-1=e^ipi

This is exactly the reason why our Sunni 'allies' like Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia need to deal with this problem. Afghanistan undoubtedly has better living conditions than under the Taliban and is better off due to the invasion. Libya... is a bit hard to determine right now. Iraq and Syria are worse off though.

You are trying to set up a false dichotomy here. It's not about always arming groups vs never arming groups. It's not about pure isolationism vs pure interventionism. It's about making the best choice on a case by case basis. You can 'sometimes' choose to arm groups, and you can sometimes not. The Kurds are the one group we can absolutely trust an align with in the region (unless you include the Israelis, but they want to stay out of the conflict for obvious reasons). We can also side with the secular turks (who aren't in power, unfortunately) and the secular Egyptians (unfortunately, that option was burned by Obama in his stupid decision to align with the Muslim Brotherhood). The recent civil war in Syria following the Arab spring. Where the West decided to unconditionally support the 'rebels'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan It's not about an immediate impact today, it's about it's affect in the future. What will the world look like in a decade or two? Decisions made today affect that. If there were an election where he loses, I think that is a strong possibility. Though a lot depends on the conditions leading up to such an election and how the civil war is resolved. Of course resolving a civil war and having an election is a bit difficult when most of the rebels aren't interested in democracy and want to establish Sharia by force. I think you've been brainwashed too much by the Western mainstream media. It never was a black and white situation of the evil authoritarian government vs the peaceful democracy advocates. There was never a 'good' side in this conflict. The moral absolutism by Obama, Harper and Cameron have led to very poor decisions regarding this conflict. Oh, he doesn't have a majority (at least not at the beginning of the conflict), but nether does anyone else. The rebels were never a homogenous group. At the very least, you have to think that there are 3 major groups: Syrian government and their supporters, Moderate rebels, Islamist rebels. But even this is very untrue and there is no clear distinction between moderate rebels and Islamist rebels. Rather, there is a continuum of rebels from very moderate to very extreme. I think the moderate rebels + the Syrian government combined have the majority of the support in this conflict. Which is why the only way to resolve this conflict and avoid having the Islamists take over is to have the Syrian government + the moderate rebels come to a peace agreement where they will eventually hold elections. And ISIS isn't just a 'military force', which is why you can't defeat ISIS by military force alone. 'The taliban', 'Al queda' and 'ISIS' are not separate entities. They all have the common goal of wanting to establish a global caliphate where everyone must adhere to Sharia. The problem is islamofacism and going in to a country and spending a decade plus trillions of dollars to remove one of these Islamist Terrorist organizations will not solve the problem. If you destroy one and a new Islamist Terrorist organization is created in it's place or props up elsewhere, then you won't get anywhere. I never said the West isn't the most powerful military force on the planet. Just that it isn't as powerful as it was in the past and the balance of power is quickly changing.

It is not sufficient reason and justification to act in the way you suggest. Of course they aren't done. They want to take over the world. Do you not read what I write? ISIS hasn't broken inter national law or the Geneva convention. Do you know why? 1. ISIS isn't recognized as an independent country or nation state. 2. ISIS has never signed or ratified the Geneva convention. There is no risk of setting an international precedent for breaking international law or the Geneva convention since ISIS never agreed to it in the first place. Of course it isn't sufficient. You have to show that your planned course of action is the best one. What is so wrong about fully thinking through your actions before doing them? Of course there should be a reaction. Arming the Kurds, assisting the Iraqi government, not recognizing ISIS, and getting our gulf state 'allies' to deal with them in Sunni territory is a reaction. However, trying to send western troops to take back control of the Sunni-majority territory is what will make ISIS sprout up in greater numbers since they can use that + sections of the Quran to claim that the crusaders are invading, so it is the duty of all muslims to assist them. You can't stop the spread of their ideology with weapons and military force. And it's not just the ideology of ISIS that is the problem. It is all forms of violent islamism and wahabbism. I already made suggestions. Why don't you go read what I wrote in this thread? Is that so hard? The Kurds are not a religious group, the are an ethnic group that consists of a large number of religions including Shia Islam, Sufism, Sunni Islam, Yarsanism, Yazidism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity. They don't want to take over the world. They don't want to establish sharia law. They don't want to kill people that do not believe as they do. They aren't going to commit terrorism attacks in the west or use the weapons against us. They are moderate. If there is one group the West can absolutely align with, that is the Kurds. They won't get thrown over. These are some of the most militarily powerful countries in the world. Saudi Arabia is the 4th most powerful country militarily in the world. No, it really won't have the same effect. Why don't you read the Quran if you don't believe me. This statement is very untrue and is a product of outdated Eurocentrism. A large number (3000+) of ISIS come from Western countries like Canada, Australia, USA and Western Europe. These people are not coming from 'dirt poor countries'. The gulf states like the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are some of the richest countries in the world. Qatar is richer than Canada on a per capita basis, where as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have a comparable level of income. Turkey isn't exactly poor. They have the same GDP per capita as Greece. Turkey has done very well economically the past decade. Syria and Iraq aren't exactly dirt poor either; at least not before all the violence. Syria has a life expectancy of 75 years and a comparable GDP per capita as Ukraine. Iraq is almost twice as rich per capita as Ukraine. But I guess you want any excuse to not correctly identify the biggest root of the problem: Wahabbism and Islamism. The issue is religion. Poverty plays a role, but is in no way the main cause. You are seriously militarily equating Iraq 23 years ago with Saudi Arabia today? Over two decades of economic growth tend to change the balance of power across the world significantly. Plus Saudi Arabia + gulf state allies with all there oil money are far more powerful than Iraq. In the gulf war, Iraq was facing Kuwait, USA, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Egypt, Syria, plus 24 other countries. If all these countries (minus Saudi Arabia) were at war with Saudi Arabia, then obviously Saudi Arabia would lose. But ISIS is exactly as powerful as all these countries. If you think that Saudi Arabia will fall to ISIS since Iraq fell to Kuwait, USA, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Egypt, Syria plus 24 other countries, then your perception of distribution of global military power is seriously flawed. Wahabbism started 2 centuries ago. The gulf states only started significant oil development after WW2, and it has only been in recent decades that the gulf states have been able to use that money to fund Wahabbism. Plus it takes a while for the world-wide Wahabbi funding and brainwashing to take affect. The events since 9-11 have greatly contributed to the increase in Islamic extremism as well. I'm not painting the west as the bad guys. I'm painting the west as the stupid and ignorant idiots that keep making stupid decisions that don't improve the situation. And then these idiots are puzzled as to why they are in the situation they are in. "Gee, let's fund Islamists in Syria to engage in a proxy war against Russia! Omg, Islamists have no taken over the region. How unexpected!" As for the fault. The fault lies with many parties as the situation is very complex.

Are you implying that this is bad? Economic trade and investment is not a zero-sum game. China benefiting does not mean Canada does not benefit. False. Sounds like a lump of labour fallacy. If you make it more profitable for firms to hire people, then they will want to hire people. It doesn't help that the Keystone XL hasn't been built. Or that it is so difficult to build a pipeline in this country.

Your statement is incorrect. Ultimately, the goods and services available depends on people producing those goods and services. Money is merely a medium of exchange. You don't necessarily need 'more people' to have more goods and services. Japan has been decreasing in population, yet it has more goods and services available every year. Also, if you increase physical capital per worker, then the marginal product of labour increases. This will increase wages.

There is no pause in warming! Or even a slowdown. David Suzuki says so! How can you argue with this knowledgeable fruit fly scientist? Edit: This post may contain sarcasm.

Ukraine borders Austria now? Wow, my understanding of European geography must be completely wrong!

Countering the narrative would be fine to do, if the governments were competent enough to do it. Unfortunately, you have people like David Cameron around who think that Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam and that ISIS are not muslims. There is too much political correctness for the governments to be effective at doing this. You can't just unilaterally declare temporary borders and expect them to hold. How would you get ISIS, the Syrian government, the Iraqi government, the Kurds, the Turks, the Iranians, the Saudis, the Egyptians and various other groups to agree with it? What might be possible is that if a stale mate drags on long enough (ISIS can't make gains in non-Sunni lands, ISIS's enemies can't make gains in Sunni lands) then it might be possible to get all the parties to agree to a ceasefire, with lines drawn roughly on sectarian lines / lines of military control. Though you would have to have the conflict to drag on for months if not years to accomplish this, then you would have to get the idiot absolute-moralist western politicians to somehow agree to a ceasefire with Abu Bakr Al Baghdad. The other problem, is doing this might give the perception that the international community is rewarding terrorism, which is a dangerous precedent. How would you prevent this if ISIS controls Sunni lands? Also, why would you want to since it makes ISIS less population? 1. This would give the perception of rewarding terrorism. 2. The premise that it will become unpopular over time is flawed. If anyone descents they will be labelled an apostate and killed. Furthermore, religion is particularly good at appeasing the masses and convincing them to follow their government regardless of how ineffective the government is. You will also have various radical Islamist foreigners coming to the new caliphate to try to increase its success. And as a last resort, the caliphate can always blame the west & other countries for its lack of success due to trade barriers and hostility. 3. Not going to happen. Too many parties, particularly the Saudis, will not allow this to occur.

More foreign investment means more physical capital per worker. More physical capital per worker means that workers will produce more goods and services. More goods and services means we are richer and have more money to spend on health care, education, military, or whatever we want. Maybe. Idk, depends on the price of what. Most likely. The chinese government will act primarily in the best interests of China. Where as a Canadian company will tend to act in the interests of either Canada or Canadian individuals. This means that even if a purchase of a Canadian Company by China is beneficial to the Chinese that want to perform the investment and the Canadian individuals that wish to sell the company overall, it does not mean that the purchase is necessarily beneficial to Canada overall. This is why the Investment Canada Act has the net benefit test: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cprp-gepmc.nsf/eng/00014.html Unless the FIPA somehow allows China to circumvent the net benefit test, I have no reason to be significantly concerned. Probably. Yes. They are generally mutually beneficial regardless of if the countries are 'equal' or 'radically different'. The concept of comparative advantage still applies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Muslims aren't a 'nationality'. Muslims are a religious group of people.

For the last time. ISIS are anti-nationalists. Mislabeling them as nationalists does not help. Probably. No it won't. ISIS isn't a threat that can be defeated by military force. Furthermore, the West isn't as all-powerful as the western media would have us believe. No, it's support through years of Wahabbi brainwashing. You can thank our gulf state 'allies' for that. Or maybe it has something to do with Wahabbism... Maybe having most western politicians thinking "they are just like us" is flawed and results in poor decisions. Is that why the 'rebels' don't want to run against Assad and have an election? Assad may not be the most popular guy, but to say he doesn't have significant support from Syrians is untrue.

That isn't sufficient reason to act. You also have to determine if your planned course of action is the best option. No, that will not stop the perpetual violence. You have to deal with the problem of where these 'fringe fruit cakes', as you call them, are coming from. Perhaps it has something to do with decades of funding of terrorism and wahabbism by the gulf states. It is not good for anyone, except maybe the Sunni Radicals themselves. But that doesn't mean that your suggestion course of action is the best. Of course they don't want to get involved and want Western countries to do their bidding for them. However, if the west doesn't invade Sunni lands, arms the Kurds, and stops funding the 'rebels' in Syria, then ISIS will have only one direction to spread: south. The gulf states will have to deal with ISIS eventually, or they will get overthrown. This is especially true since large segments of the population of Saudi Arabia are just as radical as ISIS and have been funding ISIS. Let our gulf state "allies" deal with it. If they deal with it then it is much harder for ISIS to gain recruits since they cannot label their opponents as 'crusaders' or 'kuffar'. That was 20 years ago. Things have changed. Saudi Arabia has a trillion dollar economy and is one of the most militarily powerful countries in the world (they have the 4th highest spending, after USA, China and Russia). And where did these 'twisted people' come from? No where? Did radical Islam just pop out of nowhere? Does it has something to do with the West sending the gulf states trillions in oil money over the past few decades, and the fact that those gulf states have spread Wahabbism across the globe and made Islam overall more radical than it was say 50 years ago? Is it just a coincidence that 15 out of 19 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and 2 were from the UAE. Is it just a coincidence that Osama Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian and was a strict adherent to Wahhabism? It's too bad that there is no western country that has large amounts of oil reserves and wants to export it to other western countries to help reduce the reliance on middle eastern oil. Oh wait... that's Canada. Fortunately, the Saudi-King-Bowing Obama thinks Saudi Oil is far superior to Canadian Oil because 'the earth would boil over' (according to Obama's super informed understanding of climate science). There is no such thing as self determination at gun point. ISIS doesn't represent self-determination of Sunni Muslims. When the west decided to fund these Islamists in Syria to wage a proxy war against Russia in the first place. Oh wait, maybe before then. Perhaps when Obama and other western leaders decided to unconditionally support Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood instead of Secular groups during the Arab Spring in an effort to fill various governments with pro-Western Islamists. Or, maybe it was way before that. The west did fund Alqueda to fight a proxy war against the Russians back in the 80s. Maybe the west never had high moral standards to begin with. Perhaps we should raise our standards. Maybe we could start by not funding Islamist radicals that want to take over the world. Of course they want world domination. They believe it is prophesized in the Quran that they are destined to take over the world and establish Islam and Sharia everywhere. Please define what you mean by 'stopped' and why you think that is the case. Because I have numerous responses I could give to this, but it depends on what you mean. Yes they will. Because their choices will be: A. Deal with ISIS. B. Don't deal with ISIS and let ISIS overthrow you.

Yes. I agree. A containment strategy is best.

Or you could do both... Both sounds better to me.

CRTC should be abolished. People still have cable?

Any one, from what list?

Which lord?

The Sunni Muslims in Iraq should have the right to self determination similar to how the Quebecois, Scotts and Crimeans should have the right to self determination. If they feel that they are not represented by the government and are oppressed, a creation of a new state is an option that can help ensure peace and reduce radicalism since Sunni Muslims will feel less desire to support radical groups like ISIS. I'm not saying it should be done. But it should be an option that should be considered. There is no doubt that feelings of alienation by Sunni Muslims have helped contribute to the spread of ISIS in Iraq. It is also worthwhile to consider if the kurds have their own state. All the more reason why the West should not intervene significantly and let/force our Sunni 'Allies' like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and UAE deal with it. This lopsided relationship needs to end. Also, if western countries intervene, it will only help ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups get more recruits. Sunni countries have to deal with it. Besides, most of the funding for ISIS came from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar in their proxy war against Iran to overthrow Assad. The contributed to the mess (more so than the West). They should deal with it.

Well I don't see this 'explanation'. All you told me is 'google it'. Could you please provide it to me again since you claim it exists? You can keep claiming that the past doesn't matter in understanding climate change. But that does not make it true. You keep trying to appeal to my motive and construct some sort of narrative in order to avoid responding to what I actually write. You make claims; why is it so hard for you to back up your claims? Your choice of wording gives me the impression that you are trying to tie belief in evolution with nazism and 'the final solution'. If I am wrong, please explain to me what you mean. And like it or not, this is your cousin 6 million years removed: But it is your choice if you want to continue to deny the scientific fact of humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor.

More nonsense claims by Waldo without justification. What is it that I do not understand about temperature ranges over the past 800,000 years that justifies the 2C target? Different geological periods are useful in different ways to understanding climate change. The past 600 million years are useful in understanding the evolutionary history of the planet. 34 million years ago is useful because it is the start of antarctic glaciation. The past 2.6 million years are useful if you want to try to construct climate models of the earth. Now could you explain why you keep referring to 800,000 years ago? I did a google search just as you asked and posted the 'results'. Please back up your claims, or I am going to conclude that you don't understand the geological timescale as well as you think you do, but won't admit that the 800,000 value is wrong because it would hurt your ego. I'm not the one who labels 2C warming as catastrophic. That is the climate alarmists. No, I believe there are claims that a scientific basis exists. But I do not believe that there exists a scientific basis. All you have to do is tell me what this scientific basis is. Which should be super easy for you since this basis totally exists, right? Evolution and the scientific method are very relevant to the issue of climate change. Lol, wtf? Please elaborate what you mean by carving out an evolutionary "story". What is the story I am carving out, and how am I relating it to immigration and Islamists? Please back up your claims.

Clearly, which is why I have asked you to enlighten me. But you have been unable to do so. Let's see, I enter the above into google and the first result is the wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation It only mentions 800,000 once. That is in the sentence: "During the Quaternary Period, the total volume of land ice, sea level, and global temperature has fluctuated initially on 41,000- and more recently on 100,000-year time scales, as evidenced most clearly by ice cores for the past 800,000 years and marine sediment cores for the earlier period." So to you, 800,000 years is special because we have good ice core data since then? What a weird distinction. Meanwhile, look at how many times the same article mentions 2.58 million years: "This article is about the series of glacial periods during the last 2.58 million years." "Quaternary glaciation also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the current ice age, refers to a series of glacial events separated by interglacial events during the Quaternary period from 2.58 Ma (million years ago) to present." "The entire Quaternary Period, starting 2.58 Ma, is referred to as an ice age because at least one permanent large ice sheet — Antarctica — has existed continuously." "Before the current ice age, which began 2 to 3 Ma, Earth's climate was typically mild and uniform for long periods of time." The next link has something to do with 800,000 years ago being roughly the time humans started to use fire. http://scienceforkids.kidipede.com/geology/eras/quaternary.htm Yeah, I call BS. Oh, then please enlighten me as to it's proper use and definition. I don't care which organizations you've spoken to. I only care about the science. Provide me with a scientific basis for the 2C target since you so strongly believe that it exists. And yes, making a conclusion before looking at the evidence is dogma. Oh is that it? Did I hurt your feelings too much by bringing up evolution? Why are you so hesitant about confirming your creationist beliefs? You refuse to acknowledge the relevance and usefulness of the evolutionary history of the planet in understanding the impacts of climate change and you refuse to endorse the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Oh you are back to name calling and mis-labelling things again? Not that you ever stopped... You mean incoherent waldo speak? No thanks. I'll stick with math and science. So you reject the scientific principle of occum's razor, do not agree with how burden of proof/evidence works, approach things dogmatically and refuse to acknowledge that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? Yet you claim to be on the side of science. Lol.

Of course I am reading what you write. You just can't handle trying to justify your unjustifiable claims. But to run away when backed in a corner is a pretty common tactic you use.

showing that an increase in global temperatures by 2C above pre-industrial levels moves the Earth outside the range of temperatures of the past 800000 years does not demonstrate that going above this 2C level leads to 'catastrophic' global warming. No, 2.6 million years ago marks the shift to a glaciated climate. That's why geologists mark it as the beginning of the Pleistocene and the Quaternary period. 800000 years ago marks nothing (except maybe the start of the Ionian, but then how does this satisfy your definition of 'the last part'?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene 'Catastrophic' or 'more detrimental'. Call it what you want. Either way, please explain to me what is so special about 2C that if you go beyond that suddenly things are 'more detrimental'. Then please enlighten me. What is it based upon? Because I see no scientific basis. It's been well established that you are uncomfortable about the topic of evolution. I have yet to see you claim that you agree with the theory of evolution, or accept that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Again, back up your claim. Show me this 'scientific basis' for the 2C target.

I never claimed that the Burka was in the Quran. Death for apostasy and death for homosexuality are however. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/026-homosexuality.htm I never made a claim to the contrary. Different religious texts are different; some are more peaceful than others. But anyway... Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Romans 1:26 "and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error." Mark 10:11 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

What is your definition of 'the last part'? Because certainly it cannot mean Epoch since that is the Holocene which started 11700 years ago. 800K years ago corresponds to the end of the Calabrian where there was an ice age and the last magnetic pole reversal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabrian_%28stage%29 Sorry, but I cannot understand what is so special about 800000 years ago such that you can somehow infer that 'catastrophic' warming will occur if temperatures exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels. What is the definition of 'catastrophic' here, and how is it scientifically determined that 2C corresponds to this 'catastrophic' warming? Certain paleoclimate techniques used for the justification of the 2C target tend to ignore the effect of changing ocean currents due to plate techtonics, which is significant if the time scale is on the order of 30 million years, but not significant if the timescale is on the order of 2 million. But I'll go into this in more detail in a future thread. It is one thing to use the past 600 million years to infer the conditions under which life evolved on Earth and how life will respond to climate change, and something completely different to use the past 600 million years to create climate models. I'm not trying to use such ancient data to model climate to determine a CO2 target. Oh good, you have finally claimed that the 2C target has a scientific basis. Now you can't continue with your 'I'm not the one making the claim so I don't have to provide evidence' BS. You made a claim, now back it up. Show me this 'scientific basis' for the 2C target, if it exists.