-1=e^ipi

1. It's cheaper to just let the West do it. Why would these countries need to get involved when they can just get the West to do their bidding? Saudi Arabia tried heavily for the US to invade Syria 1-2 years ago. Why do you think they rejected their UN security council seat a year ago after the West didn't do Saudi Arabia's bidding since Putin politically out-maneuvered the West? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-rejects-security-council-seat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 2. Countries that are Shia (Bahrain, Iran) might not help the situation if they fight ISIS since it might just increase religious tensions. 3. Some governments in some countries are sympathetic to the cause of ISIS. In particular, the ruling party of Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. 4. Any regional Sunni country that does try to fight against ISIS runs a significant risk of creating terrorism and revolt at home. This would be especially concerning for authoritarian governments since many authoritarian governments have been overthrown in that region of the world recently (Lybia, twice in Egypt, Syrian civil war, Bahrain protests, Iraq, Tunisia, etc.). Even a country such as Saudi Arabia, despite their extreme conservatism, is thought of by many extremists as not being 'islamic' enough. The Saudi Arabia monarchy wants to hang on to power and trying to fight ISIS would be a huge risk for them, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the most militarily powerful countries in the world.

Wow, way to waste tax payer money on your nonsense delusions. Don't you think CSIS has better things to do?

Our constitution sucks. We need a new one.

Yes WestCoastRunner. We are all misogynists working for the evil patriarchy who are purposely trying to suppress your opinion through lack of responses on an online forum because you claim to be female (even though for all we know, you could be lying about your gender/sex). How did you ever figure out our plot? Edit: btw, this was sarcasm

ISIS cannot be destroyed by military force alone. Uhh, there are many Iraqis fighting ISIS. In Kurdistan you have the Peshmerga, and in the Shia territory there are significant amounts of fighters opposed to ISIS. The core isn't 'illiterate goat herders'. They are quite literate and I don't think untrue stereotypes about goat herders is helpful. ISIS didn't exist in 2006.

Look, deforestation is an issue. But this concept of 'fragmented forests' is arbitrary and absurd. You could have hundreds of thousands of acres of untouched wilderness, but put a single pipeline or road through it, even if there are several animal crossings over this road/pipeline, and suddenly all this forest counts as 'degraded'. By this definition, how much of this 'fragmented' forest do the wonderful environmental Europeans have? Zero (except a very small amount in Northern Sweden and Finland). How about the US under Obama? Basically zero (except Alaska). How about the majority of the rest of the World? Basically zero. In fact, Canada has the largest amount of 'unfragmented' forest, followed by Russia and Brazil. So is it any surprise that Canada would have the highest rate of loss of fragmented forest? It is difficult for European countries to 'lead the world' in fragmented forest loss when they have zero 'unfragmented' forest to begin with. This is just a pointless and phoney definition in order to make Canada feel guilty about developing it's land. Apparently, Canada shouldn't be allowed to build roads or pipelines through it's land, even though the vast majority of the rest of the world has already done so. This concept makes about as much sense as defining 'poverty' to be 'half the median income', as many so called 'poverty activists' do. But I guess it is easier to make phoney environmental issues and attack Canada, than it is to tackle real environmental issues in countries like China or Saudi Arabia.

This isn't even an issue of deforestation, but an issue of 'forest fragmentation'. It's not like caribou can't cross roads...

Argus is arguing from the position of utilitarianism. What is good for the individual is not necessarily good for the population at large.

No, I was merely refuting the claim that a nuclear apocalypse would cause humans to go extinct. Wow! Brilliant and well thought out rebuttal! *sarcasm*

How does having a larger population make a species more likely to go extinct. You can grow food underground. You just need an energy source (such as geothermal energy) to produce artificial light. Of course we know. Look, most 'climate sensitivity' estimates are around 3 Kelvin for atmospheric CO2 doubling. Though for the sake of argument, let's take a long term equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 4.5 Kelvin (though climate sensitivity decreases with temperature, especially on the scale of 100 degrees where you will start getting significant negative feedback effects due to cloud formation, but whatever). Current global temperature is 288 K. Water Boils at 373 K. Therefore, global temperatures would have to increase by about 85 K in order for the Earth to boil over. Current atmospheric CO2 is about 400 ppm. Therefore, in order to obtain this 'boiling temperatures' atmospheric CO2 would have to increase to 400 ppm * 2^(85/4.5) = 194170000 ppm. In other words the atmosphere would have to be 19417% CO2 (assuming the same atmospheric pressure) to reach these boiling temperatures; and again this is using a high estimate of climate sensitivity. Now, obviously it is impossible to have an atmosphere that is 19417% CO2, but if you could manage to made the atmosphere 100% CO2 and 194 times as dense as it currently is, then that would work too. But even 100% is impossible, since there simply isn't enough oxygen to burn all that hydrocarbon into CO2 and water. Since the atmosphere is currently 21% O2, at most the atmosphere could become 21% CO2. But even the 21% CO2 is impossible since there simply aren't enough hydrocarbon reserves on Earth to burn all that oxygen. At best, even if humans burn all the hydrocarbon reserves on the plant, Earth will reach like 1500 ppm - 2000 ppm, roughly the historical average over the past 600 million years. So let's see, need an atmosphere that is 19417% CO2 to 'boil the planet' even using high estimates of climate sensitivity. Where as at best atmospheric CO2 can increase to like 0.2% of the atmosphere. There seems to be orders of magnitude of difference here.

I'm not assuming my conclusion. I based my conclusion on evidence. Tell me, how many dinosaurs went to the moon? 0. Nuclear Apocalypse would not be sufficient to make humans extinct. Humans could just go underground, or to other celestial bodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect Let's see, definition of runaway greenhouse effect: "A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away." The oceans aren't going to 'boil away' under anything close to a reasonable projection of what will occur on Earth as CO2 levels increase. 'We know' it wont happen in the same way 'we know' the moon won't crash into the Earth. It's physics.

This sounds like religious nonsense. Oh no, we have sinned against mother nature, therefore she will wipe us out! Humans are the most intelligent species on the planet, evolved in a very warm part of the planet (Western Africa), have a very large population, and live in a large variety of climates. Other species at risk for extinction? Sure. Humans? No.

Actually, many of their twitter accounts have been suspended. They just create new ones or use other websites. Yes, it's all a giant mystery! *sarcasm* Certainly couldn't have anything to do with the reasons that these young people who make these choices give! It's not like religion has anything to do with it! *sarcasm*

Imperial Japan is very different from 2014 Japan.

Learn basic geography. Syria is 33 degrees north. Given that the radius of the Earth is 6378 km, this means that Syria is about 3673 km North of the equator. How is that +/- 1000 km from the equator. The west isn't 'framing' IS from doing this. IS is driven by ideals. If you don't believe me, why don't you read their twitter feed or see the various online videos they have explaining their motives. It is ironic that you criticize people for a lack of knowledge of geography when you think that Syria and Iraq are within 1000 km from the equator. Uhh, they do understand national borders. They just reject nationalism. And yes they can read. In fact, they have a very high literacy rate (actually the Islamic world has general had a decent literacy rate, except maybe Afghanistan). It is very important to the IS militants that they know how to read so that they can read the Quran and other Islamic texts. Reading ability also helps them communicate via social networks. Your portrayal of the militants is so absolutely wrong, that I sort of feel insulted for the militants. Of course they want a Caliphate. They want to fight for Islam, establish Sharia, and go to Jannah. What does an RRSP or a pension plan matter if you are likely to die in 1 year and the promise of a wonderful eternal afterlife is more appealing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannah Who is overstating the number of westerners in the ranks of ISIS? If you look at their numbers, about 5% of ISIS consists of Westerners. Or are you referring to the fact that ISIS purposely uses westerners as spokes people to the West (such as when performing beheadings)? That is because it makes sense to use Westerners as they have better English/French/Whatever and can communicate more effectively to spread their message. Again, learn geography. Syria had a life expectancy of 75 years before the civil war. That is relatively high and only 4 years less than the USA. And these countries aren't exactly dirt poor. Syria has a GDP per capita comparable to Ukraine, and Iraq has a GDP per capita about twice that of Ukraine. And directly to the south, you have some of the richest countries in the World (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain). Iraq and Syria actually have a long history of being relatively rich countries relative to the rest of the world. From the start of the Mesopotamian civilization to the height of the Islamic Golden Age (like 700 years ago) this region was one of the richest in the world. Even if you go back to like the 70s and 80s, Iraq and Syria were relatively well off, modern and secular compared to many of the surrounding countries under the Arab Nationalist regimes of Assad and Hussein. Your attempt to portray the people of Syria, Iraq as illiterate, dirt poor, and having a low life expectancy simply does not agree with reality. And this is why we see groups that have the goal of world domination in other poor regions of the world where Islam is absent (Southern Half of Africa, various Latin American Countries, Hati, India, Burma, South East Asia, etc.). Oh wait, we don't!

They could always point to the fact that it is snowing in Alberta. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/snow-falls-in-alberta-s-mountains-as-frost-advisories-are-issued-1.2754860

Lol. That's true. If the Japanese took over the word, it probably wouldn't be so bad. Most parts of the world would probably be better off.

So by 'normal life' you mean 'independent'? I think you are over worrying. There are lots of 17 year olds that lack motivation (autistic or not). Just try to get your son to go to university in an area of interest and that interest should hopefully provide the motivation.

1. Why does one need to have a 'normal existence' in the first place? 2. So really the only issue is motivation?

Strawman argument / guilt by association. Where have I claimed that any of the above groups other than ISIS want to take over the world (though now that you mention it, the Taliban have similar goals)? Look, the intents of ISIS is not exactly hidden. They are very active on social media.

For the last time, ISIS and members of other Islamist groups are anti-nationalists, not nationalists. Also, maybe it would help if you actually listen to what the ISIS fighters are saying is the justification for their actions, rather than just insert your politically correct BS expectation of what you think their justification is. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/meast/isis-inside-look/index.html?hpt=wo_c2 The goal of the Islamic State is to take over the world. They want world domination, and they want everyone to live under Sharia.

I can't comment on the specifics of your son as I do not know your, but 'autism' is simply a name for a variety of neurological conditions that may not necessarily be related. It's more a name for current ignorance about human neurology (it's nowhere near as clearly defined as downs syndrome). Since there is such a large diversity of types of individuals with autism, I would not agree that autistic individuals are necessarily defective.

Not everyone views high functioning autistic individuals to be 'defective'. So your son isn't really a good counter example.

Yes, we can thank Bush, Blair and their unnecessary invasion under false evidence of weapons of mass destruction for that.

So long before I was born, some guy wrote a book. And a century ago the US had plans to invade Canada... and this is somehow your evidence that the US is a threat to Canada... Yeah, sorry if I don't buy this ridiculous nonsense. That was half a century ago... And they probably have contingency plans in case of a zombie apocalypse or alien invasion. Oh actually, they do: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/us-military-has-official-plan-in-place-for-zombie-apocalypse/28017/ And maybe a zombie apocalypse is also a possible threat. Should Canada spent 2% of its GDP as zombie apocalypse insurance?