JordanUl wrote:

Perhaps it was.

No perhaps about it. It clearly was ridiculous. You used a term that you don't understand, and it came out completely wrong because of it. I'm just saying for future reference it'll help if you participate in discussions not to talk about things you don't know about. That sort of thing never reflects well on anybody.

Lummox JR

I think I said you were right last time. And it didn't need a reply. But hey, at least I know this one will.

How does me saying "a new Taliban" possibly being set up in iraq have anything to do with what they had before? Also, I'm neutral, I don't like republicans, I don't like democrats. Don't assume.

We would have eventually taken out Iraq anyways, so why let them get stronger?

I agree about NK, but I don't know what will happen with that.

We didn't stop him, but we were in a cold war with him for God knows how long, if it hadn't been for us constantly threatening them, who knows what he would've done?

Though, America wasn't peachy there either. We need to get rid of nuclear weapons, the whole world does.

JordanUl wrote:

I wouldn't call France, Germany, & some crappy insignificant third-world countries "everybody". Frankly, France just plain out sucks, Germany is still trying to get everyone else to look the other way from their last defeat, and the other insignificant countries are just that - insignificant.

Wow. Every think they hate America because it's full of elitists like you?

'France plain out sucks'? France was one of the countries responsible for your precious democracy you have, and now that they don't have a huge military, theres no respect for them. I'm guessing places like China or India with large military's aren't the first ones your willing to start mouthing off, huh?

About Germany. How about you ask somebodies informed opinion, like digitalmouse, wko lives there. Ask him if the reason you think they aren't in Iraq is true.

And then another bunch of elitism. Hey Iraq was insignifigant. People were dying there, so why invade? You shouldn't care. You might as well call back your 13B going towards foriegn aid, because it's going to a bunch of other insignifigant countries, who's people have no value and opinion means nothing. Well, to the mighty Governator at least.

You need to stick with your CBC, Canadian. And perhaps look a little closer to home with who is the truly elitist We're hated worldwide,eh? That's great. At least we're having a conservative movement in our country rather then the sexual revolution of Europe.

And France of today was not responsible for our democracy. The kingdom of France was, and after the bloody revolt leading to the death of 300,000 decapitated Frenchmen they turned into a "renowned" democracy. One who's constitution has had to be changed, what? 15 times? So yes. France plain out sucks. And at least our "precious democracy" wasn't given to us by Great Britain. We won it through a glorious battle for freedom. I don't appreciate people crapping all over it, especially when it's a Canadian tool who's doing it.

Lummox JR wrote:

Conservation doesn't create new oil; it merely slightly increases efficiency. Of course we're up against a bit of a wall where efficiency is concerned. Conservation is not the magic bullet you may think it is.

Turning the lights off when you leave a room- not going to bring about a huge increase in efficiency. However, better public transportation, more people riding bikes to work who live nearby, purchasing locally grown foods, keeping the house a little cooler in the winter and a little warmer in the summer...there are hundreds of little ways we could conserve, and at some point they start adding up. Add to that alternative energy sources, many of which are largely non-viable but some of which have potential, such as offshore wind turbines, and I think we could make a meaningful start to the problem.

The Kyoto accord is a pipe dream and actually has less to do with reducing CO₂ emissions than slowing down the world economy (and specifically the American economy), a prospect which I think we should agree would be a bad idea when we're already in tough straits. The worst offenders in CO₂ production would have to adjust their output little or not at all under the protocol. Add to this the fact that North America is a carbon sink due to vast forests, and that the effect of CO₂ on global climate has never actually been accurately measured. In other words Kyoto is intended to take tiny chips out of a problem we can't quantify or positively identify the contributing factors for, with a method unlikely to have much effect, and at great cost.

Since there have been a couple ridiculous claims made in this thread so far, I'll to try to find some citations for the facts I give. Of course, published words can be misleading or wrong too, but the facts are fairly consistent with what I've read in many different sources. According to Tropical Rainforests by Chris C. Park, who cites the World Wind Fund for Nature, by 1988 40% of tropical rainforest had been lost. We've also cut down most of the oldgrowth forests in the country. Not only does this loss of forest mean a loss of Carbon sinks, it also means a release of all the carbon the tree had absorbed (only if the tree is burned, of course, but a large portion is to clear land for agriculture or for fuel in other nations.) According to Something New Under the Sun by J.R. McNeill, citing Smill 1994: 185-7, in 1990 1.8 billion tons of biomass (mostly trees, obviously) were produced for fuel. And that was just in 1990, not all years up to 1990. 1991 was probably a litter higher, 1992 a little higher then that...

Yes, Kyoto does not deal yet with the biggest CO₂ polluters, the third world nations (and China especially). Howeever, the industrialized nations do contribute a very sizeable chunk of CO₂ pollution. Kyoto either already has or is going into effect soon, even though America didn't sign. This brings up a good point. Just because you aren't the only cause, doesn't mean you can't do something about it. Are you afraid that since China isn't reducing it's CO₂ emmissions they're going to pass our economy by? Canada and the other nations who have signed Kyoto are going forward even though America isn't. And America already has a stronger economy then they do. Great Britain took steps to reduce CO₂ emissions even before Kyoto went into effect to prepare. Kyoto isn't just taking "tiny chips" out of the problem, it would represent a significant decrease in CO₂ emissions. And just because it doesn't "solve" the problem by globally reducing emissions it is a start and that's important.

I know it's been extremely hyped up as some incredible good thing, including through the channels where you heard of it. But in fact the costs far outweigh the expected benefits, and the expected benefits are in considerable doubt. The reason it's had so much weight behind it internationally is basically because it's been a nice-looking ax to grind against America, and there are a lot of nations who have used it as such. "You don't take environmentalism seriously! You must be evil and arrogant!" The same process works here, too. Politicians discovered long ago that if you put the word "Children" in a bill's name, others will be afraid to vote it down because come election time it makes them look like they're against helping children.

If you put "Children" in bills names it helps. But the Kyoto protocol and other efforts at conservation and cleaner energy are actually about environmentalism, which can't always be said about the bills you are referring to. Helping children is a wonderful cause. If it's a front for some other thing you want to get through, then obviously its not, but I do not think that the Kyoto protocol is some alternative set of goals wrapped up in environmentalism.

You bring up the point that the benefits are in "considerable doubt". That's a common argument brought up against environmentalism. We don't know whether the world is warming up because of natural cycles or because of our actions. And that becomes a reason not to act: why put all that money and time and labor into stopping something that might not be happening at all? And so we can continue polluting without feeling bad about it. Likewise, if I walk through a high-crime area all night with a wad of cash in my hand I can't know whether someone will mug me. But that doesn't mean I should do it, even if I have a really good reason to. If it turns out the environmentalists were wrong and we conserved for nothing then what? We drove around a little less these past years? We saved oil and coal so that our grandchilren will still have fuel? The problems we do know about were reduced (Acid Rain, etc.)? Our economy is slightly weaker then it could've been but still better than any point in out history? And if we don't conserve and the enviromental issues are real we could face at best a destroyed economy and at worst a destroyed planet.

Why don't we just teach these poor people how to make meals out of their young? This solves two problems at once: slows overpopulation and feeds the hungry!

Those who don't get this need to look back and some historical satire; it will help you see what happens when nations get arrogant and try to rule through global imperialism whilst overlooking glaring economic divisions at home (or worse- trying to justify them as the fruits of hard work, or will of God).

Jonathan Swift, too then?