MONSTER. He US chemical weapons to commit all those atrocities, and he didn't get punished for them until he stopped being an ally.

Stumpy-there's an echo, I think you must be signed on to both your accounts at the same time, either that or you are making less sense than usual. Where do I draw the line? Right where T.H. White does.
I think you should read up on the war.

So in 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait, with and understanding the US would not oppose. (Over $8B)
Kuwait hires the US as it mercenary army for $84B against Iraq (sorry true). US wins.
Saudi Arabia attacks US, three planes hit two buildings and three buildings fall, not in pieces, but as if demolished, and we attack Iraq.
This war costs us 40B/yr?! Another 10 years, US pulls out of Iraq.
Who won? Saudi, certainly, Kuwait, some, the owner and backers of the Twin Towers, very much so... but...
500k Iraqi killed 16k US, 100k Syrians displaced. Wounded Knee was 30:1.

Sep 29, 2014
Saddam for the longest time was a US man,

No, he was a Soviet man coming to power in 1968 with the Stalinist Baath party formerly becoming dictator in 1979.
In 1979, Iran attacked the US and kidnapped US citizens.
Iran and Iraq are traditional enemies, Persian/Arab, and when they fought, it was in the US interest to keep them fighting each other.
Saddam was never an ally but an convenient enemy of Iran.
Saddam was an ally and friends to many Euros and Russians to whom he sold oil after Iraq was forced out of Kuwait, signing a cease-fire agreement that was violated and covered up by CNN and other 'liberal' allies.

Sep 29, 2014
Tomaeto-Tomato. At least you didn't have any real criticism.

Sep 30, 2014
Tomaeto-Tomato. At least you didn't have any real criticism.


Yes, I do.
Saddam was NOT a US ally.

Sep 30, 2014
Stumpy-there's an echo, I think you must be signed on to both your accounts at the same time
@encephalitis-head
I only have one account, moron
willing to prove it using third party confirmaiton
all ya gotta do is accept, TROLL boy
I think you should read up on the war
no thanks. lived it. didn't like it then, won't like it now
Iraq invaded Kuwait, with and understanding the US would not oppose
LINKS/PROOF? Empirical evidence please
Saudi Arabia attacks US
no- TERRORISTS attack. blaming saudi for bin laden is like blaming PO for Rygg, RC, or YOU trolling with anti-science propaganda.
are you also someone who is anti-gun instead of anti-lunatic or anti-violence?

and WHICH Wounded Knee? the FIRST or SECOND? specify, please, as there were TWO major actions there: the Massacre and then another Occupation in 1973

also- Wounded Knee was a little different than your terrorist plot to hit the US
AS WELL as being different than your causes of war


Sep 30, 2014
Tomaeto-Tomato. At least you didn't have any real criticism.


Yes, I do.
Saddam was NOT a US ally.
Shockingly enough, I am actually up-voting Rygg here, as IMHO he is correct and waterbaby is wrong!

I will let Ryg and waterbaby fight this one out... As it is not relevant to the article...

@encephalitis head
if you want to continue this conversation, you will have to PM me

Sep 30, 2014
I am actually up-voting Rygg here,

I don't care.

Sep 30, 2014
three buildings fall, not in pieces, but as if demolished,

Popular Mechanics published a great analysis regarding why the WTC buildings collapsed.
Real science, real engineering analysis.

Sep 30, 2014
I don't care
Good on you Ryggy, show you have principles that Thermostumpy doesn't.

1979-92 quite a long time to not be enemies:
http://en.wikiped...#Support

Sorry bub, nobody loves anybody in this world: Tomaeto-tomato.

NY times good enough?
http://www.nytime...ion.html
It's not very good, I know for a fact Kuwait paid the lion's share.

Three towers fell, only two were hit by airplanes. Even Stumpy can do that math. (Hint 3 planes, 2 collisions with towers, 3 towers fall.)

I have studied the plans, they should have fell over, not straight down. Their structure was around the edges of the building and in an inner core. They should have broken where there integrity failed, if at all.
Sorry, I don't agree we're disagreeing.
http://911researc...pse.html

Sep 30, 2014
not be enemies:

Iran was considered a more significant enemy.
Iraq, a Soviet proxy state was less of a threat and an enemy of Iran.
Iraq under Saddam, was never not an enemy.

I have studied the plans,

So did NIST.
"he towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires."
WTC7:
"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding
Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13 and triggered a cascade of
floor failures. "
http://www.nist.g...CAST.pdf

Sep 30, 2014
Tomaeto-tomato. Politics makes strange bedfellows. You don't want to call providing weapons and such what allies do, fine.

Interesting so instead of buckling and warping like other skyscrapers on fire, this one also falls into it's own footprint. The study lies by the way in saying there are no other collapses of these due to fire.

Casual googles on "skyscraper fires" render this NIST report ludicrous. (I am not being insulting to you):
http://www.skyscr...ers.html
and you can eck out Madrid and Brazil fires, where they more reasonably buckled and warped as they collapsed.

There are an increasing number of folks who can notice 3-2 does not equal 3.

Peace.

Sep 30, 2014
NIST has ALL the data.
Does anyone else have ALL the data needed for a thorough analysis?
Is anyone else willing to repeat the analysis?


Sep 30, 2014
Do the conspiracy nuts trust NIST to keep the time and all other primary and secondary physical standards?

Sep 30, 2014
Climate change, pollution, dwindling natural resources, diminishing fresh water supplies… the list of problems we face as a species in the twenty-first century continues to grow.

NIST? Man you all are so off topic. It probably has something to do with good old @R2 and his way of thinking out the most logical actions taken by societies and his complaints about it.



Oct 01, 2014
the list of problems

You forgot socialism.
But then socialism is a contributing factor to dwindling natural resources.

Oct 16, 2014
Three towers fell, only two were hit by airplanes. Even Stumpy can do that math. (Hint 3 planes, 2 collisions with towers, 3 towers fall.)
@cry-baby
you know absolutely NOTHING about firefighting or how fires can/do affect structures
nor are you aware of how a/c, collision, wind etc factor into the whole picture, let alone static and dynamic weight which is part of the code
so when you say
I have studied the plans, they should have fell over, not straight down. Their structure was around the edges of the building and in an inner core. They should have broken where there integrity failed, if at all
what are you basing this on?
your experience as a firefighter?
pharmacist? (brit or US?)

as a firefighter who lost a few good FDNY friends in the WTC collapse, and who has studied the plans/engineering/fire/collapse, i have found that there is nothing wrong with the explanations given

but that is only research & a few decades of experience talking, mind you
nothing more

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more