AstroProdigy

Psssh don't deny it. You know we're the World Headquarters part while you're the Montana part.

We'd be just fine? The World Trade Center was just a tiny part of the area that would be destroyed if global warming occured. You do understand that the vast majority of the money NYState gets from taxpayers comes from the parts on NY that would be flooded? While upstaters whine about high taxes we're the ones who actually pay for their government benefits. The United States economy would survive, but would be very badly damaged along with our place in the world. If upstate NY was demolished, however, the effect would be miniscule. NYC freed from the corruption of the state would actually be better off. Not to mention no more conservative upstaters movement.

If NYC floods NYState's economy is in the !@#$%^&*hole along with the rest of the US. Look what happened when a few buildings in NYC collapsed. Face it; NYC is way more important than the rest of NYState.

You notice Europe and Japan actually have subreplacement fertility and if the whole world were like that then a natural population decrease would occur. The movie did suck. Americans illegally immigrating to Mexico? That's some lame irony.

The fastest growing parts of the world are inland because those areas are poorer and less educated. Sounds bad to me.

Let me also repeat that a change in temperature will be much more dramatic in the poles versus the equator. So an AVERAGE 3-4 degree temperature rise will lead to a 10 degree increase in temperature where the ice can actually melt. Let me repeat that global warming is real and it is a big threat. Blunt Texas Republican mentality like Bush's combined with a strong big business tilt completely fails with respects to science here.

Thousands of years? It's happening right now. The movie the day after tomorrow follows a possible scenario of what impact global warming will have. I dont think the extremely sudden effects of the movie would happen. It'd be over a period of time, but nonetheless it would be bye first world.

The global warming is increasing ocean temperatures and bleaching our coral reef effectively destroying yet another source of oxygen. Maybe if we had millions of years plant life would evolve to be able to absorb more CO2, but we don't have that time. Try to imagine what would happen if global warming continues unabaited. Imagine all coastal cities flooded. Here's a map of what would happen to the east coast of the US: http://www.alliancelink.com/endtoglobalwar...rthamerica4.jpg I guess i should practice swimming. It'l mostly warm up and the few spots it may cool down it'l only be bairly

This year's weather isn't what scares scientists and proves global warming exists. It's the trend that scares experts. Actually I'm taking an atmospheric science class and the professor said that at the current trend the temperature will increase by about 3-4 degrees celsius in the next century. He also showed how the temperature at the north pole is increasing much faster than the temperature at the equator. That means at current trends the polar ice caps in the north are screwed. Incompetence is why Hurricane Katrina had such a disastrous affect. The extremely busy hurricane season is what global warming caused, but some competence would have made Hurricane Katrina not a big deal. I have no idea what you're talking about global warming being blamed for the tsunami in Asia. I've never heard anyone say it. It's completely nonsensical. The tsunami was caused by an earthquake in the EARTH which is completely unrelated to global warming of the ATMOSPHERE. The Earth's biosphere is unable to cope with the disastrous affects of man. While we increase greenhouse gases we also destroy the trees that would turn carbon dioxide back to oxygen. The effects of global warming are already seen today. They will just get stronger and stronger as time passes. It's not a natural problem in the least bit. No one in their right mind blames global warming for the tsunami. It's not environmentalists who are sending warnings only. It's the friggin scientists who know the most about this. The argument that you are referring to is not that global warming is already making the world colder. It's that we are so drastically disturbing the balance on our planet that an ice age can occur. It's a completely legitimate scientific prediction. It may occur or the earth may just continue getting warmer. Either way it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Well he finally admitted global warming is, GASP, something that's our fault and we can stop! Exxon Mobile isn't gonna like this one bit. More lobyists anyone?

No...as is well proven by European systems, the criminals get the guns from the same places the honest citizens do. You take the gun shops away and eventually the criminals will no longer have guns.I'm sure there are people who can get around it, but for the most part it will end gun violence. I wholly agree with Sever's post on guns. We arm the good guys AND the bad guys in the process so we end up creating a wild west where the victims are innocent people caught in the middle. It's the 21st century. No we helped train them to fight the Soviet Union and then they turned around and attacked us. They hate us because we are not Islamic extremists like them. They get pissed off when we liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein because we are "infidels" even though we were invited to help by Saudi Arabia, the mother of all Muslim countries. Just because they should learn to fit in doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help them fit in. That's Europe's problem and that's why they have home grown terrorists. Political corectness can go too far here, but bigotry is wrong too. When someone says Merry Christmas I should not care, but when someone says Merry Xmas i should not care either. It's a two way street.

Who's to say? Europe already disrupted the natural order of things. What if it takes them a milennia to start moving away from religion? Will that be long enough to plunge the world into ignorance? A very reasonable opinion to start with. The second point that there are only 2 sources of discontent I think is just wrong. Israel is in my opinion a catalyst to an already existing movement. Do you really think there is this big an uproar and movement to extremism just because of Israel? The occupation of Iraq started a few years ago. The movement was already well on its way before that. Again Iraq is just a catalyst to an already existing movement. Muslims will only hail a pullout of Iraq and the dissolution of Israel as a victory for Islam and it would only be a rallying point for extremists. That doesn't sound justified to me. Hitler used the inclusion of Germans in Sudetenland with greater Germany, a seemingly justified desire and used it to go further and take all of Czechoslovakia. Muslims are outraged that lands held by Muslims are taken back by other groups, but where does this stop? Do you want to hand over the Balkans, the Iberian peninsula, and India too because they were Muslim held lands? That is appeasement and it only leads to wanting more and more. The power vacuum is filled at what cost? Do you think the Kurds will accept new oppressors? Is that fair to them? The problem is the war wouldn't stop in Iraq. It would pull all the regions around it into war too. It's not just "warring tribes" it's real ethnic and religious divisions that carry over to Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran because of country divisions that match neither ethnic nor religious divisions. The winner will probably commit attrocities on the scale of genocide. Some politicians can do good while some are hopeless. The point is the world hates Bush and a change in leadership would automatically aid the situation. It's not simple warring tribes in Iraq. It's divided 3 ways not hundreds of ways. The problem with letting them fight it out until someone wins is the losers will hate America for it. People will also blaim us for letting the next Saddam take over. Face it we have to make up for the mistakes of this administration. It's not a Vietnam where one strong legitimate side wins and peace is automatically restored. It's a bloodfest that could plunge the world into chaos. It's a very delicate situation. What if Americans vote for Bush as a dictator? People can be pressured into supporting a dictatorship if they feel democracy has failed. It's much easier to give up and let a tyrant take over, but that doesn't make it right. Common sense buddy. The Islamic world used to hold a lot of power. The Muslim world did go on a crusade of France after going on a crusade of Spain and they were pushed back. It's a general movement that's the problem, not the individuals. They are angry over Israel, but giving into their demands over Israel will only make them have more demands. The majority of Muslims who hate us have never been hit by American and Israeli bombs. You act like we commit genocide. They kill themselves much better than we could kill them. Ok then let's let Bush turn America into a theocracy k? I mean he was put up for election for his conservative opinions. Israel was being invaded so they fought back and won pretty efficiently I might add. Why would Iran kill it's Jews? Do you think they want to give Israel a perfect excuse to overrun them with their superior military capabilities? Uh racial hatred still goes on in Iran it's just you found 1 article about some guy who said it wasn't happening to him even though he admitted they're treated as second class citizens. Zionism is !@#$%^&*ociated with Judaism and by proxy people naturally become anti-semites. This isn't some impartial intellectual here; it's a politician who keeps his job by being extreme. The promotion of war is just that; the promotion of war no matter how hard you try to sugar coat it. Yet you support Iran aggressively despite all these things. Thousands of Jews could have been massacred resulting in the toppling of Iran's government. It's much easier to oppress them and let emigration do the job for you. If you look at the history of Islam they often disagree with killing Jews and Christians because they are so called "people of the book". It doesn't stop oppression from occuring over the years anyway. That's why Christianity and Judaism has declined in the Muslim World. One seat in the Iranian parliament is a show. It has no actual significance. It's as if we had put a permanent Native American congressman and continued to take their land regardless. It would mean nothing then no wouldn't it? Why are you fixated on "show" tolerance and equate it to real tolerance? Turkey denies the Armenian genocide because they want to do whatever they want to Armenia. If they actually admitted it they'd have to see the truth of what Armenians went through and that they deserve at least something for all their suffering. Iran is taking a lesson from Turkey and denying the Holocaust to justify the Jews having nothing again.

Gees dude it's not about all Muslims being terrorists. It's about a general movement that will only stop with either a forced death or the domination of Islam in the world.

The Muslim world has been left behind and when socialist type secularists failed to change that, some people !@#$%^&*umed that it was because Islam was corrupted. That's why we have terrorists. Israel is just a catalyst. The only way to stop them is to stop what they percieve as unbalanced trade and let them dominate. Incase you haven't noticed, countries always want unbalanced trade for their benefit and they won't stop just so it'l go the other way around. Unless let the Muslim World be in charge or people move to secularism we will never see an end to terrorism. It's a fact of life. Deal with it and stop sticking your heads in the sand and hoping that appeasing the Muslim world will do the trick. You'd have to appease them to pre World War 2 Nazi appeasement levels for them to be happy and I'm not willing to hand them the world. Are you?

An escalation of violence today will have an effect on the situation tomorrow.

In Somalia we were peacekeepers which cause more problems too. The situation of keeping Saddam from escaping prison is completely different. I never said they have no ability to strike at us. I just said that a very specific operation of breaking someone out of prison with a superior military guarding him is extremely difficult even for our own best trained troops. I don't doubt their intelligence. I'm just saying that it's virtually impossible even with good planning. Striking us at home is something that they could probably still do now, though, thanks to our "strong on terrorism" president. The problem is we did know about some of the terrorists who commited 9/11. Our intelligence was very well organized and trained and the reason they still were able to attack was that the people on top ignored the warnings. I mean gees the CIA managed to pull together a massively successful invasion of Afghanistan without troops on the ground. It's been taken down now, though; a courtesy of Rumsfeld. I never said it was our choice to have him executed. It's not our fault that he was, but it was a mistake to have him executed when the United States could have kept him from getting free with a comparitively small effort. It's their mistake not to do it, but we will pay for it now with the increased terrorist attacks and the further breakdown of regional stability. Personally I think Saddam deserved to die, but the smart choice would have been to NOT make the terror into a martyr. There's a situation in the Middle East that becomes more and more ripe for war every day and this is just one more push in that direction.

I should hope all that illegal wiretapping could help us catch these people. Maybe if we banned guns instead of being in bed with the NRA then they wouldn't have the weapons to take more than a few hostages. How many troops did we lose from the time he was captured to the time he was executed making sure he can't escape? That's not how we lost 3000 troops. We don't need thousands of troops making sure he can't escape. In the Vietnam war the technology gap between us and them was nowhere near as extensive as in Iraq. In Black Hawk Down, one of our helicopters happened to get shot down by lucky militia. Failing with an organized operation to guard the former dictator from escape is extremely unlikely. We don't need to learn how to use civilians as a shield. That's their biggest advantage. Why not put Saddam on an island and guard the island? It's been done to lots of defeated leaders before to keep them from getting back into power.

Hundreds of US civilians? Where are they going to find a m!@#$%^&* of unprotected US civilians in Iraq? The United States has the best military in the world. If we put some of our best to guard him then no matter how smart they are we're smarter and at the same time vastly technologically superior. Their biggest weapon against us has been hiding behind civilians. In order to have a jail break they'd have to come out of hiding and we'd massacre them. I didn't blame this on Bush. It was Iraqis who screwed up this time. They get a few screw ups considering we made dozens of them in Iraq.

We were technologically superior on 9/11, but we also had a huge country that they only needed to succeed in hitting once. Not only that, but the warnings of the impending attack were ignored before 9/11. If they wanted to fly a plane onto Hussein's jail cell they would simply kill him. The posibility of an actual organized jail break of a very well guarded criminal succeeding is negligent. Let them kill themselves trying it's not that big a deal.

Getting him out of prison? Not even possible if Americans help him stay in. You forget we are massively technologically superior with training that puts them to shame. The only way they've been able to fight us back successfully is by hiding amongst civilians and using our reluctance to kill civilians as a weapon. In an organized jail break type situation they'd have to come out in the open and then we'd slaughter them.

Life in jail would have prevented martyrdom. Too bad the people who sentenced him couldn't see past their hatred towards him and see the repricutions of their decision.

Cypriots use nonviolent means of resistance against Turkey and are much more successful in pressuring the best solution to the problem for them than the Palestinians ever will. Case and point.

If the Arab countries around them had simply accepted the military loss and !@#$%^&*imilated their refugees, a simple task for a group that is culturally, linguistically, and religiously the same, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Aileron i was with ya up to where you started talking about Christianity. Our political system is far from perfect, but it's so vastly superior to Iran's I don't see how you even compare them. America is corrupt. Bush is corrupt. Bush is not America. The Republicans were peacefully voted out of power in Congress for their corruption. Corruption in Iran is solved by calling for the destruction of Israel to hide the policies in Iran and political opposition is swiftly dealt with. That's why a democracy is so vastly superior to a theocracy. Imagine Christianity during the Dark Ages when democracy didn't exist and people were happy with their religiously empowered dictators. Do you want the Christian world to be like that? Would you be happy there? There's no excuse for a dictatorship. NEVER. It's a flawed system based to serve the people in power only. The Muslim World will never be at peace until they become secular Democracies. Look how much better it's been for Europe and the Americas. How could an existentialist atheist like yourself possibly support something that's the opposite of what you believe in? Is the destruction of the state of Israel THAT important to you? Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and many thousands of Shiites. You tell them that it was better having an all powerful dictator who massacres them when they try to voice their opinions or have a voice for their own people. If it was me I'd rather die with a gun to another guy with a gun than have a squadrant of people massacre me with machine gun fire while I'm helpless. Besides that, we could have created a stable Iraq, but Bush was never the one to do it. A change in leadership might just salvage the situation if we can get one in time. Dictatorship is never a democracy. You trying to justify it so you can be on the same boat for the "go destroy Israel!" side doesn't make it so. Muslims are angry because they used to be on top and more powerful than the Christians during their Dark Ages and then went into their own Dark Ages for a millennia and suddenly Christians were vastly superior in military, economic, and political strength. Israel and American invasions are simply added fire to an already existing movement. The movement doesn't stop until Islam dominates or the movement is abandoned by enough people. Giving in is a victory to the movement and will only further accelerate it. A politician saying extreme things for power? Common sense. The president of a country where the president has no real power other than his words trying to impress the people with real power? Common sense. An extremist theology is structured to promote war with groups of different religions? Common sense. I mean gees for someone who wants tough treatment on Israel for what they did you sure do want to appease Iran for anything. I'm shocked someone like you would ignore the reality of the President of Iran just because he supports the destruction of the state of Israel. You seem like someone who thinks things through, but your weakness is supporting anyone who opposes Israel. The enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend. The fuel given to anti semites using the conference's future "impartial" decision that the Holocaust was overblown will be problematic enough. When you deny a Holocaust enough people will start to believe you. I mean look how well Turkey has made it seem like the Armenian genocide is up for debate. I bet all the delegates with exception of the token Jewish delegates there to show a small minority of actual Jews who support the dismantling of the state of Israel think the Holocaust was a myth and people who call the Holocaust a myth ARE anti-semites. They refute irrefutable evidence because their hatred of Jews is so strong that they can't possibly fathom the people they think of as devils being victims. Enough proof right there that it's an anti-semitic conference.

Don't forget it was the Arabs who decided everything or nothing. The Jews wanted to live in piece with their Muslim brothers, but they were attacked from all sides and did exactly what they should have done. They fought back and through military mastery gained the spoils of war. The only reason there is a "Palestinian problem" is because the countries around them wanted to turn the refugees who spoke the same language and had the same culture and religion into second class citizens to keep the conflict going on. If anything this is a political driven conflict by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. When the Germans lost lands during World War 2 the refugees were accomadated into the existing population and they lost a much larger proportion of land compared to their current size than the Arabs. The reason this is a problem for one group than the other is that one group is so extreme that losing even an inch of land is call for a holy war; so why appease extremists? The one thing I think America completely trumps Europe in is that we have some balls. Appeasement led to World War 2 and the Holocaust that forced the Jews to search for a homeland. People should remember their history lessons.