Whistler

The US also relied on geography as a natural defense we do not now however. Australia is surrounded by oceans and though unpopular supported the US in all and more particularly recent events. The difference however is the “friendly neighbor to the south” which I fear Canada might appear to take for granted. Unfortunately, this will reflect in trade.

Which chapter of history are you referring to? Botany? If the war on terrorism is not winnable the alternative is not acceptable. Those Countries and people that feel the war on terrorism is below them, please step aside and keep quite for they will reap the benefits without absorbing the sacrifices. Terrorists have a friend in the media that are poisoning our resolve.

Who are ‘they’ you are referring to? Iraqis, Muslims or Islamic Radicals? Each would give a different answer. Please do not confuse these actions as being condoned by the majority of Iraqis.

Welcome Saladin, I believe the Palestinian plight serves a greater purpose for Arab Countries and have a question for you. Can a Palestinian purchase and own land in Syria?

Agreed FastNed. I do feel “The survival of America is at risk...” is a bit over the top however, possibly a broad conflict with Islamic nations might be at stake.

Whoops, I think there was a little frog kissing prior to Clinton. Who Rescued Arafat? In 1982 it was Ronald Reagan who intervened to save Arafat. Prime Minister Menachem Begin reluctantly agreed. Mr. Begin soon realized that he had compromised his life's work and almost immediately slipped from a leadership position. At any rate, Arafat survived due to American intervention. In 1988, US Secretary of State George Schultz met Arafat in Geneva, Switzerland. Schultz coaxed Arafat into making a declaration that he accepted the right of Israel to exist. By this Arafat supposedly renounced terrorist efforts to destroy Israel. http://www.tzemach.org/articles/rescuing-arafat.htm Regarding the article, I think it is a valid strategy to try “following the money”. We did not have pro spooks in place at the time and it fell apart. Dam love...

"They're ashamed." As an entire sentence does not strike you as strange? I doubt the question was: How do most Canadians feel about Jean Chretien’s comments about possibly smoking pot when he retires? I am often wrong but this smacks as being out of context. Your accusation of hypocrisy has validity however.

Hogo, I see your lack of simple deduction expands beyond math. Sense you can not help but misunderstand I will say for the third and last time a woman has the right to choose for herself. You do not have the right to choose for her. Everything else was side roads. From here on you are playing with yourself. And I suggest you use that as birth control.

Eugenics is the for runner to genetics. Look Hugo I can only lead a horse to water. If he does not want to drink that’s his business.

Ignorance is bliss! Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/ In pursuit of their social agenda, the eugenics movement adopted two faces, a "positive" one, which concentrated on exhorting the genetically gifted to reproduce, and a "negative" one, which sought to prevent the defective from breeding. http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/exhibits/...easures/aes.htm Eugenics is a concept familiar to Americans in the context of Nazi Germany. "Eugenics" involves notions of racial purity, racial superiority, and the heritability of intelligence, virtue, or vice. Although Hitler is its most notorious proponent, eugenic thinking has held a prominent place in Western intellectual history since the 1860's, when Darwin's disciple, Francis Galton, began to put about the idea that the governing classes of England should consciously guide the development of the human genetic heritage. http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/aepage.htm The Nazis may have given eugenics its negative connotations, but the practice--and the "science" that supports it--is still disturbingly alive in America in anti-immigration initiatives, the quest for a "gay gene," and theories of collective intelligence. http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/O/ordover_...r_american.html and on and on and on

Hugo you are so silly. Simple deduction should tell you (if your birth rate is greater then your death rate your population grows.) 2.0 or 0.2 it does not matter, (immigration withstanding). As for “Population growth is not to blame for any of the world's problems anyway.” This speaks for your grasp of the facts or perhaps just your spin. Please consider contributing, irritating or compounding. Watch CNN tonight if you really do think over population has nothing to do with world troubles. This whole move into population is a byproduct of our original topic. The fact of the matter, in my humble opinion, is the woman has every right to choose to bring a child into this world that will force her into poverty, welfare and despair.. You did bring up a great topic however regarding Margaret Sanger. Very few people actually know that genocide was actually an U.S. theory that Hitler implemented. American genetics is an amazing story of the dark side of the U.S., Rockefellers and IBM among many others.

CNN aired the first part a report on just this subject tonight. They will air the second part tomorrow. “Population growth and the adverse ramifications”. What a coincidence.

South Korea's President Roh Moohyun is taking a first step to overhaul a corrupt government. If he survives the referendum, he will overhaul his cabinet in an attempt to separate his office from long-standing ties to the military and bribes that have influenced S. Korea’s politics since the early 60’s. I wish him luck...he'll need it.

Over four million babies are born each year in the United States. The U.S. population is growing by about 2.5 million people each year. Of that, immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually. The U.S. fertility rate is currently 2.0 births per woman, an increase from 1.8 in 1988. The United States has one of the highest natural growth rates (0.7%) of any industrialized country in the world. For comparison, the United Kingdom's natural increase is one quarter the rate of the U.S. at 0.2%, while Germany's natural increase is 0. Using the Census Bureau's medium projections, U.S. population will grow to 394 million by the year 2050. Eight states have population growth rates over 2.0%, which means their population will double in less than 35 years. I'm still having troubleand if you think third world population does not effect the first world your nuts.

year population % rise pop. gain 1997 5,846,871,429 1.34 78,899,442 1998 5,925,770,871 1.31 78,001,123 1999 6,003,771,994 1.28 77,230,943 2000 6,081,002,937 1.25 76,753,814 2001 6,157,756,751 1.24 76,520,745 2002 6,234,277,496 1.22 76,271,568 2003 6,310,549,064 1.20 75,993,822 2004 6,386,542,886 1.18 75,638,540 2005 6,462,181,426 1.16 75,478,997 2006 6,537,660,423 1.15 75,561,947 http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm I’m having trouble understanding the population is not growing. ‘Unborn’ hmmm what would the opposite of unborn be? Regarding 'human' & 'rights' 18. UNCLE