[Azure]

The reason why France and Germany are not in Iraq is the same reason why the rest of the world isn't in Iraq - it's a bull sh*t war. But I'm sure the Vanuatu army is contributing a great deal to the coalition of the willing.

So helping the Iraqi people, now, after the initial invasion, is still unjust? France, Germany and the whole UN could do a lot in Iraq right now.

You clearly do not know anything about the Kyoto Accord. There should be no reason why Kyoto will fail, look at Russia. They have accomplished their Kyoto targets and now are making money due to the carbon trading under Kyoto. If Russia can do it, which has a significant amount of oil as well, there should be absolutely no reason why Canada can not - either than oil companies in Canada have a greater say in policy formation than those in post-soviet Russia. Although a great argument against Kyoto would be the "no beef, no oil" argument, this is simply not true. Do you honestly believe that the Canadian government would ban beef and oil so that they could reach 6% under 1990 levels? Be realistic. Kyoto is not an all or nothing deal, it is a step towards cutting DOWN, not OUT, greenhouse gas emissions through things such as renewable energies, clean technology, ethanol etc... By no means would Canada stop oil drilling or cow production completely - the oil companies and ranchers would never, ever, let this happen.

Methane gas, released in excess by cows has a great significance to the cause of the "greenhouse effect."

Canada is doing their best to create renewable energy. But you can't expect technology to come up with such things over-night. Southern Alberta has wind-mills going up left, right and center. But Kyoto was demanding too much, too fast.

While AIDS claims the lives of millions of people in Africa, it is far from the only thing killing Africans. Simple things like starvation, access to clean water, diahrrea... are killing an outrageous number of people. Why? Because this humanitarian aid, that you are suggesting is the answer to it all, isn't getting to those who need it. It's going to the corrupt governments. Therefor, because the government is corrupt, no state wants to give them money - it's a vicious circle. But why liberate a country just to save lives, right? As you said yourself, the strategic and (to a lesser extent) diplomatic importance of Iraq will be powerful - thus it is obvious the U.S. is there for other reasons rather than the "goodness of their hearts" from the bible belt as you suggested.

Proving that throwing money at a problem does not solve it. I absolutely agree with you, but feel that the UN should take a huge role in turning Africa around.

I think the ME is the biggest hotspot in the world right now. Having a democracy in Iraq will solve that problem. If your saying the US is there for the Oil, you have no clue what you're talking about. Like I've said before, oil is cheaper to buy, then to invade and country and buy. The ME is functioning because the US buys their oil. There is no way they will suddenly shut off their supply to the US.

If Bush Jr had a perfect chance to take out Iraq, why is Bush Sr having such a difficult time trying to do the same?

You got your Bush's mixed up.

And I really don't understand your question.