MonteZuma

Thanks for sharing. Some comments: * You laugh a lot. Thats good. I like to make people happy too. * I don't care what you think of my opinion. * You would like to see some proof of the size of my member, wouldn't you? Haha. Sorry. I don't do requests. Haha . You dirty !@#$%^&*. * If you want to get ahead in life you need to look past avatars. Search for a deeper wisdom. * I think you've lost the plot. * Try to say something about the topic in your next post. It really isn't that hard when you put your mind to it.

I'm not against all kinds of genetic research or manipulation. Undoubtedly it has many potential benefits - including for agriculture and the environment. But the risks need to be weighed up against the benefits on a case by case basis. In some places, we actually do have restrictions on how animals can be bred - on the basis of animal welfare concerns, or public safety. But when it comes to the kind of genetic manipulation we are capable of today, we have a whole new ball game. Herbicide resistant crops can lead to the emergence of herbicide reistant weeds. Those weeds don't stop at the farmer's fence. They blow over into the neighbours farm. I vaguely recall an early incident when the seeds of crop modified to be Roundup (a herbicide) resistant blew across into a neighbours farm and started to grow there. Because it is roundup resistent, he would need to purchase new chemicals to remove it. The neighbour was later sued by the seed manufacturer for growing a patented crop without a license. Similar problems occur when you have a GM-free organic farm next to one that uses GM crops. You just can't prevent contamination. We also must remember that we are eating this stuff. Many of us complain that we eat too many pesticides, antibiotics or growth hormones in food, now we must also ask ourselves how else our vegetables or meats might be tainted. You just can't assume that GM will be a good thing. And you can't just do what you want with plants, animals and the food they produce.

That is why I believe the US and other countries are in greater danger of terrorist attacks now than they were before the invasion of Iraq. When it comes to fighting terrorism, it is probably most important to be seen to be doing the right thing - to win hearts and minds. I think a better course of action, in terms of global security and fighting international terrorism, would have been to work with the UN and do it their way. The rights of Iraqis are, by necessity, of secondary importance. Individual freedoms and national issues just have to take a back seat when our main concern is international terrorism. Iraq was a mistake. The problems that Iraqis faced should have been handled differently. Let's face it. This is a fight against terrorism. Not a fight against despotism. Maybe. I'm not sure than all the allegations about Saddam's sons are true. In any case, I hope you are right about the future.

Cool! That would be an improvement over your previous posts. These are not statements. They are words. Oh well. Maybe you can try again next time. If you don't know, then your teachers have failed you. Pick up a book one day and you might figure it out. If you read on, you might find a few examples. Wrong. For an extreme example, look up "Dark Ages" in your encyclopedia. The history of mankind is basically a cycle of dark ages and renaissances. For a basic example, have a look at any research organisation's budget. People choose what knowledge will be advanced and what won't. That is why we know more about the moon than we do about ocean abysses. When it comes to nuclear technology, we don't leave it to market forces. Why should we do the same with genetic technology? You've helped noone. But thanks for trying.

You don't need a crystal ball. All you have to do is look into the past and learn something from history. Try it some time. Where there is a knowledge gap, you make an !@#$%^&*essment as to whether or not the gap needs to be filled, and whether or not the benefit will outweigh the cost. We don't need to fill every gap. It isn't rocket science and it isn't magic. Messing around with life processes, at any level, from the introduction of new species into new ecosystems, or the manipulation of the building blocks of life, has had tragic unforseen and irreversible consequences in the past and it will in the future. One area where genetic manipulation is now mainstreeam is in the use of genetically modified crops that are herbicide resistant. You don't need to be a soothsayer to imagine how that kind of genetic manipulation could accidentally produce an annoying and costly agricultural weed. Is it worth developing that kind of organism if the chance of it going feral and damaging the agricultural economy is 40%. What if the chance of an adverse impact was totally unknown? Scientists and politicians can't answer that kind of question. That is a question for society to ponder. I hope I helped improve your understanding of the issue. I like to help people.

I'm not so confident.

I suspect that since 1991, more Iraqis have died as a direct or indirect result of US and allied attacks on Iraq (culminating in the invasion) than from attrocities carried out by Saddam in the same period. And, the situation in Iraq remains unstable, even with a US occupation force and Saddam gone. I see these 2 things to be fundamental flaws in the strategy to invade Iraq. That is how I rationalise my viewpoint. In fact, even if Saddam did kill more people in the same period, I'd rather that a despot be responsible for the death of innocents than my government, or the allies of my government. It is a matter of perception. The UN provided a way for us to work on an Iraqi solution without being percieved as anti-islamic war-mongerers. Unfortunately GWB didn't see it that way. With hindsight, I'd say someone should have kicked Saddam's !@#$%^&* as he came to power. At the time though, I was probably playing Space Invaders and didn't really care too much. No rationalisation needed.

Not really. It didn't shift until Viet Nam. Thanks to colour television. I understand your point, and maybe you are right. But I'm not so sure. Morality is only about the distinction between right and wrong. That changes all the time. I don't think it works like that. The research itself is dangerous. Once something is invented, it can't be uninvented. However people and governments can make decisions about what research will be funded and what won't. I think we need to work it out now. Some issues are already here and others are just around the corner. We also need to know where to invest our research money today.

No. That isn't what I meant to say. Frankly, I think that no individual, be they a corporation or a person or a government, can be trusted to manage this kind of technology. Society needs to make the rules.

It is important, because he held up the US as the standard. But Europe knows more than the article gives her credit for about the price of 'appeasement'. She also know more than the article gives her credit for about the price of war. Perhaps it is the author that doesn't understand? We all rationalise. We watch GWB do it on TV almost daily. Donald Rumsfeld was probably doing it when he shook Saddam's hand in 1983. The US government did it when they took Iraq's side in the Iran-Iraq war. But I find it impossible to ratilionalise away 100,000 dead civilians in the course of a year or so.

An important point.... The author seems to forget that the US remained neutral in WW2 for 2 years longer than the European allies. All the while, jews were being eliminated in death camps and the sovereignty of nations were being trampled. Saddam Hussein was no Hitler. And the threat he posed had already been contained. His whole country was economically and militarally on its knees - thanks to a US-led coalition that involved many European countries. Hussein was hardly being 'appeased'.

This area definitely needs strict control. There is too much at stake to leave it to 'market forces' (or whatever). I don't really have a problem with manipulating genes, with some caveats. In general, I'm opposed to experiments carried out on human embryos. I think an extreme precautionary approach should be taken with regards to genetic modification of any organism (to the point where a GMO is considered a bio-hazard until *proven* otherwise). The idea of designer babies needs to be knocked on the head. People should not be able to custom-build children (can you imagine what Michael Jackson would have done with this kind of technology?). There are so many ethical issues. I don't know or understand many of them. But I think that this is an area where we can't trust scientists or governments to do the right thing.

Ail. While the article is thought provoking, it is obviously slanted and biased. The dude who wrote it obviously hates muslims. Some comment on that: The Europeans don't countenance suicide bombing. They countenance the Paslestinian right to self determination. Perhaps it is the Europeans that trying to protect democratic values in that conflict? Why not? Research published in The Lancet estimated 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the invasion began. Add to that the poor Iraqi ASSS that were conscripted into the Iraqi military and you have a frightening statistic. I think we all have a right, if not a moral responsibility to ask whether or not that human cost was justified. And still the violence and killing continues. As for "Islamic fundamentalists" in Europe. Are we talking about organised fundamentalism or the actions of criminals? The article implies a level of organisation. In any case, in The Netherlands for example, "islamic violence" goes both ways. Islamic criminals are setting fire to churches and christian criminals are setting fire to mosques. But the issue of so-called Islamic violence in Europe is being blown way out of proportion. I've read a lot of stuff connecting the killing of Pim Fortuyn with the rise of "islamic violence". But when you look into it, you find out that he was killed by a deranged white Dutch animal rights activist. Western Europe needs to deal with the issue of immigration and make some tough decisions, but to confuse honest Islamic immigrants with the actions of a few criminal elements isn't much better than the nazi's !@#$%^&*ociating jews with all of the problems that afflicted pre-war Germany. Bah. I've said much more on this article than I wanted. The issue is way too complicated. I agree with you Ail that it is an interesting article, worth a read, but Akai is also correct. It is a diatribe.

Well. The recent summit in Egypt between the Palestinian Authority president and the Israeli PM is definitely a turning point. Only an optimist would expect the ceasefire to last, but at least there has been a thawing in relations.

See you soon

LOL Yeah sure... Rather than outlaw it, I'd try softer approach. Encourage other forms of birth control. One way of doing that might be to make abortions expensive or make counselling compulsory - or something. Just tossing around ideas. They are profiteering. If the government was determined to stop this, they could. But, fwiw, imo, petrol shouldn't be cheap. It should be taxed to the hilt. The money raised should go to fixing the damage that cars do to the environment and our health. It isn't really that simple. East Timor can't protect itself from Indoneasia...Palestine can't protect itself from Israel...A pacific island can't protect itself from anybody. We need a world police. But the police should be the UN. The US dumping on the UN was a terrible mistake. Indeed. They did.

Rules are rules. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to erect buildings wherever. Clearly it isn't a church that they plan to build. It is against zoning rules and the residents don't want it. Time to pick up the bat and ball and look for somewhere else to play.

At first I was put off by the length, but I think it is a well-written article with an interesting viewpoint. Very thought-provoking. Thanks. On the other hand though, I think it runs the risk of encouraging narrow-minded people to view all muslims as terrorists. It is a little inflammatory. Debate about a public holiday for muslims for example, hardly amounts to appeasement of terrorists. I don't think Europe wants to appease terrorists. I think they want to be more inclusive of muslims in their society and in their dealings with the outside world. There is nothing wrong with that, and in fact I think that will go a long way to fighting islamic extremism.

As for his personality alone....I think he is incapable of seeing the big picture. He doesn't try to look at things from the viewpoint of others. He is ignorant, self-centred and cold-hearted. If I could give him 3 pieces of advice, it would be: * Use less haispray. * Wipe that frickin grin of your face. * Get a lobotomy.

The only thing that has been exposed is your immaturity. Perhaps in your next post, you might put the vitriol aside and give us all an insight into your views on the situation in Iraq. Go on! You can do it!

The reason they are against it (information sourced from various news articles and do!@#$%^&*entaries) is because some muslims believe democrocy is agains islam. This is because the law and sociaty should be based in their view around the knoran and nothing else thus rendering the need for an elected government useless as all parties would have the very same policy. They also believe that anyone running for prsident is tring to become a demi-god and any voters are infidels. just thought id add this, havent seen any other posts describing what the insergants are fighting for. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point. Thanks. This 'viewpoint' isn't talked about enough. GWB prefers to simply describe anyone with this kind of mindset as 'evil' or an 'enemy of freedom'. But the fact is, some of these people have strongly-held views that, to them at least, make perfect sense. You can't impose democray on people that don't want it. Iraq as a whole may be different. I think most of their population is moderate. But defeating (or moderating) the insurgents is gonna be a challenge.

I prefer to call it a 'unanimous view'. At least as far as anyone outside the US is concerned. And it isn't anti-US. It is anti-US government. I had nothing to regain. You haven't typed anything intelligent yet.

Perhaps. But the reason they didn't advance at that time was because they were afraid of the mess that Iraq would be in afterwards, and in particular the power vacuum that would be left. Bush1 thought that it wasn't worth it. He might still be proven right - if he hasn't already.

Whacky conspiracy theory. Whacky conspiracy theory. Fair point. I just hope it doesn't exist in GWB's mind. Would it really make that much difference? I doubt that Venezuala will turn into the next USSR.

You give up too easily. Lets. Do you even know the definition of egotistical? Heh. Your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. As I said, I think the media tries to to be balanced, but what they end up doing is reporting the easy stuff the easy way. The government of the day will always be able to manipulate the media more than the opposition. It works like that in many countries. Here is a link so that you can get up to speed on how it all works: The politics of fear Claims about the wave of anti-semitism in Europe are exaggerated. Most of Europe is very tolerant of all kinds of minorities. You should spend less time 'wondering' about avatars and more time playing sports - or something. I think you are blurring the line between jews and christians, but whatever - it is also considered holy to muslims. If the Israelis acknowledged that, then the world would be a safer place. LOL. The resaon there are no WMDs is because the sanctions, inspections and political and military pressure applied to Iraq BEFORE the invasion worked. Everyone acknowledges that, even the US government. You are confusing Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden. Islam is not in direct opposition to christianity, and in any case, Hussein and his regime were less theocratic than many middle eastern governments - such as Saudi Arabia. Anyway...I can see you are trying, but you just don't understand the issues. Keep up the good work C+