marcinmoka

Touche. Good point. I too am skeptical as to the efficiency of the system, but than I realized, it is genuinely new. For the first time in 40 years has there been even a system remotely capable of intercepting a missle. Prior to that, it was hiding under your classroom desk. In regular battle, defense has evolved (roughly) with offense. The Nuclear Game was the first to obliterate that concept. Until now. Sure it's in it's infancy, but it will be worked, and re-worked until it ACTUALLY works. Remember, this system is meant to guard against "rogue" states, ( for the next few years, China since their capability is still underdeveloped for the time being). Whereas only one nation can build a counter defensive weapon, or at least overtake the system by sheer volume, and that's Russia. So knowing it's paltry "kill rate" I doubt that American planners had Russia in mind. It would've been pointless. But such a system can definitely provide some leverage over say China, and until recently, N. Kora for at least another decade or so. Will it promote new weapons, yes. Would China have built new weapons even if it did not exist, yes.

Though that recent British poll raised many questions. Why are young British, Canadian muslims religious, whereas in France they somewhat do stick to overall secularity?

Just stumbled upon this thread. Yes. I've been living there the past few years, and I've worked with these kids. Give them all the state help in the world, and they'll still be torching cars for it will never replace shoddy parenting. But keep in mind, these were males whose average is 16 and 9/10, are drop outs. Then they complain about not getting a job because employers are racist. Bullocks. One thing we must not do, is generalize. These kids aren't AT ALL religious. Most don't even any speak Arabic apart from derogatory slang. This has NOTHING to do with Islam (directly). Though a case could be made that this is the result of the overtly patriarchal societies, (which unfortunately un progressive strains of Islam support) from which the parents of these kids hail, giving rise to a culture which unfortunately subjugates the daughters, but lets the sons do WHATEVER they please without any parental interference.

As long as Hamas is influential and they continue claiming that Israel must be destroyed and all the Jews kicked out, then YES.

The key term. Thanks for bringing that up.

I actually do, but I'm not gonna argue with you on this point. Kyoto should be used a guideline, and not the rule, because developed nations will pay too much a price for something that affects US ALL and developing nations will use this as an excuse to go on polluting. But your post wasn't necessarily about Kyoto, just climate change in general. And in particular this: While this is true, it only focuses on the good things, but: - Believe it or not, we have summer here in Canada as well, and it gets very hot already. We don't need a repeat of European heat waves and the casualties which ensued. It’s easier to die from heat than cold because its harder to escape from it. - That which we would save on heating would be spent on cooling. - Warmer climate = More bacterial activity = More carbon = More heating. - Increased forest fires = More carbon = More heating. - Vancouver, St. John's and Halifax would be progressively "screwed", albeit over a slow period of time. (People up in the hills of Vancouver though would become Insanely RICH, in case your thinking of good investments). - The great lakes would be under attack. Decreased water levels would reduce the hydroelectric output - The St .Lawrence seaway would be at risk, blocking one of the worlds major trade routes. I'm an adamant believer in the market. Money talks, so let's ensure the Invisible Hand guides us to a cleaner world.

.

It's a very poor analogy for reasons that should be self-evident. Hamas, unlike yours truly, is a major player in the internal politics of Palestine. Somehow geting them onside would be a significant step towards peace, especially if Israel was somehow able to get them to crackdown on other, smaller factions. But onside of who? You can't get them on the side of Israel if they don't see Israel as being Israel for all they see is a large congregation of Jews who need to be eliminated from the Muslim lands.

-------------------------- When it comes to dealing with climate change, I don't think anyone would disagree that in "the least", it is venturing into the UNKNOWN. Some will say it is natural, which I agree, but it is equally coupled, though no one knows to which proportion, with man made results. It is on that point alone, that it is worth taking action. I liken it to INSURANCE. Sure, the chances that your house will burn down are rather small, but if it does, you're covered. But in this case, it's much more serious than the destruction of one house. While output economic output may be slightly impacted, it is a moderate cost compared to the risk of an ecological disaster taking place. We should take into consideration the worst scenarios and how they would impact our economic situation, and possibly creating a geopolitical nightmare. The Stern report figured something around a 5% chance of global warming resulting in a 20% reduction in output. Sure it's only 5%, but that 20% reduction scares me. I also object to calls which put "environmental awareness" and "capitalism" in opposition. I want to see a Green Capitalism, were technology progresses, and those who implement and invent this technology are compensated, and nicely.

Not really. Letting the market in on the solution (such as trading caps which are auctioned off) and development and selling of new, more efficient technologies ain't IN NO WAY redistributing wealth, well, only to new engineering firms in that case.

Does this not go against the results of the December 15th Assembly elections? It was the anti-westerners who lost a LOT of ground.

Cannanites are the grandchildren of Noah. But if you insist.

At least we're on the same page. I agree it would've been impossible because of MAD. But I was making a case with the other chap who thinks there were no reasons for the US detonating their weapons in Hiroshima and Nagaski. And we had a very advanced program. This relates again to the other guys logic, not yours. It was testing a hypothesis of "if the US had no nukes" or "had the russian created them a few years prior to the Wests". I think you understand.

Nukes against Iran as a whole, hell no. Not unless they struck first. The Iranian population is a completely different beast than the ruling theocracy. They are young, they are progressive and don't give care for the theocracy imposed on them by force.

Nice to say from the comfort of your Canadian home. But I was born "on the other side" of this conflict, in a nation subjugated to Soviet Rule. Why do you think NATO was created? If America would of not flexed it's muscle, what do you think would've stopped Stalin from expanding into Canada? Maybe he would of had sympathy for us, because we're so nice and polite, gosh darnit! I mean, Stalin was the sympathetic type!

No problem, I will continue to enjoy my history books, my encyclopedias and the facts accepted by everyone in this world except for you. I don't know how old you are, or maybe your high school history class has to yet to study that subject; but I'll give you a few links: ENCARTA : http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569374/Cold_War.html Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/hist/coldwar2-en.asp Sites such as the BBC and CBC also seem to support my "conspiracy theories". Good riddance!

62 years ago. While it was horrific, you must realize THAT IS THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING RUSSIAN TODAY!!!!!!!!! правда что Я говорю но было моим выбором! Seems to me the bombs were dropped on Japan. Good job. I'm glad you noticed that. A pat on the back. And Vietnam/Afghanistan/Cuba/ Iran/Korea and Angola were just little wars, completely unconnected to the the Cold War. If anyone with at least a TEEENY tiny sense of geopolitical strategy, please feel free to join in on the conversation. This is killing me.

62 years ago. While it was horrific, you must realize THAT IS THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING RUSSIAN TODAY!!!!!!!!! правда что Я говорю но было моим выбором!

Yes, despite the fact that they are vocal in initiating threats to destroy a nation which has never struck them. Love your logic. Maybe Chavez should get a few as well. Heck, Nukes for all! While I disagree with the banning of anyone (unless they are carrying out personal attacks) on my FIRM belief in the freedom of expression, I do find it hard to believe that someone who is living in a free country such as ours, knocks the very same system and allies which have granted us this freedom. Maybe it because I'm an immigrant that I respect that which has been afforded to me by our nation and our allies.

Nearly defeated people? This is not just a narrow "Israel vs. Palestine" conflict. The entire middle east is at stake. The Saudis are peacemaking BECAUSE they dont want a Shi'a influence in Palestine. This strategic advantage would be not used solely by "defeated" people, but by radicals from Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc.

Granted. They built them deeper underground and installed air defense systems around these sites. BUT: That's the conundrum in military capabilities. The offense develops in sync with the defense. Israels air capabilities are much more advanced than they were 26 years ago, and the "laser guided bunker busters" are relatively new. In fact, seeing as Israel has the support of western nations, it can be argued that their capacities have evolved at a slightly quicker pace, rather than Iran who relies on Russian defensive equipment.

And they don't create any now pretexts to use it now? Even if it sets them back a decade, it's a success. But what do you mean by viable level of air strikes? There are 4 key sites, plus 3 major research sites, and with the exception of the Natanz facility, are located much closer to Iran's borders. Getting in will be easy, getting out, not so. Out of curiosity, did you read the whole piece? i.e. wider spread implications of Shi'a rejuvination?

Please tell me more. I read many newspapers, and have never heard anyone mention a willingness to expans Israel. And choices? Maybe my atlas is dated, but last that I checked Israel did not span from the Sinai all the way to southern Turkey while encompassing all of Syria, Jordan and northern portions of Saudi Arabia. I'm still curious as to your sources and actual statistics regarding desires to expand Israel to the size of Solomon's Kingdom. Again, peace is impossible because those who claim the terrain will use it to "wipe Israel off the map".

I overheard this, and I love it: "

I agree with reperations but with conditions; - That the Italians compensate the Israelis for the expulsion of the Jews from Judea during the Roman Empire, thereby initiating the diaspora towards Europe. - That the Egyptians accept their responsibility for enslaving the Jews a few millenia ago.