Slim

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm not advocating war with Iran. That's probably a worse decision than invading Iraq was. But the Iraq war was not based on 'common sense' guesses. That was manufactured excuses at work there. In fact, if common sense was used, there never would have been an Iraq war. Anyway, what I'm trying to get across is that rational thought tells us what Iran's motives might be. And so far there's nothing to get worked up over.

I just started drinking Scotch myself, but I really enjoy it from time to time. It's nice to sit down with one after dinner! Lagavulin is my personal fave of the moment. Peaty is nice.

I disagree. It's not hard to make some educated guesses based on common sense and simply putting ourselves in their shoes, so to speak. See my earlier post for an example.

Absolutely agree. The West should (for its own sake, at least) stop sticking its nose in this particular beehive. Ugh. I'm getting sick of this repeated argument that Ahmadinejad made a threat to destry Israel. He didn't. There was a misinterpretation initially, and he never actually meant a violent threat. In context, he was agreeing with the Imam Khameini's statement that Israel's illegal (and it is illegal) occupation should end, and Palestinians should get to vote, etc. So, please, enough with that particular quote. Now then. As for Iran and nuclear weapons... there is no solid evidence they have any, or are developing any. There isn't any solid evidence they have, or are, enriching uranium to such a point where it is useful for weaponization, correct? But, if I was Iran, I sure as hell would be leaving the option on the table. I personally have no doubt that they are getting as close to nuclear weapon production as possible (i.e. enriching uranium to a certain point, but still having the capabilities of enriching further to weaponization) so that it's still legal but you have the option to produce nuclear weapons in a relatively short period of time. Why wouldn't they want it? Hell, Israel has hundreds of the things, and is extremely hostile to Iran. The US hawks are always raving about war with Iran. If I was in charge there, I would sure as hell want the ability to create the nuclear deterrent real quick if I needed it. For a offensive weapon, though? Absurd. What possible need do they have for offensive nukes? Are they going to launch a pre-emptive and suicidal strike on Israel? God no.

Careful not to generalize too much. We should probably say early on that 'anti-Israel' does not necessary mean 'hate and despise anything Israel'. There's a difference between wishing death and destruction upon Israel and disagreeing with its politics. And I would doubt the majority of Muslims would fall into the extremist camp. I believe that would be a fair view, yes? ... they are? Just because you don't have a stake in middle-east politics (a direct stake, that is) you will always have an opinion, it seems... Anyway, you aren't refuting my logic here. Or was that your intent? To recap, I was arguing that Harper going against his base supporters by condemning Israel's actions would cost him more votes than it would gain him. What? Dude, I'm from Alberta. If Harper suddenly decided to try and win over the Muslim community (and I mean really win it over, not pay political correctness a lip service) there would be such a backlash he'd lose all credibility from a TON of supporters. Conservatives here would see it as a betrayal. I would. What could be the reason btw?? You misunderstood. Read the rest of my sentence: "But I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his base started changing their opinion on Israel, he would too, regardless of what he personally believed." Wow. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Okay, that's an incorrect assumption, and it has nothing to do with my argument, but I'll approach it nonetheless. So what 'high cost' of terrorism is there? Statistically the chance of you dying from a terrorist attack is marginal, at best. Why waste time worrying about it?

Yikes. That's pretty bad. There should have absolutely been some better info out there to inform people why the plant was necessary. Just 'cause it ain't renewable doesn't mean it's not currently the best option... and now because they fell through on their contract with the company the taxpayers will have to repay damages.

I was actually looking a bit at this program that Ontario is trying. It's extremely ambitious, to say the least. Completely phasing out coal power by 2014? Wowsers. I'm going to be very interested to see how this turns out. It's absolutely neccessary, of course, to reduce emmissions and the sooner the better. But can this radical approach work in North America, where so many people still don't even believe AGW is real? Time will tell. I wish Ontario luck on this, 'cause it's going to raise a fair bit of trouble. Won't be an easy ride, but I sincerely hope it ends up working in the end (creating the 20,000 new jobs promised, becoming a continental leader in renewable energy).

So you don't have any evidence then? I know, I know... don't feed the trolls...

But I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his base started changing their opinion on Israel, he would too, regardless of what he personally believed. If it meant the election, I doubt he would hesitate for too long to change his official stance. You assume two things: that all Muslims are against Israel, and that all Jews are pro-Israel. How many are ambivalent? Also, and this is the biggest flaw to that argument; you aren't counting on the majority of the population that is neither Muslim nor Jew. I daresay that those people are the Conservative base, and they are by far pro-Israel. I think that's a logical assumption. I'm sure that trying to cozy up to the Muslim minorities would end up costing him a lot of support from his base, so it's not hard to see why Harper wouldn't bother with that

Now Argus, that's not what she said at all.

This here is what I expect Harper's politics to look like. He won't condemn Israel because politically it would alienate his 'base' and give him no real benefit. Morality be damned, it's all politics. Of course, if ethics were of any concern in politics, things would be a different story. Alas...

Yeah but nobody makes movies about UNSC meetings. Spying is so much sexier. Especially if you're Valerie Plame. Mmmm...

Sure I can! I just did! Joking aside, I'm very well aware that those nations on the temporary security council currently. And I'm not really using them as a yardstick to judge. If I was to compare our suitability for UNSC to another nation, I would pick ones on the permanent council. They have the political, military, and economic clout for the job (of course that's why they're there, too). I should have probably reworded my previous statement anyway. It's not that I think Canada is some second-rate backwards state, or 'worse' than the nations you mentioned, nor that they have earned or deserve the right to a spot on the council over us. It's just that I can't see a whole lot of reason for us to be a member of the UNSC (beyond the involvement with peacekeeping, but we don't need to be on the council to participate in missions). Does that sorta make sense?

Even though waldo can be a tad aggressive at times, he nevertheless raises good points about the issues at hand from what I've seen. And rarely do folks actually refute his arguments. So... yeah, bash him all you want, I suppose, but you aren't really accomplishing anything by doing so.

Unfortunately, you are correct. And that rings true for most politicians. Which is just lovely, ain't it? I didn't mention anything about those nations. I'm simply speaking in terms of Canada.

While Iggy's motives are likely purely political (and a wee bit dishonest, yes?) I do not necessarily disagree with him. Canada hasn't really shown the leadership I would expect on the world stage to deserve a slot on the UNSC. But the question should be asked: do we really want it? There are plenty of other ways we can make a difference on the world stage, especially in the UN. I strongly, strongly disagree with that. The United Nations does have issues, but if you expect an organization like that to be without fault, you're dreaming.

What the hell? Where did this come from? You're saying this because CBC is reporting news from outside of Canada? I'm a little flabberghasted by this statement. ... what? Could you source this claim?

I'm... going to assume not many people are taking Mr. C's trolling seriously and ignore his posts. Shall we continue with the original issue? A frank and serious discussion really needs to take place on a federal level about immigration, but I have a really hard time imagining that the current leaders in place won't politicize the hell outta it and ruin it for everyone. Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Awesome... Anyone had a chance to read the Canadian Geographic issue that focused on predicted the effects of AGW on different regions in Canada? Interesting read...

That quote at the end of your post concerns me... sure would be crappy if previous years of solar activity actually reduced the effects of AGW, and we could see a reversal at some point that would give us a big hit of warming... In any case, need a bit more time to see how this pans out.

I'm not comparing to coal/hydro. I'm considering it on it's own merits. Which that it may not be a feasible part of the solution to AGW (at this time, with the current technology). Which isn't to say that next-gen nuclear won't be useful, especially some of the 'mini-nuke' designs. Kinda interesting stuff, actually. But that's a whole 'nother bag of worms. Not according to anything I've read. Feel free to link some studies that state wind/solar are far more expensive. The less reliable may have some merit, but it's mitigated by intelligent use of wind/solar with other forms of power generation. You seem to have a real grudge against wind and solar. What gives?

Hey now, that's not true at all.

Holy smokes, I was having a good discussion here yesterday; I come back and the belligerents have invaded!

You are assuming that converting transportation wholesale to NG-use is more important (and feasible) than using NG for power-generation. That's a BIG assumption, up for a lot of debate. If peak oil was our only problem, then you'd have more of a case for that line of thinking. But it's not, and there other options that are feasible for combating peak oil (especially in transportation). You are also assuming that NG cannot provide for both, which may or may not be the case. Environmental groups can hardly be held responsible for holding up nuclear power. After reading dre's comments (he seems better versed in nuclear power than I) and doing a wee bit of digging, I would agree with him that it's the economics that are presenting the biggest barrier to nuclear power (historically). Do you disagree?

What do you mean by lifecycle? You mean the lifespan of a powerplant?