Things not going well for U.S. in Afghanistan either...

[Azure]

France and Germany aren't in Iraq either. Plus France and Germany have already been heavily affected by world war, so they have history supporting them on reasons why not to participate in an unjust war. Plus, some might consider countries like France and Germany a somewhat balance of power in global affairs.

I wasn't talking about Iraq. But of course, if you want to believe that WW2 is the reason that France and Germany aren't helping in Iraq, thats your opinion.

Oil has a lot of political and military clout, on top of economic. By controlling the oil, you control movement of troops. By having control over oil reserves, you have political power. Are you denying the power oil companies have in political processes? Even in Alberta, the royalties for oil are the lowest in the world. What is the number one reason Kyoto will fail? It isn't because climate change is a good thing, it isn't in the best interest of oil companies/economy.

Why Kyoto will fail? Maybe because it is impossible to meet the demands without completley taking your economy, stripping it, and then when everything has been banned, including beef because we all know cows help the greenhouse effect, you're left with a country that has a crippled economy, but does meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocal.

The reason why the U.S. should go into Tibet/Africa is the same reason why you are proposing they are in Iraq in the first place. If this war was really about liberating people, there are many, many more places in the world where many more people could be saved by invading them.

Tibet? And do what, start WW3?

You're right though. The US should invade every country in the world, including China just to make sure the whole world is liberated from oppresion. You obviously have no idea what strategic and diplomatic importance Iraq will have, should the US get things under control. Its going to be the domino effect, going backwards.

If Humanitarian aid is so useful, why do thousands of children die per day in Africa? Clearly the philantropist face you're trying to paint on the Americans does not apply to those nations who aren't economically, geographically or politically powerful.

Many of the children are dying AIDS and other diseases. Just exactly how would the US solve that problem by invading Africa and setting up a democratic government?

Bush Sr didn't get Saddam, although he tried. We all know Dubya is his Dad's bitch, just like a fanatical hockey-Dad living precariously through his son/daughter.

Bush Sr. tried? He had a perfect chance to invade Iraq and take out Saddam after the allied effort drove Iraq out of Kuwait. He didn't take it.

But of course if you want to believe that Bush Jr invaded Iraq because Bush Sr told him too, go right ahead. I'll just stop responding to your ridiculous claims.

[greasesuck]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think its a ridiculous idea that the two would even go together. Printing the comics is called "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the media" something all free countries should treasure. If we're going to suddenly ban our media from printing something that might offend some nutcase Mullahs, why don't we ban Hollywood from making movies that offend Christianity?

How about someone putting KKK robe on Jesus Christ, would you not ban
that?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So does that sound like just "a bunch of dumbasses"? I'm not one to prognosticate on what this means for "tensions" in the area, but it doesn't seem quite right to me to dismiss it as if it were Whyte Ave. after an Oilers win. This seems to me to be much more dire and serious.

Yes they are a bunch of dumbasses. Especially when the chant "death to Americans" when in fact it is a NATO lead "allied" force that is helping. The Americans may have the largest part, but they are by far not the only country there helping.

Talk about appreciating your new found freedom.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

You can't use the "freedom of speech" argument here. Whenever you start using the "rights" argument, you start running into the problem of whose rights are being comprimised and at what cost?

We do ban speech a lot in Western society. This is why we have things such as libel and slander. Sure, you can go ahead and slander a group of people, but then their rights are being comprimised to upheld your right of speech.

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate crimes. Regardless of how I feel about the comics being printed, the reality is it was a pretty big deal in Denmark and it wasn't the most tactical thing for the Canadian periodicals to print them especially with our involvement in Afghanistan.

I have noticed a slight incline in Canadian attacks and casualties lately. I am not saying they are a direct result of the comics, but who am I to say that they have absolutely nothing to do with it? The difference perhaps between banning the comics and censoring Hollywood is that in the West, there is (or there is supposed to be) a clear seperation of church and state. Whereas in the near East, Islam, which incorporates church and the state together, is the leading ideology.

You are suggesting that the West makes policy based entirely on Christianity, which it does not. A more appropriate comparision would be Hollywood making a movie that opposed democracy - which I think we can both agree, is not going to happen anytime soon.

There was nothing about hate in any of those cartoons. So dont use that arguement. These people are complete whack jobs. You dont see christians having a big blow out when Iran delcares death to America and the destruction of Isreal.

[Azure]

We do ban speech a lot in Western society. This is why we have things such as libel and slander. Sure, you can go ahead and slander a group of people, but then their rights are being comprimised to upheld your right of speech.

And just exactly where were rights being restricted?

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate crimes. Regardless of how I feel about the comics being printed, the reality is it was a pretty big deal in Denmark and it wasn't the most tactical thing for the Canadian periodicals to print them especially with our involvement in Afghanistan.

I really don't care where it was a big deal. Its a freakin' comic. If people get so worked up over a comic, yet they at the same time can slander the Western World in worse ways we can imagine, someone has a serious problem. And anyone that would think that the Western World should suck up to a bunch of freedom-haters, has even a bigger problem. Especially those that make the assumption that printing the comics will affect our troops in Afghanistan.

I have noticed a slight incline in Canadian attacks and casualties lately. I am not saying they are a direct result of the comics, but who am I to say that they have absolutely nothing to do with it? The difference perhaps between banning the comics and censoring Hollywood is that in the West, there is (or there is supposed to be) a clear seperation of church and state. Whereas in the near East, Islam, which incorporates church and the state together, is the leading ideology.

Maybe the increase would have something to do with Canada taking a more leading role? The West has certain freedoms; if Hollywood can make a movie bashing Christians and the Catholic Church, the local comic section can print comics that "insult" the Islam world.

Nice of you to only notice one side of the story.

You are suggesting that the West makes policy based entirely on Christianity, which it does not. A more appropriate comparision would be Hollywood making a movie that opposed democracy - which I think we can both agree, is not going to happen anytime soon.

I never said the West is based on Christianity. We are based on freedom, something we should treasure and also fight to uphold.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by greasesuck

How about someone putting KKK robe on Jesus Christ, would you not ban
that?

They can do whatever the hell they want, as long as it does not restrict my freedom to believe anything I want, they have every right to assume what they want.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by greasesuck

How about someone putting KKK robe on Jesus Christ, would you not ban
that?

Nope that wouldn't be banned. You think it would be?

[jolinar of malkshor]

All the rights are so convenient for these radicals until it applies to them.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

I wasn't talking about Iraq. But of course, if you want to believe that WW2 is the reason that France and Germany aren't helping in Iraq, thats your opinion.



Why Kyoto will fail? Maybe because it is impossible to meet the demands without completley taking your economy, stripping it, and then when everything has been banned, including beef because we all know cows help the greenhouse effect, you're left with a country that has a crippled economy, but does meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocal.



Tibet? And do what, start WW3?

You're right though. The US should invade every country in the world, including China just to make sure the whole world is liberated from oppresion. You obviously have no idea what strategic and diplomatic importance Iraq will have, should the US get things under control. Its going to be the domino effect, going backwards.



Many of the children are dying AIDS and other diseases. Just exactly how would the US solve that problem by invading Africa and setting up a democratic government?



Bush Sr. tried? He had a perfect chance to invade Iraq and take out Saddam after the allied effort drove Iraq out of Kuwait. He didn't take it.

But of course if you want to believe that Bush Jr invaded Iraq because Bush Sr told him too, go right ahead. I'll just stop responding to your ridiculous claims.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[White Doors]

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.

The reason the Kyoto accord is failing and WILL fail is that it is not an environmental document, but a political document. Even if all the signatories MET their targets, total CO2 emissions the world over would likely STILL be more than in 1990, specifically because the fast growing developing world do not have to reduce any GHG emissions. I think it's clear that you know very little about the kyoto accord.

And carbon credit trading? c'mon! let's worry about real pollution, not cattle farts.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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.

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.

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.

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?

Holy cow I cant believe the people that buy into Koyoto.

All it is, is a money transfer system. Countries that dont produce much CO2 can sell their allotment to other countries, there by transfering money from rich countries to poor countries and not reducing any CO2 in the process. Any person who believes this will work needs to give their head a shake.

[White Doors]

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?

huh?

[White Doors]

Holy cow I cant believe the people that buy into Koyoto.

It's all the rage didn't you know?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Besides C02 is the least of our problems. Instead of worrying about natural gases that plants need to live we should worry about real pollution. Bud some people arent smart enough to realize that.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Besides C02 is the least of our problems. Instead of worrying about natural gases that plants need to live we should worry about real pollution. Bud some people arent smart enough to realize that.

Do you have any idea how much of an excess of CO2 there is in the atmosphere? WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY more than 7 planet Earths can sustain. Obviously if the plants were in need of CO2, there wouldn't be things such as climate change or all these efforts to try and stop it.

What is this "real pollution" you speak of?

[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.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

There was nothing about hate in any of those cartoons. So dont use that arguement. These people are complete whack jobs. You dont see christians having a big blow out when Iran delcares death to America and the destruction of Isreal.

Hate has nothing to do with the cartoons and why Islam is up in arms. It is an afront to Islam to make representations of the prophet. Jesus, if you're going to chime in, get the basis of the conflict correct.

And Christians can be just as whacky. All you have to do is look at the response to "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "The Davinci Code" or the response to any of a vast array of political issues of the past couple years. Christians can get pretty torqured and do/say some pretty stupid things. Or do you forget a particular evangelist calling for the assassination of a foreign leader, or saying that Katrina was a result of America's sins. And we won't even mention the bombing of abortion clinics and such activities. Chistrians can be whack jobs just like some of the muslims can.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Do you have any idea how much of an excess of CO2 there is in the atmosphere? WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY more than 7 planet Earths can sustain. Obviously if the plants were in need of CO2, there wouldn't be things such as climate change or all these efforts to try and stop it.

So if there is "soooooooooooooo" much CO2 in the atmosphere, why do the global warming proponents believe that the world will only heat up, maybe, 1 degree in the next 100 years.

If you go back and read the history of the temperatue of the earth, all the way back to the 1800's, you'd notice a distinct patten of warming and cooling.

Plants need CO2 to produce oxygen. Are you disagreeing with that?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Nice try buddy. Records have shown that C02 levels have been much higher many times in the history of earth. This is not a rare phenomanom. The vast majority of C02 comes from the earth itself. Mainly Volcanic activity.

But you know what buddy. Your the type that wont believe anything unless it proves your point. You dont care about the science. Nope. No matter what we say and what evidence is provided you will still believe this is all because of evil corporations and western consumption.

C02 is NOT a posioness Gas. By saying earth has 7 times as much C02 as it can handle thats like saying humans will die because we have 7 times the amount of oxygen. By the way did you just make that number up?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Holy cow I cant believe the people that buy into Koyoto.

All it is, is a money transfer system. Countries that dont produce much CO2 can sell their allotment to other countries, there by transfering money from rich countries to poor countries and not reducing any CO2 in the process. Any person who believes this will work needs to give their head a shake.

What the hell is Koyoto?

Not with that attitude, it won't work.

Kyoto is an incentive for states to lower their greenhouse gas emissions, not to funnel money into developing states. Regardless of if a country is in the global south or north, if states would do their part to combat climate change, they would make money, if not, they pay a penalty. It really has nothing to do with poor or rich countries.

Often developed states are at an advantage because they can install sustainable practices easier than those states who do not have the money to update their energy practices.

Obviously if it was about funnelling money, which I admit carbon credit trading is a large part of the protocol, it would be enforced by the IMF or World Bank, not UNEP.