Moonlight Graham

100 bin Laden's and a million Mohamed Atta's.

Obviously, but i never stated such. I agree.

I'm not looking at the context of the war in that way, and not trying to get into arguments about what the UN did or didn't approve. I'm simply looking at it from a moral perspective. Any country invading Iraq to depose of Saddam simply for humanitarian purposes would be better spent using its resources on greater humanitarian problems (not to dismiss the disgusting deeds of Saddam).

Have a link to this study? Are you just referring to what Al Gore said about this in his movie (which one must take with a grain of salt). It would be interesting to see some kind of formal survey/study done to see how many applicable scientists agree with AGW or disagree. I'd imagine the majority of climate scientists do agree with the popular AGW theory, though dissenters certainly exist. Anyone know of a study trying to determine the degree of this "consensus?

Wrong on both counts. Ridiculous actually. What possible empirical evidence and/or logical could you use to defend both of these claims?

This question comes down whether more harm/suffering would result if Saddam was left in power or if more harm has and will result because of the war, ie: hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. This also involves some future guessing, unfortunately. What would Saddam and his sons have done had they been left in power VS what future violence will occur in Iraq under the new regime? will there be eventual civil war? will another despotic leader eventually take control in Iraq? Despite all this, the point is mooted by the fact that a war solely to remove Saddam from power would have been wrong on the grounds that there are many much worse humanitarian situations in the world where US/western resources should have gone.

Based on feverish scientific review? Or otherwise?

bullcrap. Americans tend to feverishly fight/defend their liberties moreso than Canadians. Re: the history of both countries. It would take a heck of a lot to move Canadians to start a "tea party" movement like in the US. We are a bit more docile lot, more content to depend on government to do what's best for us and less eager to rise up and demand change. This quite bothers me about my countrymen. On the plus side, our docility has led us to be a more peace-loving/less violent bunch than our southern friends.

But it does mean something, and you said it. It means that there is little to no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over such a time period.

I've always found this graph compelling. I'm interested in any opinions on it (its accuracy and relevance) by those in the science field. Don't know Waldo's science background, but would be interested on his take on it (hopefully minus the attitude) as he seems to follow climate science closely. For those who don't know, the Phanerozoic eon is basically just the period spanning about the last 550 million years. Here's the graph, which is fairly well known and i'm sure most people interested in climate science have seen it before: Phanerozoic - CO2 & Temperature This graph is often used by AGW deniers to show that there has been little if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over this long-term period, therefore questioning the CO2-temp relationship (though there seems to be a link over a much shorter time frame, re: this famous Vostok ice core graph. If accurate, this is compelling evidence. The CO2 data seems legit enough. Was derived from a study in the American Journal of Science in 2001. Here's another graph of multiple sources charting of the CO2 during the Phanerozoic i found on wikipedia, which shows pretty much the same thing (though this graph is flipped compared to the other graph, with years descending in the opposite direction on the horizontal axis). But is the temp data accurate? Here's another temp chart from wiki of the last 500 mil yrs, which is a bit different but generally shows the same temp pattern. Thoughts?

In virtually all countries where the US has a long-term presence (minus places which are current hot war-zones), including Japan and Germany, the US remains in these countries because the host country governments want them to stay. Same with South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, and others. Germany and Japan spend extremely little on military defense, and neither posses nukes. They depend on the US for security. Germany is non-militaristic because of the legacy of WWI and WWII. Japan doesn't want nukes because of the legacy of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and if the US & their nukes left the region Japan would either need to arms itself with nukes or face possible confrontation with China. US also provides military protection for Taiwan to check China power, and Taiwan wants this help. We all know that South Korea wants the US military protection it enjoys. Hot wars aside, if a country asks US military bases/troops to leave, they generally do. In 1991, the Philippines told the US to remove its military base forces, and they did: While the US certainly enjoys strategic benefits from its foreign military bases, and some are initially installed by force (ie: Iraq/Afghanistan), the idea that the US somehow forces most countries to host its long-term military facilities against their will is certainly one of the biggest popular misconceptions of US foreign policy.

The military industrial complex is alive and well, i agree. War is very profitable to many. However, what you're saying is definitely a conspiracy theory, and i stress the word "theory", unless you have some definitive evidence to back up your claim?

Time, indeed. Longest war in Canadian history. Longest war in American history. West defeats Nazi Germany = 6 years, West trying to defeat Taliban/insurgents/al-Qaeda in Afghanistan = 9+ years and counting. It took the US less time to defeat the freaking British Empire in the American Revolutionary War than to secure Afghanistan (if this is ever done at all). Installing a liberal democracy gov in Afghanistan sounds like "westernizing" to me.

Well i'll be darned. Will be interesting to see how things play out if/when the US troops all leave. Troops may leave, but yes American "diplomats" will very likely stay re: the embassy. I'd imagine some kind of forces, American or Iraqi, would be needed to secure that embassy. Good luck Iraqis!!

I go back & forth on affirmative action. 1) it's not fair for whites/males etc. to be discriminated against because of their colour/sex etc. and be passed over for visible minorities or women to fill a quota. however... 2) it's not fair for visible minorities/women etc. to be discriminated against because of their colour/sex (or accent etc.) and be passed over in favour of white males because by white male employers who may be racist and/or sexist. Unfortunately this crap still happens, i've seen friends who are employers do this and admit it to me. So it's basically "pick your poison". Either way, somebody is going to be discriminated against. Right now, i'm on the side of affirmative action if it's managed properly. The usual argument against AA is that the best person should be chosen for the job, no matter the colour/gender etc. But this just doesn't happen many times. If Mr. white male employer has a choice between 2 equal candidates, 1 white male and 1 arab muslim male, the white male will often get the job.

The title of this thread is incorrect. The video you posted said "6200 civilian deaths in Afghanistan since January to the end of October". Not like that still isn't significant.

This has been heavily in the news the last week or so. Here's the latest lowdown: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-12/31/c_13671308.htm Leaders of member-countries of ECOWAS, a regional organization of 15 West African states, have also called on Gbagbo to step down.

More like civil war.

I wouldn't call them crybabies. I'd call this politics. Pretty basic international relations. You scratch my back, i'll scratch yours. If not, wham.

I'm sorry to say, but your idea is not actually original and is basically called "direct democracy". A very old idea. We're talking a few millenia old here, back to ancient Greece. It's been discussed on these boards before, voting electronically/via the internet or whatever. It's a very interesting concept. They should experiment with it more. Try it in a city in Canada for awhile to test it.

If it's about oil revenues, then broker a new deal with the south getting, say, 70% of the oil profits (but having 80% of the oil) instead of the 50% it now gets. The north avoids losing all that extra oil profit, the south gets more oil money, and both avoid a bloody war. The big losers would be the outsiders looking for oil and ideological victories.

Hey Battletoads, how come i couldn't get past the level in your game where i'm riding the rocket sled but keep banging into those random cement walls.

re: the OP topic. The US defense budget is insane. But minus 2 ridiculous wars and a frightening military-industrial complex, the US has some good reasons to amass such huge military spending. It is the global hegemon, and must spend accordingly to try to keep it that way. The US is also the West's military monkey. The US spends vast amounts of money on its military, while virtually every other western country spends far less, and depends greatly on the US to police the world and provide military protection for them. Heck, Japan spends less than 1% of its GDP on its military and doesn't posses nukes (in the name of the horrors of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, as their gov has publicly stated) despite significant regional adversaries. It's a convenient relationship for both parties. The US gets to be #1 and call the shots, while its allies have more money to spend on social programs etc. and generally get the rep as "the good guys".

No it isn't. You don't devote 18,000 posts here to show irony. There's nothing strange about Canadians, or any other country, focusing closely on what the global superpower does. Would seem a logical thing to do. What is strange is you focusing so closely on what people in another country think of yours, when, as you love to remind people, we have a very moderate-if-minimal impact on US and world affairs, and thus your life. Would seem a better allocation of your time to focus more on what is happening in your country and in international affairs since it has a far larger impact on your life. Thanks Omarosa, but what exactly is racist about it?

Strict party discipline is one of the biggest problems in the way our system currently seems to work. It is undemocratic. But constituencies in Atlantic Canada get the shaft in this department no more than any other constituencies in Canada that don't have the PM, party leaders, or very influential cabinet ministers as their MP's.