I never said that it was mainly human error contributing. I just said, and so did you, that the climate is warming up substantially to affect our lives.

Thank you, I didn't even notice myself!


About the environment, I don't worry about it too much, because I feel like there is little we can do. Some things you just have to deal with.

I am well aware of suppy and demand, but if you think that nothing in the past (or present) has to do with current oil prices, then go read a history book. The middle east was imperialized for so long by western powers, raped financially, so of course when they unite and form OPEC way back when, they aren't just going to give the oil away. Yes, oil for them is a business, but more oil refineries should have been built in places like California. Energy saving national projects should be put into action, but of course Bush won't do that, because it'll take away potential profits from big business. Of course the prices will be high by simple economic laws, but go figure, political matters are capable of effecting trade too!

Supporting Israel like the US does certainly doesn't help our reputation around the middle east, nor does conquering a soverign nation like Iraq. As far as Africa, I was pointing out that the US isn't intervening, despite the fact that millions of people are being murdered... oil is more important evidently. Weapons of mass destruction.. what about North Korea? Bush is holding onto the idea that negotiations will work, while Kim Jong-Il won't even negotiate anymore. And we know that he has nuclear weapons, and being as unstable as he is, he just might use them. Harboring terrorists? Gimme a break... the United States is not well liked in the middle east, so this should come as no suprise.

jwenting, interesting about the warmest period being right before the industrial boom in England, but where do you get this information from? I'll believe it when I see a source.

My motto "Don't worry be happy " ... not worried at all about the globe ... just worried about my home and my work place.

Really? Are you sure? I swear a simple search on google brought up millions of finds on Bush's energy proposal which support production over conservation..

Where did you get that information from? I'll believe it when you site a non-biased source.

[QUOTE=Kanichton]
Supporting Israel like the US does certainly doesn't help our reputation around the middle east, nor does conquering a soverign nation like Iraq. As far as Africa, I was pointing out that the US isn't intervening, despite the fact that millions of people are being murdered... oil is more important evidently. Weapons of mass destruction.. what about North Korea? Bush is holding onto the idea that negotiations will work, while Kim Jong-Il won't even negotiate anymore. And we know that he has nuclear weapons, and being as unstable as he is, he just might use them. Harboring terrorists? Gimme a break... the United States is not well liked in the middle east, so this should come as no suprise.
/QUOTE]


Once again, your spinning. Your worried about our reputation and don't like the way we intervine, but you want us to do something about Africa? We've sent billions over to that country. They are a soveriegn Continent all together, and you bash bush about intervining in Iraq? Try to keep one point of view, the switching back and forth is confusing me.

I am more concerned about the war than some because as a Briton I believe that my country should not have been involved at all. Hopefully Labor will be voted out this year and then Britian can finally get some well deserved peace.

Which brings me on to another question.

Do you personally think the all out war was a good idea?

I really like Tony Blair, and I hope Bush hasen't cost him the election.
Anyways, I think war was a terrible decision. We have enough problems of our own. Right now, we are over in North Korea protecting their borders, when our country desperately needs our borders protected...But that's an issue I'd rather not get into! I personally don't like the choices that's been made, but there is nothing I can do about them. It's really too late to pull out of Iraq right now, and we would look silly to just leave them at total anarachy.

It's a hard topic to talk about. I don't agree with it, but nothing I can do.

First, I didn´t want to get involved in this very controversial topic but it´s getting interesting and I can´t resist...too bad you didn´t get the poll in it JJ...

There will always be crime, it´s human nature and out of our individual control, so it doesn´t worry me, although it bothers me.

Golbal warming isn´t an issue at all. The fluctuations we think we are experiencing are on such a small period that they are unimportant in the long term. Have you ever seen a picture of the earth - you can´t even see us - at most, everything that humans have accomplished and even our existance appears as an extremely thin scum on the surface of the planet. The long-term climactic changes on earth are a result of forces way beyond our ability to understand or affect yet, like planetary entropy, friction, gravity, etc.

World economy is a function of forces beyond our control as well. We can manipulate the markets all we want and inertia will force it back to the middle with time. It has a mind of its own.

So, the one thing, out of these choices, that is in our control, although on a global scale, is conflict. I will only address Iraq here, specifically, as a debate about war is too large a subject for this thread:

Iraq was necessary for one reason. There was much debate over a long period of time about taking on Sadaam. It was thought that he was the only force that was keeping the middle east from imploding, for a variety of reasons, and that removing him would result in an all-out fiasco over the entire region when that, admittedly weird, stability was gone.

We don´t know for certain all the reasons the US is there, those are state secrets. However, it is certain that if we had not made some kind of a move in the region, there would develop problems with atomic weapons that we would regret. It is already happening and we may even be too late to stop it now. But I believe that is the sole reason that we made the move we did. It was a gamble and we are a long way to understanding the result.

Remember that these guys hate the west. On top of that, they have been fighting one another for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with religion, even though they use that as an excuse, because the religions have very similar roots, the religions protagonists, Jesus, Mohammud, etc. are related. But religions have been used like that since they have existed.

So, in the long run, the British and the Americans opted to intervene in an area that could blow up in all our faces at any time. Was it right? Would it be right to try and defuse a bomb in your back yard? Argue all you want about the rightness...it´s done now. Let´s support the fixing of the problem. You cannot have peace if somebody out there wants war, no matter who it is...

And let's not forget that the US and all other UN members had a mandate (and in fact a duty) from the UN to do what the US dating back to 1991.
The treaty terms for the ceasefire in the first war against Iraq clearly stated that Iraq was to provide unimpeded access to UN arms inspectors and not to have any weapons in the designated zones in the north and south. They violated both provisions constantly.

In fact, the US and allies should have acted against Iraq 10 years ago.