SirRiff

well of course Pellaken i think you're just stating the obvious. nobody even uses their brain to question why people link their actions to faith or god or church of whatever. if all those people really felt so strongly about god maybe they would have done charity work full time for three days instead of sitting in teh sun like morons. because from all i have heard, apparently jesus preached more about action and morality then idolization and meaningless political gesture. basically, whenever i hear someone who always has to talk about thier deep spiritual convictions to make themselves feel better, i always think, why the hell isnt he living his beliefs instead of just broadcasting them? so many half assed people who claim to be christians, and so many obsessive people who claim to be muslims its all fucked up (hmm..the jews come off pretty good...conspiracy??). a true believer would probably act first without much fanfare and concern themselves with preaching only after they set their own example (like most prophets are written to have done). then you have those crazy guys who held down that autistic boy untill he died. they said "well, god decided to take him'. uh, no. SirRiff

no i said america allowed it to happen when they didnt step up to teh plate and try to heal some of the violence they engaged in and profited from. even Bush knows that, the US says it cant wait for rouge nations to disintegrate into terror nations. what else do you expect if you let nations festion in violence for decades. obviously the violence will spill over and effect us all. The US might have prevented 9/11 and other terror attacks with the slightest bit of selfless action. maybe not buying oil from corrupt regimes, doing buisiness with violenct tyrants, or arming and supporting secret rebel groups. because history shows it doest work in modern times. SirRiff

hey, if you guys dont want to repair afganistan or iraq, nobody can stop you, but lets not pretend thats not exactly why 9/11 happened in the first place. when you left afganistan in the 80s after funneling weaopns there to osama and his crew you opened the door for the nation to fester and rot. well it did fester, and your old buddy osama took control and attacked the US. so really the US allowed 9/11 to happen 20 years in advance. dont want to do it again? thats fine, we will all suffer, but it will be america that suffers most. so when you rebuild iraq, its not helping canadians, or the frence, or germans, its ensuring the safety of americans. 10$ billion spent in 1985 might have saved 100$ billion in 2003. think about it, if afganistan and iraq fall back into rape and pillaging, who is most at risk? americans. american companies willl be bombed around the world. american travelers will be kidnapped adn killed. america will need to become a police state to investiage every foreign looking person. americas prosperity is built on its massive trade position in the world. if tghe world goes to hell, americas prosperity will suffer first and most. thus i cant see any reason why america wouldnt do the right thing, and teh thing most in their interest, adn secure the areas they engage in. just common sense to me SirRiff

nobody is angry here, its just odd to watch you continue to believe you somehow could recognize this magical proof you are looking for. you completely misstated the very elementary concepts of heredity and inheritance in your first post. you failed to even recognize the concept of heritability even when specifically citing people talking about it. instead of just admitting you got off to a bad start and regrouping to state your position, you start tying to say that its somehow me that’s not up to par?. well considering i spent two posts just cleaning up confused drivel, i am just trying to put some truthful concepts out in the open at this point. I figured if you were truly interested in the genetic basis of sexual behavior you would appreciate learning a bit about the basics first. OK, i will try saying this again...this is one man who says that the basis of sexual orientation isnt inherited. fine. but you know what? WE CANNOT FIND STRONG LINKAGES BECAUSE WE HARDLY KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR. its very hard to link a gene to a behavior when thousands of genes are involved, most of them are multifunctional, and are of previously unknown function. Ever analyze linkage data? I have, its very very complex, especially when there are huge numbers of genes and nobody knows why any of them do. so yeah, we obviously have no proof its strongly genetic, but this guy could easily take this lack of evidence and come up with his own theory. and that is exactly what he has done. but the field taken as a whole does not agree that genetics plays a secondary role. they know its a strong component but they don’t know to what degree. simple as that. you cited his opinion which is fine, he is one man with a theory based on inconclusive evidence. but what is with these other quotes? they are so vague they absolutely confirm nobody really knows the exact proportion. do you even read this stuff before you post it? this is very similar to what i said in my first corrective post. that sexual behavior is presumed to be controlled by a large number of multifunctional genes with complex additive effects. there is no way we can find a specific 'gay' gene because it doesn’t exist. This is the very reason that saying there is no significant genetic component is the height of arrogance. the search is so complex no one gene will ever correspond strongly. it will take a detailed mapping of all genes and years of investigation to even begin to link genetics to human behavior. influence? of course there is influence from the environment, that is just common sense. nobody ever disputed that. enormous influence?? like 50%? like 60%? duh, that is obvious too man. basically all your quotes which you mistake for support really just say environment is highly significant, which could be 40%, or maybe 50%, or maybe 60%. Nobody knows, which is exactly what I said in an earlier post. all your quotes agree with what i have been trying to tell you all along, genetics and environment both play major roles but it is unknown the relative quantities. but its presumed not to be a 99:01 split. they will both come out to be relatively large contributors since either one alone is absently known not to be able to provide the answer. well thats just genius...wait....that pretty much sounds like what i said a few posts ago...gee...imagine that, I knew what I was talking about… well no offence but your interpretations were dead wrong. that’s all i am saying. no i am posting my informed opinion as an informed opinon. I understand the key concepts unlike anybody else so far, I have actually researched primary publications unlike anybody else, I have actually screened DNA libraries and amplified DNA, actually analyzed sequences and tracked expression patterns. that is why i know what heredity, inheritance, and heritability mean off the top of my head, because i have some experienc with the subject. this is not like visiting Euro Disney and claiming to know European culture. I actually know the basic principles of genetics. and flying in my face of my colleagues?? you mean that one guys opinion and 7 wishy-washy quotes??? that is the entire genetics community??? Sorry, but you have seen 0.000001% of the science of genetics from what I have read. my 'colleagues' are tens of thousands of professionals publishing in hundreds of scientific journals. I can assure you that Dr. Dean Hamers opinion and 7 wishy washy quotes ARE NOT the genetics community. another example of how unfamiliar people underestimate the broad range of opinions in a discipline. HUGO you finally lost it man.... so you are saying that all my geneticist colleagues have unanimously concluded that childhood mental trauma is a significant and maybe determining factor in homosexual behavior?? That is so stupid its beyond words. as if you, someone who isn’t even familiar with the basic concepts of genetics, now knows what the entire genetics community has concluded? from one guys opinion and 6 moderate quotes? That’s like me saying I know what the American financial community thinks after watching 2 economists on CNN and reading a few quote. There is no such consensus, most of the genetics community from what I have experience take a very middle of the road approach. first of all, geneticists don’t deal with mental trauma secondly, genetics are not agreed on anything about homosexuality thirdly, you concluded this all from on mans opinion and 6 quotes that all said genetics and environment both play significant roles in sexual behavior, which is obvious in 2003. fourthly, i have repeatedly said that learned behavior plays a crucial role in addition to genetics to determining sexual identify, so i already pointed out its not nearly 100% genetics. maybe i should type slower or something... HUGO, your entire first post was wrong and obviously scientifically lacking. if you dont even know the basics of human genetics, there is no point for you to ask for primary research articles, because there is no way you would understand them at this point. when you know the most basic principles of genetics, the basic concepts of heritability, a small idea about mulitigene familes and how they are identified by linkage studies, the simplest evolutionary background on why diverse genetic alleles are maintained, THEN maybe you should restart this topic. copying and pasting one researchers opinion, and 7 ambiguous quotes that only state the obvious, that the environment is 'significant' in sexuality, does not mean you cited evidence. first you have understand what you posting, and it needs to be peer reviewed repeatable scientific data, not a few opinions out of thousands. listen HUGO, i am not saying your opinion is wrong. if you dont like gays then fine. dont think its natural? fine. on some levels i would agree that society can judge what it accepts. but if you post a few cut and pasted opinions, then go on a spiel about what heredity and inheritance is that would get you laughed out of a 1st year genetics class, expect someone who knows better to say something about it. i dont know any more about aliens or economics or 1940s soviet technology then you, but in this case I know enough to say that your assertion so far, that genetics has little influence compared to environment, is not only wrong, but is not supported by any majority of modern researchers as far as I know and have read. want the truth? well the truth is nobody really knows exactly what proportion of sexual behavior is hardwired into our genes. however the majority of researchers believe that all of our complex behaviors are very significantly genetically influenced by numerous genes. does that mean 60%? 75%? i dont know, but its a large part. of course that means that environment factors probably play a equally significant role too. how much? 60%? 75%? i dont know. nobody does. but one thing is certain, inherited sexual behavior predated the modern homosexuality argument by billions of years. so its assumed there is a strong genetic component to all complex behaviors, including sexuality. so I have stated the obvious, just like your quotes, that environmental factors definitely have a major role to play. I have pointed out that one mans opinion and several non-decisive quotes are in fact not evidence (as we learn in first year genetics...) I restate that I have alot of experience researching primary research publications and doing genetic experiments, and doubt that non-geneticists could learn enough quickly to discuss hard core genetics. just like i cant match your experience in your job, or rondas experience in her field, or FastNeds (who seems like a bright fellow) in his field. genetics is my field, and i know that your first post was way way off in every aspect, and have tried to correct misinformation where possible, i dont see why you need to be hostile to me when i obviously have good insight, it only brings most hostility back and is pointless. I also restate my support of whatever opinion you have about gays. I promise never to vote for anything that makes you watch men have gay sex. you dont have to like them or love them and you dont have to think they are 'natural'. but i will point out nonsense if you try to post something that says sexual behavior isnt hardwired to some degree and misstate basic scientific principles under the guise of knowing something about genetics. Call me whacky. You really want to read some great primary genetics? I did a great thesis two years back studying the historical rates of different mutational classes of the human X chromosome in the last 150 years and their impact on future disease trends. Its great reading for up and coming geneticists. Now is there anything left to say to wrap up this entire mess? Do you actually want to wade through primary research articles of linkage studies? Do you still not admit that so far you really have gotten all the basic principles wrong and just need to restate your position and read up a bit before claiming insight into complex scientific disiples? That one mans opinion and 6 quotes are in no part of the scientific community considered proof any anything? That your opinion is perfectly sound as long as you don’t try to misstate actual genetics concepts? And there is NO data on earth that the majority of the genetics field thinks shows genes having only a small role in behavior- its significant at least, but we don’t know more then that. I got tons of great research articles left over around here….i‘m sure the proof is buried in the statistical appendices as always. Better yet, just post your ideas on heritability and how any recent study would still be limited by identifying candidate genes considering the additive multifunctional nature of all known complex behaviors. And the way that considering most candidate genes would should a statistical linkage, how to test them all in isolation considering the developmental constraints of simultaneous expression need to induce the homosexual phenotypic behavior. Because this is really where we differ, I say that we cant have proof because of the above limitations. Whereas you seem to think the data so far is valid because your quotes supporting strong environmental influences (which is not in dispute) could only rely on complex linkages studies to support. SirRiff

exactly, that is why 3000 americans died on 9/11 because the US waged war in afganistan then left the nation to be raped for 20 years. the desperation eventually reached around the world and came home to roost. remember this America, no matter how nice your house is, you're only as safe as your worst off neighbor. SirRiff

Liberia was just a 30 second PR stunt to make up for the historical immoral actions in AFganistan, Iraq, and Iran, and now for the big lie abour iraq being a WMD threat. put some marines off the coast and it makes up for buying oil from dictators, supporting terrorists in training, and leaving entires nations to be raped after your attention is lost. i'd be more impressed if there were 100,000 trooops still in afganistan killing taliba/alqueda terrorists. SirRiff

yeah lets all pretend that american society has nothing that Canada reviles..... they still have institutional problems with racism, gun violence, drug policies, hyper-militantcy, pacifying patriotism, and corperate ownership of politics. we DO NOT want to embrace most of american culture. SirRiff

Ronda saying that letting two perfectly law abiding decent gays to marry will lead to little boys being legally sodomized by child preadors is fear mongering at its worst. its obviously not going to happen so why do you keep trying to pretend its related? there is NO consent issue with gay marraige, so it should have no effect on the consent of children. especially considering how touchy society is about protecting kids. why do you keep making such bizarre and distastfull claims? do you think that letting women become people and not just property will cause men sexually rejected by thier wives to go on raping rampades through society? do you think that blacks when allowed to have sex with whites will lower the IQ of the nation and lead to the end of the white race? because these all sound about equally plausable.. is this the only negative effects that people use to scare up support for preventing gay marriage? i just dont think its a reasonable discussion to have... Sirriff

absolutely Fastned, I would never claim to have conclusive evidence either way. learned behavior is a major component of human culture and sexuality is definitely no different. however from an evolutionary point of view, it is far too important to be left to be learned from scratch. so every human is definitely primed in sexual identity and sexual preference to some degree. i just want to agree and add that the quickest way to find the person most ignorant of genetics is to find the person who labels anything biological as unnatural or immoral or deviant. by definition there is nothing more natural then genetics, especially the endless range of possibilities explored. well we deal with this stuff all the time in genetics. there is nothing unnatural or deviant at all about populations tolerating fringe phenotypes in large complex populations. in fact, just a basic read over population genetics shows this is to some degree pushed by the basic principles of natural selection which often favor maintaining small proportions of alternate genes in any population. it could be that the genetic influence for homosexuality (whatever the degree, lets say 50% for convenience) is maintained in our population over time for any number of reasons. for example the gay alleles (version of genes) may also influence some unrelated behavioral characteristic that provided a survival benefit in the past- such as greater social relationships, or gay behavior in the past may have aided in disease immunity because it exposed the individuals to agents not normally protected against. there are numerous more reasons both behavioral and biochemical why a heritable gay phenotype is not selected against. thats really the truth to it all. no matter WHAT I do in my life, unless it has a direct negative effect on you or society greater then the freedoms granted to all citizens, nobody else, even through government has any authority to interfere. there are so many everyday behaviors that are so much more destructive then homosexual behavior that go unnoticed, its the proof that any argument that its harmful or destructive is bigoted and biased. look at the pain and suffering everday that heterosexual citizens participate in and there is no doubt gay is a red herring in most arguments. well these are not really restrained to homosexuals at all i think. guns are dangerous and causes society suffering, alcohol is dangerous and causes society suffering, tobacco is dangerous and causes society suffering, cars and dangerous and causes society suffering. to really label a behavior as deviant or evil or whatever, it would have to be very very destructive to individuals or society at large, AND have no redeeming social value. pedophilia comes to mind, not homsexuality. RONDA no ronda, thats not what i said, and thats not what the original post said. the original post incorrectly stated teh most basic principles of determining heritability and the conclusions drawn by it. I put forth the proper concept of environmental vs genetic contribution and talked a bit about what it would take to link them. you cannot compare sexual behavior to a simple eye color characteristic. why? because eye color and other simple characteristics are often simple dominate binary choices, A=brown, a=blue, or simple additive co-dominate choices, AB=1, Ab=2, aB=3, ab=4. behavior is nothing like eye color or other simple characteristics because there very well could be hundreds of genes involved instead of a few which raises the complexity exponentially. additionally, there is never a simple dominant binany hierarchy, which is why we will never find a 'gay' gene that is either on or off. so really there are most likely hundreds of seperate imputes, each of which contributes to different degrees, either in small binany choices or small additive effects. This is all then primed and expanded apon by learned behavior to some degree. Then we have the problem we cannot measure sexual behavior like eye color, because there are alot of people that might not act, or think, or screw like a typical 'gay' person. so just because there is no gay gene, doesnt mean its not genetic to a large degree. its just the genetics of complex behaviors are so complex and hard to identify on a genetic level, that they can never be reduced to a either or master switch. well really that completely ignores alot of genetics, because from a genetic view, there is really nothing of substance separating gay and hereto. so biologically its tolerated, and maybe even promoted to some degree in the complexities of survial. thus you can never say its not natural or deviant, by definition its natural and just as deviant as green eyes. now from a societies view, yah, every society must decide what they decide is acceptable and what value they give to innate behaviors of mankind. HUGO oh come now HUGO, just give it up trying to support your first post, its dead man. your first post was wrong in all genetic/scientific/biological aspects and you can do much better. it was based on nothing of scientific value and misinterpreted by everyone at first. i cleared up some of the basic flaws in heritability, the way that researchers investigative the degree of genetic influence on phenotypes. I never said i dont respect anything HUGO, so dont try to imply that. Science is not a primary genetics research publication, and its just one publication. it puts forth the newest theories for public interest. and i don’t think you need to inform me about scientific journals, since i spent years researching hundreds. what i was correcting you about was your misstating the basic principles of heritability and the conclusions that can be drawn from on mans opinion. just because any one researchers experiment doesnt find anything doesnt mean they dont exist. the field as a whole is very undecided about the total genetic contribution, but i doubt you would find many that would say there is none, and few that would say none will be found. and as for superiors in my field, i trust the field of genetics far more then one mans opinion. There are many educated people who are wrong because of personal bias. I have studied many. And its not like after your first post you should be citing any ability to identify sound scientific concepts. one research scientist regardless of who he is, is not an authority after a few experimental results. the field as a whole is far more accepting of a strong genetic influence. many great scientists have been proven wrong, its what science is about, reducing uncertainty. HUGO, this is really going to get discomforting soon if you dont stop trying to lecture about genetics when you keep getting it wrong. cancer and eye color are two genetically encoded phenotypes. there is nothing more influencing about a strong of DNA in a cancer gene then there is in a pigment gene. maybe you are trying to compare binary choices with complex multigene influences? well you must be, because nothing else makes sense. here is a little secret HUGO..... ALL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS INFLUENCED BY A COMBINATION OF PROBABLY HUNDREDS OF GENES. so your heterosexual behavior is encoded, influenced, determined, and predetermined to the exact same extent and capacity as homosexual behavior. there is no reason to try to separate an 'influence' and a 'determinate'. the only difference you seem to be citing is the number of genes and the complexity of the interaction. so really what you are saying with your cancer-eye color statement is that since no specific few genes are known to account for gay behavior, that the genetic contribution must be very small. well that is fundamentally and absolutely wrong in every way. the number of genes has NOTHING to do with the heritability of a characteristic. nothing at all. OK this has officially become graceless. because i understand genetics i know that i never implied that inherited characteristics are ever good or bad simply because they are inherited. good or bad is completely arbitrary and only applied by societies opinions. in biology, traits are only labeled by thier effect on survival, either beneficial, benign, or harmful. and even that label is biased at the gene, organism, or population level. it might be bad for you to inherit the sickle cell anemia gene because it makes you sick (it’s a mutation that causes your red blood cells to be misshaped and clump up). but it may be good for your local population to have a minority of individuals carrying the gene in case a widespread epidemic of malaria occurs. WHY? because the gene for sickle cell anemia provides resistance against malaria. that is why its much more common in black african descendants where maralia is prevalent. its harmful on one scale (organism) yet helpful on another (population). there is no good or evil about it. let me try to put something credible up now that we have waded through the misstatements again. the precise fact that some proportion of any sexual behavior is heritable means that there is NO biological (genetic) basis to claim it as intrinsically inferior just because it less frequent in occurrence. now, there is plenty of philosophical, or legal, or humanitarian, or medical reasons that society can invoke to choose and value some behaviors over another. but do not make the incorrect asumption that these value judgements have foundantion in nature. in fact they do not. SirRiff

I'm sorry I just cant take this level of misinformation. There is only so much that you can cut and paste without understanding before it gets crazy. I mean, we can all debate the chances of aliens existing, because really, there are no 'experts' per se, and any opinion is not exponentially more rooted in insight then another. But this is genetics, and there are actually right and wrong answers for some basic concepts, so I will clear a few things up. First of all I'm not claiming to know everything. I am obviously not a world ranking scientist by any means. But I know some. I did a 4 year honors Genetics degree. I work in biotech. I actually researched primary publications (not 'Science', I am talking about real peer reviewed experimental genetics journals like Human Mutation and Chromosome). I have actually played with DNA and studied results. I just got offered a job friday morning at a San Diego pharmaceutical company that makes autoimmune disease drugs. its my field. HUGO you really put forth a 100% inaccurate definition of heritable as far as any functional definition i know Heritable means capable of being inherited. nothing more. inherited (in a biological sense) means genetic information transmitted through ancestors. What I think you were referring to (at least i hope so) is Heritability. Heritability as defined by ANY geneticist worth the cost of his lab coat is: the proportion of total phenotypic (behavioral/physical/biochemical) variance that can be attributed to genetic variance There is no other functionally accepted definition as far as I know. Heritability is basically determined as the variation of a genotype Vg over the total variation Vt (genetic and environmental) in the phenotype. Basically the genetic contribution to observed phenotypic variation. H= Vg / Vt OR H= Vg / (Vg+Ve) Thus if we had a cage of inbreeding rats, that were all nearly genetically identical (Vg=0), and one rat showed a variation in a trait, the heritability would be 0 because only environmental factors (Ve) could influence the trait. If we take the opposite, and look at a greenhouse where all plants grew in the exact same environment (Ve=0), any variation in traits must be genetic. Everyone following so far? Now as for you statement that the 'lay press' was 'not so precise' or that everyone should 'check their sources', I will just say that what I posted above is in fact the true definition of heritability, the only measurable concept (as opposed to being 'heritable' or 'inherited' which both refer to the pathway for transmission and have nothing to do with relative quantitative or qualitative contributions) Now that I have enlighten a bit on that subject, let me go one step further into more uncharted territories on the complexity of the human genome. Just because we cant find a 0.9 heritability coefficient for a genetic trait influencing a binary sexual preference doesnt mean anything. The door is wide open and anybody who claims it will ever be 100% or 0% is a quack. a nut. a moron. and idiot. first of all we can be sure that there would be dozens of independent multifunctional unrelated genetic components influencing sexual identity/preference/gender. why? because most complex human characteristics are encoded like this, the product of our complex modular genome and its replicative expansion during evolution. in 10 years we could very well pinpoint 13 individual genetic components that show 'gayness' has a 0.9 heritability coefficient. we just dont know genetically yet, however a lot of study and almost ALL circumstantial evidence so far gathered on other complex human behaviors show a significant, if not compelling genetic influence. the entire human machinery on which the environment works on is genetically encoded. thus its like saying the blueprints for a building will have little effect for how the weather ages it. or the design of a park has little effect on how it wears over time. any human behavior that is directed by the environment is always primed by genetics, and it would be unreasonable to assume any person is primed neutral. so i have corrected the misuse of the concepts of heritable and inherited, and replaced them with the correct concept of heritability. if you dont like gays tahts fine, but nothing posted here is correctly interpreted yet at all,. any posts reading "ha this proves they cant find a gay gene" should cause some self evaluation by the poster considering there is nothing of substance cited yet. Additionally, the several times copied and pasted text have been repeatedly misinterpreted and misstated is a lesson for us all. If anybody wants to challenge my scientific claims I invite scrutiny, but i assure you I did not overstate anything and truly do know what i am talking about on genetics. i put down some facts and some opinions and i think i seperated them well enough for the readers. if you disagree with gayness, well its just two equal opinions i suppose. One last thing, I am astonished at the arrogent tones on this thread. I'm not saying Scotchneat is right or anything, but considering how completely misstated and misinterpreted the most basic theories of genetics have been on this thread, I dont think anybody should be proud of thier interpretation/use of the original "scientific'' statement. seems like a case of a tidbit of a paragraph satisfying some preheld belief. unfortunately in this case, the origainal 'proof' was so isolated and misrepresented the claims of scientific fact went from 0 to ridiculas instantly. any questions? SirRiff

two points I. saying that its "not in americas interest" to assure basic standards of living throughout the world is untrue. although we know the US cannot solve all the worlds problems, the existance of desperate people is in fact a direct threat to all civilized nations, as afganistan so perfectly displayed. with continued overpopulation and declining supplies of food and water in the third world, every one of us is threatened by global desperation. a time will come when much of the world collapses into war over basic resources. either us, or our children, or thier children will see this and they will suffer as well. every attempt by rich nations to prevent the collapse of other nations is an attempt to prolong our own prosperity. in terms of the future, our efforts will be small compared to the loss of basic humanity that will occur when desperation finally envelopes the world and all known security disappears. so it is in every nations interest, especially the wealthiest and most capable US, to prevent desperation around the world. when criminals move into a middle class neighborhood, its the neighborhood that has the most to loose. II. american influence if done with a highly ethical and humane character, would benefit the world. the truth however is often so violent and oppressive, that they only increase human miserty while reaping power and prosperity. this is evident in thier dealings with afganistan, iraq, and iran (and many others), where they have directly or indirectly participated in the most violent and immoral actions seen on earth since WWII. SirRiff

its funny watching you guys try to soothe your discontent by pretending that one gesture makes an ally. For all you know they might never see combat, or they may get so bloodied they get called back, or they may be so ill-trained they dont contribute. And i would just LOVE to see internationally aware americans suddenly respect and build strong ties to thier strong ally of Poland. a real ally would point out the american government lied and fear mongered to invade iraq. and americans are mis informed about even the simplist facts of terrorism, with large sections incorrectly believing that Iraq had a direct role in 9/11 and stockpiles of WMDs had been found. Do you think poland will sell the US lots of oil? SirRiff

I think you can put it down to two factors; I. Indiscriminate and lingering War- especially the availability of heavy weapons from developed nations, and II. Overpopulation Now I know overpopulation might seem an odd word to use in such a desolate place, but i strongly believe a civil society cannot exist where no reproductive control exists. i actually want to start another thread about the ethics of population planning on a national and global level. but on thing is obvious, the value of human life for the most part is near worthless in some regions and I believe it is because of War and Overpopulation. SirRiff

yes do do know enough to reach that conclusion. we have evidence of warming and evidence of massive environmental release by humans. thus we should limit the damage to prevent any more changes. if aliens come down and laugh at us because it was solar flares all along, then yes we will look silly. but in 50 years if less land is suitable for crops, if erosian and sea levels increase, and if there is generally more disaster, we will be vindated. it would be ignorant to wait for disaster to before concluding we need to act. SirRiff

Islam has no such debate. It is sterile. Worse if you are a non-believer you are beneath contempt. Christians at least have an interest in other sects and religions. Islam does not.

you are saying they are STARTING a study? so what? do we need another study on AIDs transmission? do we need another study on cancer-smoking links? on obestity-heart disease risks? on child mosesters re-offence rates? on greenhouse gas contribution to global warming? there is no doubt greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming. it would be stupid to wait while we damage our environement. the cause itself is worthwhile and the technologies and knowledge that comes out of it will pay for itself. we will also clean up our planet at the same time. Craig answer this question: if you are on a desery island with limited food and water do you eat it normally and plan to find more later? or do you ration it because it may be all you have to work with? common sense and science tell us the best prevention is to reduce the waste we put out. simple as that. SirRiff

why does terrorism have more to do with iraq then saudi arabia? why wasnt giving $3 Billion to osam bin ladens guys in the 80s, and supporting saddam as he raped and murdered and gassed iranians not terrorism by the US? why do large segments of americans believe WMD have been found and iraq was directly invoved in 9/11? why were the portions of the 9/11 report that were censored about the worlds largest oil producer? why does bush continue to link iraq and al queda when no intelligence agency in the world will step up and confirm it? since the US knew so much about the quality and location of the WMD, why have the special investigation teams in iraq run out of sites and get reassigned? america cannot be trusted to pre-empt because they have supported every evil dicator that furthers thier power. their population is largely uninformed and easily manipulate by thier leaders. they are slaves to middle easterns oil and need to bribe corrupt regimes in order to remain rich. America is slowly become a rouge nation. SirRiff

craig please post a link to show that the BBC officially labelled cambell as the source. i dont recall it. SirRiff

Canada wount have to make the US look bad if Bush didnt lie so much. he said iraq and alqueda are close allies he said the alumin tubes were for nukes he said he knows where there are massive WMD stockpiles he endorsed the british idea that they could launch in 45 minutes he endorsed the british idea they tried to get uranium from africa the US illegally sent $3 billion to afganistan to arm and train terrorists. you can rationalize it all you want, but the fact is that those people destroyed the country and killed 1 million people, THEN they hit the WTC. the US supported saddam and did oil trade with him while he was raping and killing his own people. they also helped him gas iranians. you can rationalize it all you want but the US never had a problem supporting dictators while they used WMDs pointlessly. the US in truth has supported the worst of the worse. the citizens are completely ignorant about this history. large segments of americans believe WMD have been found and iraq was invovled in 9/11. the american gov is so handcuffed by its saudi oil dependance they cant even name thier support for terrorists in the 9/11 report. how pathetic. in fact, bush said on his aircraft carrier of course the 9/11 report completely proved this false. while the saudi connection is hidden from americans by thier own government. ahh the power of oil. The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding America has not demonstrated a track record of basic morality or a population of informed citizens. american policies do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. if america was truly a great nation bush would have got support for war by a purely humanitarian and global stability argument. none of this WMD imminent threat nonsense that doesnt exist. and stop supporting dictators would help. SirRiff

the question is what is the criteria for pre-emption and how early do you pre-empt? why doesnt china just go into tiawan now since the US keeps building stronger ties with it? i'm sure its army is getting stronger all the time. why doesnt russia go into chechnya since they are just full of terrorists (from what the russians tell us)? the US is a slave to radical political philosophies. just look at the neo-conservatives who are behind bush. they were putting out reports on 'regime change' way back in 2000. iraq wasnt a reaction, it was an implimentation after an opportunity. US intelligence based policies is so imperfect it couldnt stop 9/11, it cant find the huge stockpilesof WMD that it KNOWS were there, it didnt forsee what abandoning afganistan for 20 years of civil war would create, it didnt raise objections to supporting saddam hussain. not to mention the huge foreign energy dependance of the US, which assures it will prop up corrupt regimes while using desperate means to maintain cheap oil supply. with this massive conflict of interest how can anybody trust the US. hell, even the saudi terror links were censored in the 9/11 report. you would think with 3000 dead americans a little discomfort would be tolerated for "truth" and "justice". america is becoming just another corperate regime in suits. i see very little transparency under its claims of morality. most americans dont even know what their country did in iran, afganistan, and iraq in the past. SirRiff

well for me its because -the US secretly supported a coup in Iran in 1953 for oil interets - the US secretly and illegally supported afgan terrorists in the 80s including osama bin laden - the US supported saddam while helped him to gas iranians, also while he murdered his own people, they also continued to do biz with him until the gulf war -Bush has explicity stated iraq and alqueda are "allies", which no american agency is in agreement with and thus is only a political lie -Bush insulted the world by rushing to war when we now clearly see there was NO IMMINENT THREAT to the US by iraq. another month would not have changed a thing. - the US continues to buy oiil from saudi arabia while its ties with terrorists are well documented (but down played by this admin) is there any point that i made that isnt 'factually correct" ( as Bush likes to say)? taken together its obvious an oil friendly nation that rushes to war against Iraq long after supporting both saddam and osama cannot be trusted. he lies to his own people and to the world, he cannot be trusted and america suffers on the world stage. no country can prosper without peace and allies. SirRiff

FastNed that is a very rational and reasonble arguement, Actually i think its far too rational and reasonable to ever work. as we have all seen, in vietnam the Iraq war, it was hyped rhetic of politicians that led the charge. in Gulf war I and Afganistan it was an intense event that triggered an expected response. everything you said is correct, but there is no nation in the world so civiliized to ponder and abide by those rules. (pity) but as amazed as i am to watch me type this, I think over rationalization about the self serving interests is actually too much of a bad thing. if a humanitarian crisis doesnt appeal to the hearts and minds of civilized nations like the US, Canada and Europe, then we are not deserving of the title "civilized" I will use Iraq as an example. I fully think that back in the 80s, or even after 91, a rational and ethical case could be made for removal of Saddam by the US, but preferably by the UN. now everyone dropped the ball on that one- but i think the strongest case for war against Iraq or north korea would be humanitarian grounds. it is the only reason that nobody can dispute and that civilized nations must be accountable for. I often hear that statement, but i am confused as to the perspective of it. do you really think the US isolated from the evils of the world. i mean, people say the US is the most "powerfull" nation in the world. in a sense it is true, but only as long as it s prosperity is far above others. in terms of nuclear weapons, Russia could equally end teh world, and a growing number of countries could initiate a nuclear holocaust. so the US no longer maintains a nuclear majority as such. now in terms of conventional army deployment, we see from Iraq that the cost is so astronomical that only the richest of nations can afford it. if another major terror attack hit DC tomorrow morning the american economy would collapse significently before the end of the day. in that position, the US would no longer have narly the staying power around the world. it just couldnt maintain that level of expense and still have the highest quality of life. so what i am saying, is specifically because you are the richest nation, whether admitting it or not, you are the worlds police force becuase it is in your interest to protect the source of your prosperity- a stable and grobal market. by leaving china to intimidate taiwan, india and pakistan to threaten each other, isreal and palestine to fight, indonesia to radicalize, and middle east corruption to breed ignorant masses, it can only lead to americas diminished prosperity. hell, can you imagine if there was a radical coup in saudi arabia tomorrow morning that didnt want to sell oil to the west? gas would be $5.99 a gallon. but you are right about civil intervention and american ROE. I just cant imagine why iraqi seems to be left lingering for so long. if there was a huge international humanitarian army following the war i'm sure the "militants" would be far worse received then thay are now. in summery the US prospers only by having a stable global economy- the highest have the farthest to fall and it is in the US's interest to prevent humanitarian and geo-political instability whether its popular or not to admit it. SirRiff

since i grew up in the muslim community and mosques i probably know more about the reality of islam then most people. HUGO's quote of one line of the Koran is very telling, not even discussing the violence the bible is filled with. all biblical text has stories of violence and conversion and such. its no wonder after all the crusades and conquests. the poverty of the region is really what is the problem here and it really is a function of geography. if the muslim world was located in modern europe it would be full of middle class moderate people. it is no coincidence that prosperity, as seen in the US, is linked to declining religious zeal. middle class people with healty kids and stable jobs dont become religous extremists (or political extremeists for that matter) poverty will cause the abuse of any system of belief. from ethic cleansing to holy wars. to look for inherant inequalities in different religions is to ignore the obvious stressors of everyday humanity. SirRiff

Arguing that Canada lacks habitable area, population, or resources is a sure sign of mental illness. We need to commit some posters on this thread. This is just another example of Canada bashing in a desperate bid to garner attention and promote a bizarre and often extreme point of view. some absolute truths; I. Canada is huge II. Canadass habitable land area is massive and generally speaking popultion expansion is dictated by necessity- we dont need to expand currently. III. Canada is rich in natural resources IV. Canada has 31.5M citizens Blackdog you going to register or what? join and help fight the dark side. SirRiff

national authority is useless when the world goes to hell around you. SirRiff