MonteZuma

People have been saying this for 30 years and we still find more of the stuff all the time. I think there will be a fairly smooth transition from oil to other fuel sources...and more efficient use of existing reserves. We wont have a calamitous energy crisis for a long time. Rising oil prices will probably be inevitable though. But I suspect that we may have an environmental calamity (which may translate into a social and economic calamity) if we don't stop messing with the atmosphere. I just hope this doesn't happen in my lifetime.

If you wanted to take this argument to the limit you could even say that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. But I doubt that water vapour emissions would make much difference to weather or climate at all. As far as I know, burning any *fossil fuel* will also release water vapour. And...humidity levels are probably unnaturally low, especially in places where there are more cars, because of reduced evapotranspiration due to clearing of vegetation.

The US president is not the most respected person in the world.

Exactly. But if you spend a trillion dollars on Earth (and that figure could easily be out by more than an order of magnitude) instead of on a space flight, you will go a long way to fixing up those problems and significantly delay the need to look at Mars.

Did I add 2 or 3 to many zeros? Awwww. I am sorry for any distress this may have caused. But, how does that change the point of the argument? We have no reason to go to the moon or mars in the foreseeable future. We should wait hundreds of years, maybe thousands. Slash and burn isn't a way of life that we should be using when it comes to planets. As for your argument about cost....Will the national debt be lower in "a few years"? No it won't. Oh...Perhaps you left off a zero or two too? AND finally, haven't you noticed that this thread went offtopic weeks ago? Monte. Edit: Did someone edit the previous post by Killing Ape? If so, thanks. I didn't much appreciate the tone.

Permanent manned base on the moon - a $100,000,000,000 tactic to divert attention from the doom and gloom of the US economy and the War on Terror and make Bush look like a visionary instead of an inept warmonger. Manned mission to Mars - a $100,000,000,000,000 diversionary tactic - just in case the moon thing isn't sufficiently diversionary. Bring on the election... Sad.

Well you've been taken...hook, line and sinker....by one of the gayest sound-bites to come out of the war on terror.... It had nothing to do with the size of the hole and everything to do with an attempt to use language to de-humanise and villainise Saddam Hussein in the eyes of the media-watching public. Given the attrocities that this guy has commited, I see it as an insult to my intelligence that they they think they need to stoop that low to make me think he is a bad guy. The fact is its propaganda. Plain and simple. Those were just two examples...this war has been filled with propaganda from both sides. I would like to think that I live in a culture that tries to rise above that kind of thing. Monte.

Scruff...You look like an angry young man. Give us a smile....go on!

Whilst I don't agree with the war, I think it is wrong to blame the soldiers involved, or to doubt their bravery. They were/are serving their country. Responsibility for any military or political mess that results from this intervention rests with politicians and beaurocrats(sp?). I agree though that anyone who falls for the propoganda needs their head read. For a start...What makes the American woman who was captured (rescued?) by the Iraqis during the invasion any braver than Saddam Hussein? Why didn't she fight to the death for what she believes in like some insist that Saddam should have done? And what makes it a spider-hole when Saddam hides in a ditch, but a fox-hole when an American does the same? Pathetic. Monte.

I can't see any sign whatsoever of a possible civil war in the US. Should an attack on the US occur, it is likely that it will be unconventional - but no surprises there since 9/11 has already demonstrated that. If I stretch my imagination I can picture the possibility of catastrophic attacks (by US nationals or others) on US infrastructure - electricity, water supply, Internet, nuclear power stations, chemical and nuclear (dirty bombs) attacks, etc, etc..... If that is what you mean by domestic war then maybe...but I'd call those acts of terrorism and not full-scale civil war. But really, this kind of speculation is pie in the sky stuff.....

They never had the capibilty to destroy the US. Thats what we are talking about here. Point taken. He could have caused great causalties with one of these. Obliterated New York City like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but life in the USA would go on. I don't think that life would just go on. Because of terrorism and terrorism-like activity, the US has had to rethink its relationship with the rest of the world. This is very much the core of what we are talking about in this thread. I don't think that the US will be destroyed. This is utter speculation of course, but I think what is more likely is that some sort of rot will set in. The economic power will gradually be eroded, the country will become more inward-looking, people will lose confidence in some public ins!@#$%^&*utions, unemployment, interest rates and inflation will rise, etc, etc. The US will still be powerful - because of population, natural !@#$%^&*ets, infrastructure - but a new force may become more dominant. That could be Europe....it could be Asia....Who knows....it (probably) aint gonna happen in the near future....but one thing is for certain.....-*BAD WORD*- is gonna happen. It always has and it always will. The trigger will be totally unpredictable. Who woulda thought the assassination of some Duke by a student wouldve led to WW1 (and what followed)... It is naive (or optimistic) to think a nuclear detonation - however crude - in a large US city will have negligible impact on the USs position as a world superpower. Monte.

The EU is far from drowning in its own decay. It is becoming more powerful all the time. The fact that member States disagreed over Iraq is inconsequential. The EU has bigger fish to fry.

Wasn't the threat of terrorism the reason for going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't that why your president calls it a War on Terrorism? Heh. GG. The threat of nuclear destruction didn't stop the backward nations of Iraq and Afghanistan from becoming a threat to US national security. Nuclear weapons and M.A.D. don't work against rogue states or rogue individuals. You very much do have to "worry about countries".

If you wanna know what happens when it goes socialist, just look at the crubling EU. The Scandanavian countries in Europe are a classic example of how socially responsible capitalism CAN work. The threat of destruction keeps everyone safe. That theory didn't exactly work for the people in the Twin Towers, etc. As for China, I beleive that it's setting itself up for a U.S.S.R. like implosion. The US's policy on China has been to "export capitalism" to it, and slowly reform it. China is nothing like the USSR. China is an industrial powerhouse. The USSR never was. Monte

...or else it could just be that the jury did not find evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Wow. Wouldn't that be weird?

You know how successfull people say "lifes not fair". IME its usually the unsuccessful people that say that Rising in wealth and power is always an uphill struggle. Not always. living in poverty is ALWAYS an uphill struggle. The thing about the US and capitalism in general is that people have a shot of rising in power. By all means it isn't a fair shot. However, the point is that there is a door open, and that the legal system isn't openly set up to force people down. Not openly. But as you say, the system isn't fair. Back on topic, the US is pretty much the ultimate in what a capitalist country can be. That depends on your !@#$%^&*essment criteria. When you look at the options of what country could replace the US, there are no viable possibilities at this time. Japan pound for pound would have a shot. Japan doesn't stand a chance. They were -*BAD WORD*-a over-rated in WW2. However, Japan is ultimately a group of islands. Thus, their economy is limited to the resources and land area they got. The same thing for the UK. The US has WAY more room to expand. Britain, Spain, Portgal, Rome, Holland, Denmark, France, Germany (to name a few) all made it to some level of world domination despite having a relative scarcity of resources on their homeland. Colonialism and empire-building seem to be redundant concepts in modern politics, but I suspect that any country could rise to some level of supremacy based on economic resources and human capital rather than natural resources. The US certainly does have a natural advantage, but in the future that may or may not count for much. A centralised Europe as discussed in another topic may have a shot, but most mainland European Countries are declining. China, Russia, and Canada have a lot of resources, but don't have much in terms of a current economy. WTF? The biggest "looming" threat is the EU. Who knows, maybe one day the UN might become a threat to US supremacy. Who says that the next world power needs to be a single nation. That is what happens when you restrict your thinking to convention and think that there is an historical basis for every potential future scenario. Thus, as long as capitalism is in place, the US will be the dominant power. As for capitalism itself, it has a long way to go. Probably. But who knows? What will happen if the oil runs out or if global warming is worse than expected? What will happen if we have a supervirus that cannot be treated by any known drug? What will happen if there is nuclear conflagration? It will not be reomved until a new age comes and it becomes outdated. NSS It took a second agricultural and an industrial revolution to remove fuedalism. It will take something along those lines to remove capitalism. Perhaps. If so it will be rapid and unexpected. Monte.

Hardly. He just put himself at odds with a huge chunk of the European population.

I don't think anyone can predict with any certainty what will happen to the EU or any other ins!@#$%^&*ution (UN or NATO for example) beyond about 10-20 years ahead. You can only learn so much from history - and nobody knows what direction the global economy will take. Too many factors to consider. Is it possible for Europe to become a federation of States in the very distant future? Monte.

The discrepancies in the bible, even within parts of the bible written by the same authors, are obvious. To think that they weren't obvious to the authors themselves (or to God if you are that way inclined) is naive. So the question is why was the bible written with such obvious contradictions? I suspect that the bible was never meant to be interpreted literally and that it is not the word of God. It was written by people who tried to explain things that they could not understand and I suspect they used an awful lot of metaphors. If I was christian, I might think that the authors were trying to understand what God had told them to write. Otherwise I'd say that they were just telling a story based on their crude beliefs and understanding at the time. Monte.

WTF? Do you have a degree in hypocrisy or is this just raw talent? Anyway...getting back on topic.... Livewire: Read the Declaration of Independance. Go back further and check out the passenger list on the Mayflower. Look at every State cons!@#$%^&*ution. Christianity is definitely one of the features that shaped America. It was part of America's foundation. And..... Read your current president's Inauguration Speech (and every other president's speech!) and I think you'll find an affiliation. Look at the Pledge he recited before taking office. And look at your Pledge of Allegiance..... The wierd thing about the PofA is that although it was written by a Baptist Minister, the words "under God" were not added by him, but by your Congress in the 1950s. Eisenhower explained why: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." Last year, your Senate unanimously endorsed the PofA, including the reference to God. You still deny the affiliation? Monte.

Based on your inane comments and your post count I don't think anybody could ever come close to you in an idiot contest - no matter how hard they tried.

Mad: You. Do you even know what "obscure" means in a dictionary definition context? Obscure doesn't mean rare. In this context it means indistinct or indeterminate. You are the one trying to be so -*BAD WORD*-ed precise about what should and shouldnt be said in a friggin gamers forum. I bet you can't. Why? This isn't just about politics. This is about some dude who wants to flaunt his religious beliefs in a public place. You are trying to make this all about politics (according to your definition of politics anyway) when in fact this issue is much bigger than that. The fact that this thread evolved into a discussion about the bible is hardly surprising. If you don't like it, ignore it. Monte.

Oxford English dictionary: Politics. a. The science and art of government; the science dealing with the form, organization, and administration of a state or part of one, and with the regulation of its relations with other states (hence, imperial, national, domestic, municipal, communal, parochial, foreign politics, etc.). Also the politics, public or social ethics, that branch of moral philosophy dealing with the state or social organism as a whole (obs.). Sure the thread might be a little o/t now - but only a pedant would care. The moral philosophy behind the relationship between church and State is very much a political issue. Monte

None of us know whether or not he is guilty. The guy is a freak and brings this stuff on with his wierd antics....but if these allegations are untrue, then this witch hunt is as immoral as the claims that have been made against him. Its time to let the courts decide.

The fact that a religion is old does not mean that it is the one true religion. It doesn't mean that a religion has any logical validity at all. Of course that is why christianity and probably most other religions rely on 'faith' and ignore logic whenever convenient. I don't see many poverty-stricken priests. In any case, I gave up a career that would have made me wealthier in return for a career that is making me happier. Maybe the type of people who join the priesthood do it for other reasons? Access to young kids for immoral rumpy pumpy seems to be one of those reasons for some priests. You can't measure someones faith by their financial sacrifice - and you can't measure the 'correctness' of a religion by the wages of priests.