MonteZuma

Afghanistan was an Al Qaida training ground. There's no doubt about that. It was a haven for terrorists. The invasion of Afghanistan was important for global security. Yeah. The opium issue is a problem. But it might not be as easy as it seems to end the trade. Yeah. The fact that GWB and co seem(ed) to ignore the threat of terrorism from people in 'friendly' middle eastern countries is/was a problem. I'm not so sure if more can be done about that or not.

Yeah. Afghanistan was about the Taliban, not the price of Opium. Crazy talk.

Astro. To me, you are a foreigner. People outside the US don't care about the US government per se. They just hate GWB and his foreign policy. They tend to like Moore because many share his views about US foreign policy, neoliberalism and gun culture. If Michael Moore was born in Europe, he wouldn't have raised any eyebrows.

I agree with Dr. This debate is silly. The buildings collapsed because they were struck by fully fuelled planes. End of story.

Yeah. It is very annoying. I feel your pain

So is this forum.

He is entertaining and thought-provoking.

NASA's budget for 1966 (ie just for that year) was over $30Billion in today's money. Now it is half that. Still a lot of money.

Now that you mention it, I have that problem with my laptop k/b. I don't have a solution though.

If you don't agree with the conspiracy theory, but you think that it is impossible for the towers to fall like that as a result of the plane crashes, what do you think happened? I don't trust politicians, especially GWB, but I can't believe that the planes, the towers and the people in them were destroyed at the behest of US politicians.

So who do you think is responsible for destroying the towers?

It is tons of resources. US$16Billion is a lot of money. Its about the same amount that the US gives in foreign aid. To get men to the moon, the budget [edit: for 1966] was over US$30Billion in adjusted terms. That kind of money could gto a long way in research to improve energy and resource efficiency on Earth. The US military budget is astronomical. Don't get me started on that

The towers fell with each floor concertinaing into the next - like train carriages thumping into each other. Is that beyond belief?

Planning for that starts on Earth. We can't even make a sustainable biodome on this planet. It is pointless fantasising about life in space until we figure that problem out. (and when we do figure out the biodome problem there will be so many spinoffs in terms of energy and water conservation and recycling that we may solve many Earthly problems). The space travel component can wait. Btw, sending men to Mars is a waste of resources too. I'm not totally against space 'exploration'. I support the idea behind the International Space Station - it is an extremely valuable research tool. We obviously need communications, spy, imaging and GPS satellites for example. Some of the experimental satellites are probably reasonable value for money too. But manned space travel, for the most part, is a waste of resources. There is nowhere to go. We can't live in a gl!@#$%^&* bubble floating in space or a gl!@#$%^&* dome on Mars. If we can't figure out our social and environmental problems here on Earth then we stand no chance in space.

If that is true, and I'm not sure that it is, then we need to lower our population. But even a thousand years is a !@#$%^&*a long time. We can worry about space when we get our problems sorted out here. There is only one basket. Where is the other basket? No. We can worry about other options in a few thousand years, but even then I'm sure the future of the human race will still be here on Earth. The United States isn't that special. The solution to that problem is here on Earth. If it happens, where will the survivors go?

It goes for one hour. Sheesh. I find it very hard to believe that 9/11 could be a conspiracy cooked up by the US government or a US government agency. What parts did you find interesting Astro?

I think you are oversimplifying the situation. Anything that encourages sectarianism serves to weaken the fragile Iraqi 'democracy'. People who have been marginalised by the democratic process have much to gain by destabilising the government. Bombing a US base would not destabilise the Iraqi government or encourage sectarianism as much as bombing a symbolic shrine. Attacking the US will not cause division amongst Iraqis. The target was a shrine. A sectarian symbol. It wasn't Islam. The driver that causes Iraqis to attack each other is power, not hatred.

I got a crappy connection and use browsers with security that makes it hard to view some videos. Anyone wanna give me a Reader's Digest version?

Well. We can for about another billion years or so if we stop !@#$%^&*ting in iour nest. That depends on how you use the resources. A colony on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system or outer space will be much less sustainable than a colony on Earth. The fact that people view the Earth as a disposable resource is THE problem. The future for us and subsequent generations is here on Earth - not in space. Yes. And people thought that it wasn't worth the expense to upgrade the flood defenses. They were wrong. People make bad judgments all the time. Moving hundreds of thousands of people back into NO may not be the best idea. A cost benefit needs to be undertaken. I think that I probably would rebuild New Orleans on account of the cultural and heritage value of the place. But it is definitely worth asking "Is it worth it?", especially for the most vulnerable parts. And/or the parts that were/are still sinking into the mud. I think it would be a fair question for planners to ask whether or not the area should be reserved as a park or a memorial or turned into office space. I don't think anything should be ruled out. Same with New Orleans.

make sure you raise this in confession. Not compared with the rest of the western world. Everyone in Europe and Australasia thinks that the US is full of bible bashers. I suspect that most people, even christians, just don't want to watch christian tv programs. Why should they? Will television viewing bring you closer to God? It is a fair question to ask. Building a coastal city below sea level in a hurricane zone would not be my first choice if I had to build a large city from scratch. Everybody knows that going to the moon was a waste of resources. So was the space shuttle. That money should have been invested elsewhere. Abandoning those programs has nothing to do with multiculturalism. Do you really think that the US has less 'culture' now than it did in the 60s, 70s and 80s? I'd call it satire. But really, it probably isn't even satire. It was a drawing of mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Without reading teh accompanying text, that could mean anything.

This is not about Jihad. This isn't just about religion or the US occupation. This isn't about hatred either. The enemy is not clear at all. There are forces at work here that haven't been identified. There is something going on outside the green zone and the US and others don't have a handle on what it is yet. I suspect that there is a power struggle going on. People want to lock in a big slice of the pie. This might be about religious authority, wealth or raw political power or a combination of all three. I suspect that people may be using religious divides as a tool to stir up trouble and nuetralise whatever is in their way.

Text messages?!

Israel doesn't recognise Palestinian rights to 'Israeli' land. What do you propose should be done about the imp!@#$%^&*e? Everybody agrees that US foreign policy sucks (except Aileron ) Under the NPT, Iran has a right to nuclear technology, but would you trust them with a nuclear weapon? And yep...GWB would lump you in with the other members of the axis of evil and the media would probably support him. You'd be portrayed as some kind of radical socialist or terrorist sympathiser or something.

Yeah. It doesn't say how the Germans got the information. Saddam was not exactly a great friend of Germany, despite what the Republicans might say or think. For all we know, some Iraqi military dude might have walked into the German emb!@#$%^&*y and then: Iraqi military dude: 'Hey, will you get me on the first plane to Frankfurt if I tell you a little secret?' German emb!@#$%^&*y dude: 'ya ok, but it better be good'. Iraqi military dude is smuggled out at the first available opportunity (before or after the invasion). Germany sends the details to the Americans. Bobs your uncle. Or maybe the emb!@#$%^&*y intercepted a transmission or something. I doubt Hussein faxed the defense plans to Germany and said 'hey dude, what do you think of this? Good plan huh?'

I'm not sure that that is clear. The USSR dissolved because of a number of internal and external reasons. I don't know if a classless society can work or not, but obviously a political system like that faces some pressures. A political system where virtually all power is held by a military strongman also faces considerable internal and external pressure. Huh? I'd love to see a new thread started on that topic Imo, comparing anarchists, communists and atheists is like comparing apples, brocolli and mushrooms (ie, not close enough to use the apples and oranges cliché). I don't really know or care what the politics and economics text books and dictionaries say about this, but in reality, this is not true. Industrial China has one of the most capitalistic economies in the world. The only thing that is communistic about day-to-day life in Shanghai for example is the system of government! Whatever the 'system' that Iraq claimed to have, it was really a dictatorship ruled by Saddam Hussein. The only similarity between Iraq and the USSR was the absence of democracy. Yes. Economic issues had a lot to do with the collapse of soviet communism. Iraq's economy was also a shambles - thanks to the sanctions. Interestingly issues related to the economy also led to the fall of Tsarist Russia (the rise of the USSR) and the rise of Nazi Germany. Yes. Economic failure is a cause of political unrest and revolution. That's why economic sanctions are such a powerful political weapon. It just isn't that simple. Communism wasn't defeated by revolutionaries. Communism was defeated by a series of unexpected events triggered by glasnost, and to a lesser extent perestroika. This was started not by revolutionaries with weapons or disgruntled soldiers or the unemployed. It was started by Gorbachev - a reformist - not a revolutionary. There is nothing inherently stable about a military dictatorship.