Leafless

Apparently, I have a far deeper understanding of both than you. This is abundantly clear from this thread, in which I have highlighted the myriad practical problems with attacking Iran, none of which you've bothered to address in a substantive manner. It's like you think the U.S. and the west can stop Iran's nuclear ambitions by sending pixie-dust powered Stealth bombers to drop cluster bombs full of good intentions that cause pretty ponys to spring from the earth where they land. And that will solve all our problems. In short: you're a very unserious person. Leafless, you've been PWNed! Not really. The clash of civilizations is in progress. And we are not going to lose!

Wilbur You just won't see diesels in North America. Reason: They don't meet U.S. emission standards, and if that's the case you probably won't see many in Canada due to the high vehicle cost and lack of gas stations selling diesel. We'll keep our traditional gas engines that are a lot more suitable for for good performance and cold weather conditions and reasonable vehicle cost. http://www.leftlanenews.com/2007/01/10/for...ars-in-america/

You are inventing your own questions. We don't exactly know how the questions concerning this poll were presented and what those questions were. This is the danger concerning many polls as they can be manipulated to obtain the desired response.

You are only assuming this based on the fact that diesel fuel produces more energy (BTU's) per gallon. If your diesel fuel vehicle gets 35 miles to the gallon and my gasoline vehicle gets 35 miles to the gallon, who's engine is the most energy efficient? Answer: The gasoline powered engine is. There are other factors that don't make diesel engines attractive. 1. They are heavier. 2. Higher initial engine cost and overall vehicle cost. 3. Lower high end performance. 4. Diesel fuel gels in cold temperatures and you have to wait for diesel glow plugs to warm up combustion chambers before you can start the vehicle.

Correct! But only as a PRACTICAL and ECONOMICAL alternative to EXPENSIVE hybrid's, as was posted. Smaller gas engines are not any more efficient, but they do use considerably less energy without any real modifications or expensive technological specialized devices.

You make this sound like a big deal when in reality it isn't. You must remember the average mechanical efficiency of an internal combustion engine is around a LOWLY 20%. So your 20% CO2 and less CO is almost meaningless as their still is a tremendous amount of pollutants being produced for basically nothing along with an 80% waste of energy per litre or gallon or whatever.

Where do they put the waste? I wonder if they could drill a hole past the mantle and chuck the waste down there. I'm not sure how radioactive waste reacts to extreme temperatures. Another thing to consider is 'water vapour' added to the earth's atmosphere as a major pollutant or a provider of unwanted thermal energy. "Nuclear electrical power generation is seen as “clean” when one forgets that it also rejects some 50% of its heat into rivers , seas, or the atmosphere, that it carries with it nuclear waste disposal and environmental risks, together with its vast decommissioning “hidden” costs, but seems to be the choice taken by many nations to provide for their ever growing electrical needs." This article is only relevant to the water vapour aspect scrolling a quarter way down the page: http://www.otecnews.org/articles/ro_vs_otec.html

I think you have misunderstood, pollution comes from the fuel, not from air. It doesn't matter how much air you pump through an engine the amount oxygen used to provide combustion is directly proportional to the amount of fuel you add. Assuming that a gas engine used all the O2 in 14.7 gallons of air for each gallon of gasoline consumed, for a diesel using a 100:1 ratio to consume all the oxygen in 100 gallons of air it would mean that a gallon of diesel would have to contain 100/14.7=6.8 times as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. We know that isn't true. Comparing fuel air ratios means nothing, it is just a function of the different ways these engines work. A diesel has no throttle plate in its intake system so there is always a lot of air going through it, the amount of power produced is controlled purely by adding fuel. It doesn't matter how much air goes through an engine, if there is no fuel there is no pollution. Another reason gas engines need a 14.7 ratio is that they are spark ignition engines and cannot run too lean. A diesel is a compression ignition engine, it doesn't care very much about lean mixtures. Catalytic converters are used with all engines now, diesel or gas and diesels produce 20% less CO2 and much less CO than comparable gas engines. Let's get this staight. I am not talking about pollution, Iam talking relating to the air ratio, either gas or diesel, earth's oxygen being unnecessarily depleted to support combustion either in a diesel engine or regular aspirated or fuel injected gasoline engine. This excludes the pollution factor. Earth's atmosphere is comprised of 79% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen. Creating a deficit of 1% in the oxygen content of air relates to respiratory problems. Now, back to the air-ratio mix. A device similar to a throttle plate in gasoline fuel injected engines to-day control air volume and not the gas which is computer controlled to maintain an ideal 14.7:1 lean air-gas ratio. Of course you still have the regular aspirated gasoline engines with an air-ratio mix that badly contributes to pollution if not regularly maintained. BTW- a diesel operating at an air-diesel mix of 100:1 is idling, it would not move the vehicle as there is an acute absence of hydrocarbons (diesel fuel). There is a very small power factor at this mix.

""Quebec's future is at stake," Premier Jean Charest declared of the election he called yesterday for March 26." ---------------------------------------------------- This statement of course is incorrectly worded, as Quebec being a province in Canada should read: "Canada's unity at stake---again, says an apologetic premier." Playing the 'old separation cash card' should be a humiliation to any Quebec politician with a gram of integrity or responsibility to Canada. This is insulting the intellect of all other Canadians in Canada since we all know Quebec in all probability, can't go anywhere. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/stor...5748975&k=60469

The new Bluetec technology is greatly reducing particulates and other pollutants, ULSD fuel is making a big difference in sulphur dioxide emissions and diesels were already producing substantially less CO2 And CO than gas engines. For the first time in years diesel cars are meeting 50 state standards. There is still plenty of development left in diesels to further reduce emissions. Higher combustion temperatures help reduce emissions not raise them, that is why exhaust gas recirculation is used in gas engines and catalytic converters operate at such high temperatures. Perhaps you have it backwards. Air is not a pollutant, fuel is. Instead of saying that's a lot of air, you should be saying, that's not much fuel. I certainly don't think gas engines are on the way out, just that we will be seeing more diesels. You have misunderstood. When I say for instance, the air-gas ratio of an internal combustion engine is 14.7 to 1, that means for every gallon of fuel burnt you use 14.7 gallons of air. IOW we are depleting earths air supply and at the same time creating global warming. Diesel is a lot worse concerning depleting the earths air, if you look at my previous posted air-diesel oil ratio's. You can talk all you want about new technology but basically all your doing is creating more water vapour (by way of catalytic converter) earths #1 greenhouse gas.

I think you may have misunderstood what the questions were asking, they weren't necessarily denying a "clash of civilizations." Allow me to rephrase them for you.... "Do you buy the government's official story about the terrorists being after a worldwide caliphe when attacking the West" (culture and religion) or "Do you believe your own eyes and ears which indicate that there are other dynamics at work" (political power and interest) The article and poll appears to be trying to disassociate reference between a 'clash of civilizations' and a "conflict" as one being less serious than the other. First paragraph reads: "Most Canadians reject the notion that the Islamic and western worlds are engaged in a clash of civilizations based on culture and religion, according to a new international poll." And then in the next paragraph reads: "The GlobeScan survey found that a majority (56 per cent) of Canadians regard the conflict between Islam and the West to be primarily about "political power and interests." Notice the separation from "clash of civilizations" based on culture and religion to a "conflict" based on "political power and interest'. Whether it is political power and interest rather than culture and religion BOTH are recipes for global war. Just as stupid article and poll trying to take the emphasis off of "culture and religion" as the cause for the clash of civilizations.

Diesel vehicles produce more particle matter (PM) soot, and more nitrogen oxides because of the higher temperature combustion process. This contributes to serious respiratory illnesses from poor air quality. This is of course excludes other types of air pollution produced like hydro carbons, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Diesel engines use more AIR. Gasoline engines use an air-gas ratio of 14.7:1. Diesel engines not working hard, air-diesel ratio, varies from 60:1 to 100:1. That's a lot of air. I think the most economical and practical way to look at this is smaller gasoline engines.

Actually it was up to the Bush Administration and the CIA/Intelligence services to proove to the world that there WAS wmd's. If you say something, like SADDAM HAS WMDs!, you better have the evidence to back it up. But they don't have any evidence to back it up. So basicly this argument is no longer valid. It was all lies. Or are you aware of what a LIE really is? Have they been found yet? No. Was the intel before the war sound? No. Why do I have to proove to YOU that there were none. It was the Bush Admin and Co that told us there were WMDs. (fuck, this shit is getting old with you people) It was up to them to proove to us that Saddam had WMDs. So after the invasion, well 2-3 years later, they are not even looking for this 'smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud' evidence. Bush and Co said - Yes there are weapons. None were found. And eventually they stopped looking for this 'slam dunk' evidence. Any of this getting through at all?? Also if the plan in 1998 was to oust Saddam, then why even say he HAS WMDs, when you intel clearly showed there was no real solid proof. Remember those so called undergroud bunkers Al-Qaeda has? I wonder why they have not mentioned anything else of that. So by this 1998 resolution, the USA planned to go into Iraq at some time. All that crap leading up to the invasion in 2003 was just hogwash bullshit to get the public on board for the war. Those who don't have a sharp mind may get bogged down in all this 'evidence' that the Bush Administraion has said existed. If they lied about that, what else could the Bush Administration have lied about? This leaves things pretty open does it not? So by all the fuckups that happened before the war in Iraq, all the lies to get into the war, the lies AFTER the war, and the lies about the current situation with Iran... HEY WAIT A MINUTE... was there another resolution in the US about Iran?? Similar to the 1998 Iraq plan?? I bet it exists somewhere. I just got to find out to see if the evidence is actually there. Or else I am just speculating. Here is something that explains the WMD went to Syria and Lebanon and were Russian made. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013258.php

Leafless: please clarify how my oppossing a course of action that I believe will be more damaging to U.S. and western interests equates to defening terrorism. IOW: put up or shut up. The course of action IS part of Western values. You never did understand Western values or interest anyways.

Australia is ruled by a real prime minister and not a piece of paper called a charter.

Those are my views concerning the poll I posted. I simply find it ironic that whether you consider 'culture and religion' or 'political power and interest', as the cause for the conflict between Islam and the West. Either views are capable of producing a full blown conflict or clash of civilizations. Just a stupid poll. What do you think?

It seems the arrogance never stops. "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country will halt its uranium enrichment program, a prerequisite for building nuclear weapons, only if Western powers do the same." What a joker. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/world/mi...nd-Iran.html?hp

WikipediaThis link lists countries by the percentage of population that are Muslim (scroll down to the bottom for the top 60). Please take a look at the list, and identify which "Islamic nations" you are referring to. If there are no Islamic countries in the world, then why are these countries called Islamic countries: http://www.islamic-world.net/countries/index.htm And this is a list of Islamist terrorist organizations: *Islamist terrorist organizations* Abu Sayyaf (1991-present; Islamist separatists; the Philippines) Based in the southern islands of Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao. Branched off of the Moro National Liberation Front. Allegedly partnered with Jemaah Islamiyah and Al-Qaeda. Aden-Abyan Islamic Army (Yemen) Adolat - Uzbekistan Akramiya - Uzbekistan Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Late 1970s-present; Islamists; Egypt) Seeks to establish Islamist state in Egypt. Usually targets secular establishments, government buildings, police, the military, minorities, tourists, and “morally offensive” buildings. Armed Islamic Group (1992-present; Islamists; Algeria) Seeks to establish Islamist state in Algeria. Began operations in 1992 after the Algerian government ignored election results that gave victory to Islamist political parties. Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades Ansar al-Islam (December 2001-present; Islamists; Iraq) In Arabic, "Supporters of Islam." Also known as "Partisans of Islam or Helpers of Islam." Al-Qaeda (1988-present; Islamists; Afghanistan, Pakistan, and worldwide) In Arabic, "the foundation", "the base", or "the database" kept by intelligence services of anti-Soviet Afghani fighters. Also known as Qa‘idat al-Jihad, Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, Islamic Salvation Foundation, and the Osama bin Laden Network. Related: Alneda (former web site), As-Sahab (affiliated public relations organization), Cells: Buffalo six, Hamburg cell, Asbat al-Ansar (early 1990s-present; Lebanese Sunni Islamists; southern Lebanon) In Arabic, "the League of the Followers." Acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic Resistance Movement. Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad/Al-Qaeda in Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Sunni network, operating in Iraq on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement - al-Qaeda linked separatist group in China's Xinjiang Autonomous Region aiming to establish an Islamic state. Banned by China, along with related groups East Turkestan Liberation Organization, World Uighur Youth Congress and East Turkistan Information Center[3] Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Egypt (active since the late 1970s) Hamas - West Bank, Gaza Strip. Listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) - Pakistan and Kashmir Hizb-an-nusra - Uzbekistan Hizb ut-Tahrir - international (legal in Britain and Australia) Hezbollah - Lebanon; Listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, and the United States Hizbul Mujahideen - Pakistan and Kashmir Hofstad Network - Netherlands Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain - Defunct Islamic Movement of Central Asia - Central Asia (affiliated with Al Qaeda) Islamic Movement of Tajikistan - Tajikistan Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan - Uzbekistan Jaish-e-Mohammed - Pakistan Jaish Ansar al-Sunna - Iraq Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami Jemaah Islamiyah - Southeast Asia Jihad Rite - Australia (linked with Al Qaeda. Founded in 2001) Lashkar-e-Jhangvi - Pakistan Lashkar-e-Toiba - Pakistan Maktab al-Khadamat - Afghanistan - Defunct Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group - Morocco and Spain Moro Islamic Liberation Front - (Islamic separatists; the Philippines) Palestinian Islamic Jihad - Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip People Against Gangsterism and Drugs - South Africa Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat - Algeria Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan - Pakistan Students Islamic Movement of India - India Takfir wal-Hijra - Egypt/Sudan/Algeria Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat- e-Mohammadi (TNSM) - Pakistan [4] Kurdish-Hizbullah - Turkey * Sourced from Wikipedia*

"The GlobeScan survey found that a majority (56 per cent) of Canadians regard the conflict between Islam and the West to be primarily about "political power and interests." Only 29 per cent said religious and cultural differences are to blame." http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b0f87f0&k=57029 -------------------------------------------------- "Primarily about political power and interest." What war is not fought over these interest. Only problem with Islam is their religion and politics, is all rolled into one neat little violent package, unlike modern civilized societies of the world. I think Islamic nations have already started this war and feel they can whip the world into getting their way. I think Islam has demomstrated how barbaric they are and are headed into full fledged conflict.

I find it incredible that posters on this site can deliver their anti-Western pro-Iranian propaganda in the same sense Canadian politics is discussed. Do these posters have an inkling that Iran is anti-Western and anti-American and supports terrorism and is a country led by fundamentalist, harbours weapons of mass destruction and harbours missile technology from Russia and third world countries including China, North Korea and Pakistan. These posters should be banned. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/

I edited my opening post to include the link to this story but just noticed its not there, so here is the link: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...89941fe&k=37320 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This has got nothing to do with Stephen Harper appointing judges but rather simply appointing selection committees members that determine whether a candidate is recommended or not recommended and the minister of justice has the final say. Mr. Lamer thinks all committee members should be from the legal community.

Defining the West depends upon where one lives. Europe is the West relating to Europe and North America is the West relating to the U.S. and Canada. The threat we are talking about is the integration of 27 European countries acting as a single economic force. Can this not be considered as an economic conspiracy or a form of collusion to win the upper hand?

Actually if you consider decreasing Canadian trade with the EU, is a recipe for less Canadian jobs. This is due to the fact EMU can be self supporting so they could survive without trading outside the EMU area. There are other factors that make firms more profitable thus increasing their competitive edge such as : 1. transaction cost 2. Price transparency 3. Exchange rate fluctuations eliminated 4. Single currency are I think the main ones. Anyways they can keep their wine and cheese as far as I am concerned. You ask, why is this thread in moral sections? Where would you put it?

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper is trying to "muzzle" the judiciary by baldly acknowledging he wants judges who are tough on crime, says the former chief justice of Canada. Antonio Lamer, in an interview with CanWest News Service, said he sympathizes with the Harper government's complaints that some judges hand out soft sentences, but the prime minister shouldn't be trying to influence the judiciary just because he's frustrated his justice bills are not passing in the minority Parliament." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is a former retired federal public servant publicly and openly and boldly criticizing Prime Minister Harper as if Harper is somehow interfering with the current sentencing procedure by judges which he is not. This ex-chief justice should not be saying anything considering the fact mostly ALL federal court judges, have been appointed by Liberal friendly Quebec prime ministers.

If you really think about it guyser, since we are talking job loss and the likes, the word threat would refer to an 'economic threat'. If you don't consider the grouping of 27 countries to bolster their competitive edge including a common currency as an 'economic threat' to other singular countries and economies of the world, then I would not know how to define 'threat' in this instance.