AndrewL

Of course it is. What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it? see? Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy. The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc.... One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet). None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are. Andrew You shoudl remember that next time the golbal warming people rage on about Katrina etc. Who are the 'global warming' people? Andrew

I disagree. People are people. Escalation is escalation. When I was going to school and two guys had a beef, they went outside and settled it with fists. When one said uncle it was over. Now they often bring weapons and uncle is not enough. The fact that nations have nukes will not prevent them from engaging in conflicts. India and Pakistan never did stop having low level conflicts over Kashmir after they got nukes. The difference now is that there is also the possibility of a nuclear exchange. No sane government will want to use nukes but the first use of one by a country will probably be an act of desperation when a conventional war is going very badly. That war will probably not be between the US and Iran, or the US and anyone else. Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. The fact is there exists no institution that can carry out international justice. It is anarchy. Domestically we have laws that are enforceable and punishable, and it is effective. Your schoolyard experiences can only go so far before the law gets involved to 'correct' the situation. At the international level no such thing exists with any effectiveness whatsoever. As far as Pakistan and india go there has been no all out war, without the existence of nukes i think there would be. By far the most likely government to use nukes in a first strike is the US. The US has stated explicitly in their defense review their right to a first strike against another non-nuclear nation. They are the only nation to make this threat public. The entire logic behind the missile defense program is to retain a nuclear first strike capability against Russia and China, or any other nation. They want the ability to make MAD non-applicable, as it was when they nuked japan. I support any and all efforts to make this goal impossible. Andrew

Of course it is. What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it? see? Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy. The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc.... One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet). None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are. Andrew Good post - and this (although it has been misunderstood) is my point. If we are talking about science, we shouldn't be giving so much credence to news reports about the lack of snow in europe as shocking first hand evidence of a major climate shift. Agreed. We should look at what scientists are saying about topics of scientific concern. The media is notoriously bad at science.... Andrew

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place. Why should the States have ANY say in Iranian affairs? The U.S. is coming off like the bully on the block. It's okay if they have nukes, just not anyone they disagree with. And don't forget the Americans are the only ones who have used them. They have no right in dictating who should develop a nuclear bomb. Rights are not the issue. At the international level there are no such thing as rights. There are only nations with varying sizes of sticks and carrots. The US can do whatever it wants, i just encourage them not to be as stupid as their recent record suggests they are. Andrew

This is all about the clash if civilizations and we should get them before they get us, period. Iran and Arab countries have it in for Israel and the U.S. http://www.israelnewsagency.com/irannuclea...4899022807.html http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?171133 No. Iran is only interested in dominating the ME. They are not interested in blowing themselves up. Andrew

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place. Look towards pakistan and india for an example of nations being forced into negotiations, because the alternative is so much worse. I think that nukes do in some twisted way make things safer, because MAD does apply. Don't get me wrong, i think the world would be safer if nobody had nukes, but the fact is nukes do exist, and the real danger is when one nation, or a few nations, have a monopoly on them. Andrew Using that logic the country would be a safer place if we were all walking around armed. MAD on a personal level. No, you are wrong. Such analogies comparing the anarchy of of the international system and the law and order of a domestic system are false. Andrew

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place. Look towards pakistan and india for an example of nations being forced into negotiations, because the alternative is so much worse. I think that nukes do in some twisted way make things safer, because MAD does apply. Don't get me wrong, i think the world would be safer if nobody had nukes, but the fact is nukes do exist, and the real danger is when one nation, or a few nations, have a monopoly on them. Andrew

And Israel knows this. Israel knows if Iran goes ahead with the bomb, it creates an existential danger to Israel. Chances are Israel could unilaterally attack Iran. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/834084.html Then so is pakistan. What exactly are we doing about that? But i disagree, there is no logical reason for iran to nuke israel. What the US and Israel are afraid of is losing influence to iran in the worlds strategic center, not any 'existential' danger. Andrew

Of course it is. What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it? see? Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy. The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc.... One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet). None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are. Andrew

Way to think LOOONNGG and hard about that one Andrew... You don't think that they would be giving a mini-one to Hezbollah to sneak into Israel to blow one up at the first opportunity? Give your head a shake. No, I dont think they would. First off, if they wanted to give WMD to Hez or Hamas they would have given them some of their chem and bio stockpiles long ago. Iran is not a suicide bomber in the form of a nation state... dont be ridiculous. They have long term goals like anybody else, and those goals include survival. Second, Atomic materials leave a signature. any bomb exploded by anybody can be traced to its source using nuclear forensics. Whether Iran or one of their proxies uses a bomb makes no difference, it would be traced to its source anyway. Deterrence still applies as it would anywhere else. As long as the the current nuclear powers are still maintaining and improving the deadliness of their nuclear arsenals i cannot oppose any other nation from doing the same. Region wide MAD can actually lead to peace...believe it or not. I support either full and unequivocal nuclear disarmament, or i support proliferation. I do not support the dangerous game of owning nukes and telling others they cant have them. That is a recipe for constant war. I think the US should actually hep Iran develop a nuclear bomb, then we can get to the business, much quicker, of dealing with more important issues. Andrew

And Christianity is a religion-no? i hate sprouts but i love onions. Im anti sprout, not anti-vegetable... Andrew

Hi Jerry, The warming of the surface of the earth should lead to more evaporation, and more precipitation. But it is unlikely to be uniform precipitation, i.e, it will likely be one extreme in one place and the opposite extreme in another. So, in line with the theory and climate models, one should be observing more precipitation in some places and less in others, (based on historical data). That is indeed what we are seeing. Andrew Ahhh.. The 'climate change' "proof" in practice! They are clever I'll give them that! I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science. Andrew

Hi Jerry, The warming of the surface of the earth should lead to more evaporation, and more precipitation. But it is unlikely to be uniform precipitation, i.e, it will likely be one extreme in one place and the opposite extreme in another. So, in line with the theory and climate models, one should be observing more precipitation in some places and less in others, (based on historical data). That is indeed what we are seeing. Andrew

I think it is tremendously important for Iran to get the bomb in order to deter any interference in their affairs. Only then will the west and Iran be able to have honest negotiations and dealings. Andrew

I totally understand the desire to have a public gathering with friends and loved ones, to affirm your relationship to those who matter to you. I also understand the administrative benefit - my wife can have dual citizenship from her native country if we 'tie the not' as far as Canadian custom goes. She just has to be married to a Canadian when she becomes a Canadian citizen, otherwise her native country won't allow her dual citizenship. If we sign the papers she gets it, (i wonder if my status changes), our son already has it. We would essentially be getting married for a passport. Not a bad thing to have i suppose. But are financial reasons the only purpose behind having the government recognize ones personal and intimate arrangements? I cant help but feel a bit of resentment at governments for withholding these benefits and freedoms until we fulfill their definition of marriage. No big deal. I just sometimes wonder why we have the institution of marriage and whether it is something that government should spend time and money on. Andrew

The US does not side with either group on religious lines. Traditionally the Shiites are the poor repressed people of the ME. Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and so on.... The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan removed two sunni strongholds, the Taleban and the Baathists, respectively. Notice that both these nations border Iran, the shiite rabble rousing nation seemingly permanently at odds with Washington. Last summer the US was desperately hoping the IDF took out Hezbollah. They failed miserably. Now they are telling some Sunni militant groups, naturally connected to AQ, to stay tuned for further instructions and funding. Why? For the impending attack on Iran. Because when that happens, shiite groups will be 'activated' by Iran. Most specifically, hamas and Hezbollah. Adn the Sunni militant groups are then going to attack them. Dont forget, the US 'assisted' AQ in Kosovo against the serbs. The KLA is and was a radical islamic group associated with AQ. So while the US is stuck promoting the shiite gov in Iraq, (for reasons that are essentially out of their control, i.e., they talked big about democracy and their is simply more shiites than sunnis in Iraq, so shiites will always come out on top in any 'democracy' in iraq, and the US will have to pretend to support it), they have essentially given their arch-nemesis Iran a chance for region wide shiite revivial. This means region wide conflict, and i think it is something the US wants. They want to make this a real battle that will cause even the most diehard anti war folks in the west to get on board, just like the good ol days in WWII. They are fuckin lunatics, all of 'em. Andrew

Thats awesome, good for you. I gotta ask though, you say" one day we will publicly and legally decry our love and committment for one another in a ceremony" ..... how would it be possibel to illegaly decry your love and commitment? What does the conception of law have to do with your love for another person? What does the public matter in this? If you are happy right now, do you think you will be any happier after a marriage ceremony? Andrew

The State has been increasingly not taken responsibility for a child that is physically and mentally handicapped. The right wing want to ensure the pregnancy goes to term and then not have the state responsible for the care of that child afterwards. That may be so. But nonetheless, the right to life can only be granted by a state. Sans state, you have to fight for and defend your life, nobody has a right to anything. Or everybody has a right to everything, to put it another way. Andrew

Who is responsible for that life once it is born? The state. No other body can grant rights. Andrew

Anybody who can experience physical or mental pain has the right to life. Andrew

Last I heard, Canadian provinces are not for sale. You haven't heard of Quebec? They are a nation first, a province second. Apparently. Andrew

Thank him for what? Andrew

If that happened i would buy a gun, learn how to make IEDs, and begin planning a guerrilla war against anybody who tried to do such a thing. Andrew

A fundamentalist fanatic site for enlightenment? OK. I guess it s not really possible to have a discussion with somebody who considers religion to be a legitimate basis for a code of laws. Good for a laugh though, i suppose. Andrew

Really? Define immoral and define for me how homosexuality fits your definition of immoral. Here is the trick, do not mention god once..... Andrew Define a moral Christian society but do not mention God? Canada is a secular nation made up of a diverse group of people some who have religion some who do not. We are not a christian society, and if we were that would not make us moral. Our laws are not to be based on religious tenets. Our laws are made for practical reasons, in the interests of health, happiness, security, and equality. We do not make laws to please a god, imagined or otherwise. Andrew