MonteZuma

Obviously not. But millions of muslims empathise with them or support them in principle. They have huge amounts of support in the middle east and southeast Asia (especially Indonesia).

Clearly the muslim extremists represent more than just a few hundred people. I think they represent millions of muslims, mainly from poor backgrounds, who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they aren't in control of their own destiny. Democracy as it is practiced in modern, western civilisation is not simply a case of "majority rules". Modern democracy is about representation, equality and individual rights as much as it is about "majority rules". Self-determination is the key issue I think. Is the US/coalition delivering "self-determination"? Probably not. Whatever the truth is, I think many people of the region see what is happening in Iraq as the installation of western influence and values and not an opportunity to express their own values in their own way. Saying that the needs of the few need to be drowned out by the needs of the many is the sort of thing that landed us in this mess. It is the sort of thing that isolates individuals and groups and breeds disaffection, anger and hate.

Was Nicaragua about liberation? VietNam was not about liberation. Jesus. God help you if the US decides to 'liberate' you. The Iraqi invasion was not a matter of liberation. It was a pre-emptive strike to reduce the 'threat' from a rogue leader with WMDs. It was also a misguided attempt to reduce the threat of terrorism. Bush's small oversight was that those two threats simply didn't exist in Iraq at the time. Well. We got the terrorists in Iraq now. GG Bush. pwned.

Regardless of what people thought about WMDs it is clear that Iraq wasn't a clear and present danger. Hindsight tells us that. Blix et al told us that before the invasion. The French and Germans et al didnt think he was a clear and present danger either. 540 dead soldiers is only a small price to pay if you aren't one of the dead - or one of their family or friends. Not to mention the seriously injured and permanantly disabled. Not to mention the civilian and Iraqi soldier deaths. This conflict can't be summed up by saying it is worth it coz only 540 westerners died.

Well.....The way I understand it is that Spain has recently decided to pull out of Iraq unless the UN gets involved or something. Thats ok in my book, but only if they redeploy forces in Afghanistan or do something else that sends a message to the terrorists that they haven't won. If they back out of Iraq and go soft on terrorism they are gonna look like spineless wimps beholden to shameless and faceless terrorists.

I dunno.... I'm pretty sure that Spain wouldn't have been attacked if they hadn't supported the US....but lets face it.....these terrorists are -*BAD WORD*-s and someone has got to stand up to them. I hope this event makes the Spanish more determined to fight terrorism...but also more determined to look carefully at how that 'fight' should take place. But who knows? If it wasn't Iraq, Al Qaeda could have easily found another excuse to cause mahem in Spain or any other country. Australia was singled out by Al Qaeda because they helped the East Timorese gain independence before the war on terror began. These people just hate the west and will lash out whereever they can. I reckon one of the big problems the western world faces now is that the US stuffed up when they linked Iraq and Afghanistan together. They were 2 seperate issues. Al Qaeda are the terrorists. Hussein was the ruthless and erratic dictator. Calling the attack on Iraq part of the War on Terror was wrong. In the short term this attack has had exactly the impact that Al Qaeda would have wanted. Death, destruction, chaos, fear, economic damage and even a change of government in Spain. In the long term I hope the world wisens up and finds a way to punish those responsible without inciting more violence. Monte.

If it comes out, it will be defeated within weeks of its release. If/when they stick it in processors it might take a bit longer, but anyone who wants to will eventually be able to work around it. I wouldn't invest money in it.

Moral arguments aside....The cost of PC software is high and always has been. I wouldn't be surprised if software piracy has dragged prices down in order to persuade people who might think of using pirate software to purchase instead. ...and despite piracy, software continues to be made and IT people continue to be relatively well paid. The IT industry isn't suffering because of piracy. In any case...Whileever software is made up of bits and bytes, piracy will always exist, and policeing piracy will be virtually impossible. Software producers need to add value to their product to make purchasing more attractive to consumers than piracy. Rather than bleat about it....software producers should be pro-active and positive about this. Every person who uses pirated software is a potential customer.

If the US claimed, even temporarily, that Iraq was US territory, then that would be annexation and would be illegal under international law. The US is merely exercising control in an occupied nation. This is not the same thing as annexation. While most dictionaries of international law might tell you that every nation is sovereign, the fact is there are many nations that aren't. Stop looking at your dictionary and start looking at what is happening in the real world. Not everything fits inside the box. Not every nation is independent and self-governing. Monte.

Sovereignty 1) Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state. 2) Royal rank, authority, or power. 3) Complete independence and self-government. 4) A territory existing as an independent state. Do you think that Iraq and Afghanistan are sovereign nations? No. They are occupied nations. Do you think Taiwan is an independent state with complete independence and self-government? Does its government have supremacy of authority or rule? Do you think East Timor is an independent state with complete independence and self-government? Does its government have supremacy of authority or rule? According to your own CIA even American Samoa is a seperate nation. Heh. Sovereign my -*BAD WORD*-. What about Holy See? I think you lost it totally with that last post. It is almost incomprehensible, but it is obvious that you have no idea about geopolitics or climate change. Monte.

No....we are disussing energy use and the implications !@#$%^&*ociated with that. Pollution that crosses international borders is not a domestic policy issue. A country is arrogant if their domestic policy is responsible for avoidable hardship - even calamity - elsewhere in the world. Nations aren't sovereign by definition and they don't have any moral or ethical right to change the Earth's atmosphere regardless of the consequences. This is a perfect example of arrogance. Excluding 'the rest of the world' from the decision-making process because they are not big polluters is illogical and undemocratic. The logical and democratic thing to do is to involve all affected parties in the decision-making processes. If it was my small island nation that was about to be drowned by rising sea-levels I'd sure as -*BAD WORD*- like my voice to be heard even if I belonged to a nation that did not cause any pollution whatsoever. Iraq has nothing to do with Kyoto. I doubt that Blair's main reason for supporting the US was because of Kyoto. In fact I doubt that any government would be stupid enough to join a war just to get support for their geenhouse gas policy. Sheesh. You watch the wrong do-*BAD WORD*-entaries. Blair didn't drop any ball..... He went all the way with GWB all the time and is now going to wear whatever fallout (or kudos!) comes from that. Monte.

Greenhouse gas emissions are a global issue. This isn't a case of the US and other western countries -*BAD WORD*-ting in their own nest....We are -*BAD WORD*-ting in everybody's nest. Its wrong. Aileron. Your post is the perfect example of American arrogance. From a geopolitical perspective, this type of at!@#$%^&*ude by your governments is why many of your folk sew Canadian flags on their backpacks when they travel - and why Canadians wear "I am not American" t-shirts when they travel. Your country's arrogance is counterproductive. Bush and his supporters just don't realise this yet. Monte.

Get a grip. The world pay compensation to the US for asking the US to stop polluting the globe? What a crock. The US is the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in the world. Yes...CO2 is pollution. It is the US who should be paying the compensation. Blaming Mexico is ridiculous... and borderline racist. Monte.

Global warming is related to air pollution. In this case, the main pollutant is carbon dioxide, but of course other gases also contribute to the problem. I disagree totally with the suggestion that we can't do anything about human-induced global warming, and I disgaree that we aren't the cause.

The conceptual basis of the European Union dates back to 1957 and the Treaties of Rome - at the height of the cold war. It had little to do with military or political power (thats why you have NATO) and everything to do with economics and trade. That focus still dominates today. The only real power struggle going on with the EU is for economic power. Fwiw, afaik, realpolitik was first used in Germany in 1859 - not France. Germany has been rebuilt since then - twice. Her economy and her politics are nothing like they were in 1859, so I'm not sure how relevant this is to modern and future Europe. [RANT]Realpolitik is 'wrong'. We live on one big blue marble. National boundaries are articficial. The fortunate should help the unfortunate. Kindness is not the responsibility of religion. It is the responsibility of everyone.[/RANT] Bush often pushes a moral agenda. Most leaders do. Take his stance on gay marriage for example. The argument that you will not accept is that your leader is making a mistake. Fair enough. Your en!@#$%^&*led to that opinion. I stand by mine. Monte. PS Putin and Chirac??? WTF?! LOL!

Global warming is reversible - but not with current patterns of land and energy use. It will take *more* than 15 years to confirm that global warming is occuring but that is not a reason to avoid action now. Solar energy will be *more* viable if we invest money in it. But it will never provide the same amount of energy as fossil fuels. That may not matter if we use energy more efficiently than we do now. That is where I believe our efforts should be concentrated - energy efficiency. Nuclear energy will be viable (including politically viable) if/when 'the oil runs out'. In any case - define 'viable'. New technology, economies of scale, better efficiency and supply/demand issues can rapidly change the unviable to the viable. As for previous changes in power sources. It is virtually impossible to learn from the past in this situation because we have never had a problem like this before. In any case, those previous changes were often unexpected. One day all of a sudden civilisation gave us iron, coal, trains, electricity, radio, internal combustion engines, rockets, computers. Nobody....NOBODY....knows what will be next. How on Earth can anyone know what will be viable in 5, 10 or 20 years time? References: Precautionary Principle Post-normal Science Monte.

If you are in Finland and the server is in the US, it would hardly be surprising that you end up being routed through New York. I ain't an expert but I think this can be summed up by saying that your ISP sucks bigtime.

The threat of global warming and all consequent impacts, including the inundation of whole countries, isn't enough of a reason to cut emissions? Europe doesn't need to offer a carrot to anyone. Frigging around with the atmosphere is wrong. It is common sense. Monte.

The actions that Bush is taking aren't good for the US. I don't think that Europe cares as much about the 'balance of power' as you think. Western Europe as a whole has never been more economically and politically secure ever. I reckon Bush, Blair, Howard etc think that they are doing the right thing, albeit in an underhanded way. I also reckon that they are making a big mistake. Monte.

Bah. Your logic is flawed. You assume that the only way to fight terrorism is with soldiers. 'Foreigners' don't suggest that you accept civilian casualties. In fact civilian casualties are one of the reasons why people reject the US' method for tackling this problem. There would be less civilian casualties if the war on terror was more strategic and involved less soldiers. Monte.

I don't have any respect for half of the people on that list. Those aren't my picks. But I'm confident my !@#$%^&*umptions (and Dr Brain's) about the way the rest of the world thinks aren't that far off. I thought it was fairly obvious that most of the world doesn't like Bush much at all? In any case, its a nebulous question with no single answer. How do you measure respect?

Yeah...Communications satellites are in very high geostationary orbits, so even if the server is next door your packets travel further than someone living on the opposite side of the Earth using ground-based cables to connect to the server. What you are experiencing is the same delay that you see on satellite hookups on tv, or phone signals sent over satellite. When it comes to subspace, conventional satellite connections are always gonna suck. Dial-up is better. Unless you find a way to increase the speed of light?

Yeah. I suspect the pope, the Dalai Lama(sp?), Nelson Mandella, Kofi Annan (sp?), QEII (maybe?) and a host of other people are respected by more people than the US president (or any other serving politician in any country). -*BAD WORD*-...even Bin Laden probably has more supporters than Bush. I haven't even mentioned musicians and sport stars.... Monte.

I agree with most of what you say...but the world needs optimists and pessimists. At the moment there are more questions than answers so it isn't surprising that this is reflected in some of the posts here. That is what happens when you operate on the edge of scientific understanding. I have issues with the debate about plastics. Plastics are fairly inert...so what if they are still around in 10, 100 or 1,000 years? Sure they look ugly, and some plastics are probably nastier than others...but in general I don't think they will do any lasting and irreversible damage to anything. Correct me if I'm wrong. Changing the atmosphere is a different kettle of fish.

A little late but............. (1) Political systems are relevant to this debate. More important though are the social and economic systems...not just of the US...but of the world. Each of these systems decide how we satisfy our needs and wants. The problem with oil is that we are satisfying needs and wants unsustainably. (2) Bush lost the election but got in because the US political system is screwed. Fact. Whether the US system is better or worse than the Scottish system is debatable. But the fact remains that the Australian system is better than both. (3) Everything on TV is true - unless it comes from CNN, NBC or ABC(US). In which case it is just US propaganda. (4) Exactly. That is why the political system is important in the debate. Politics is a tangled web. But politicians and governments have the power to make plans for the future and change the way things are done. This requires vision and political will. That is what is lacking in US politics at the moment. (5) This is a chicken or egg problem. After all...the car was invented in Europe...and the car is behind much of the oil consumption. I would prefer to say that the entrepreneurialism of some US immigrants and native born people started the passion for oil (energy) and led us to this point. But who started the problem is irrelevant. The issue is who has the power to fix this problem? Much of that power lies with the USA. The US (especially the Bush administration) is not exercising that power...hence we have a problem.