bombus

Yeah but if he's so nice, how come he's a republican? I'd like to see Al Gore re-elected - and I know what I said!

Let's be honest here, how much do you REALLY know about the history of Iran? The UK and US meddled with Iran throughout the 20th Century and the stance they now have is due entirely to our two countries hostile approach. We have been utter bastards to them. It's not really just the US, it's all the 'Western' countries. But the US is the most powerful and influential so gets most of the flack. The UK is the strongest ally of the US (we are virtually one country in my opinion) and we are often equally guilty. My mind is very very open. I used to think the world was like I was taught when I was young - the West were the good guys, the Ruskies were the bad guys, capitalism was good, communism bad, Africa is poor because it is, and the west is rich because it deserves to be etc etc etc., but education and experience have shown me that it's really not that simple at all, and in fact we are often the bad guys, and much of our problems are self made, and we inflict problems on the rest of the world. Seriously, read stuff by a fellow American Susan George (as a start). It's a real eye opener and a mind opener!

QUOTE] I don't think that's really the case, but I think the reason that it seems like that is because most of our 'problems' that we have with other countries is usually a result of Western interference in the first place - Iran being a most excellent example. The thing is, weaker countries don't pick fights for the hell of it. There's usually a good reason behind their stance.

I can't believe that the designers made a building that would survive a plane impact, but NOT the subsequent fire. Also, I thought it was well known that all the fuel was consumed in the fireball immediately after impact. It wouldn't have hung around burning like paraffin.

Exactly!!

Anti tank weapons were produced to counter tanks, just like plate mail was produced to counter maces, and maces to counter chain mail etc. The difference here is that we are inventing the counter measure BEFORE the weapon! Thusly the enemy doesn't bother making (or deploying) the weapon in such a way that it can be countered by the defence system. I.e., If you can't lob a missile at them 'cos they have a missile defence shield, deploy your nuke in some other way... However, I don't actually think any of these countries are a threat unless we try to mess them about. Mmmm, having said that I suppose they WILL be a threat because it's obvious we DO intend to mess them about!!

Obviously Soviet nukes threatened the west once built, but my point was that the whole Russian threat was STARTED by the West so that the arms manufacturers could make loadsa money. Once the USA had lots of nukes Russia felt so under threat it made lots of nukes too, and so began the arms race...

There is no mystery to how the Pyramids were built! This is a myth. Go to Egypt and ask a guide!

Bjorn Lomborg is either very stupid, or he has been misinterpreted. Habitat loss is the most major threat to species, apart from maybe introduced species. Perhaps he means total extinctions from Earth as opposed to local extinctions? But many a mickle makes a muckle, and we've only been around for 40,000 years which is a blink of an eye in geological time. Once habitat is lost species reliant on it go extinct. We haven't yet lost certain species because of huge conservation efforts, not because habitat loss is not much of factor!

Great explanation. Now I geddit!

Well said Bascule. It's just about $$$$. It ALWAYS is ultimately.

This depends on how you look at the 'Grand Narrative'. To the Soviets, the capitalists (Imperialists) got France, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, West Germany etc and formed NATO. The Soviets got Poland, Checkoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania etc and formed the Warsaw Pact. To the soviets the capitalist countries were subject to the Imperialists as much as we felt the Eastern European countries were subject to the Communists. Re: who started the cold war. Just one small fact that says a lot. In the early 1950s the US had around 1,000 nukes. The Soviet Union had 1. The Cuban missile crisis was actually done in response to US missiles in Turkey and the following discussions saw the Soviets 'remove' their missiles from Cuba in return for the US removing its missiles from Turkey. My point about the defence shield not working is that if it works that well simple ways around it will be found, like smuggling nukes on to container ships or on the back of trucks! Defece shields are only really any use against countries like Russia. They are no use against 'terrorist' attacks. So, why bother with them to protect us against this supposed threat from Iran? Don't believe the hype! Like I said, if the US were serious about protecting vs attacks from 'rogue states' they'd involve Russia in the defence shield.

Yeah, but they couldn't lob 'em far enough to threaten the US methinks.

All part of the same thing. As has been said, jet planes can't fly without fuel.

Actually you are right, and China do have the technology to develop ICBMs, but it did take them years to get them, and (unless things have recently changed) they can't yet threaten the US mainland (That's what I was getting confused with). Iran have little hope of developing ICBMs in the next 35 years. The thing is, they can be delivered on the back of a truck or in a container ship (as was mentioned above). ICBMs are not really needed with nukes! It's funny that you think me an extremist just 'cos I give an alternative point of view. Was Gallileo an extremist?

I think the thing is, it WOULD make a difference if Russia did nothing. In order to neutralize its effect, Russia would have to make more nukes, or at the very least, target more nukes towards it. I believe this is exactly what the US Govt. wants, so it can them say, 'Hey, we need more nukes too' or ' we need an even bigger and better defence shield' and it goes on ad infinitum, making the arms industries untold riches! I sincerely hope I am proved wrong.

The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand impact from planes as it was an identified risk long before 9/11. Whatever the flaws in this paper, it seems strange to me that the towers collapsed as a result of plane impacts. I suppose the designers may have cut corners (like in The Towering Inferno!).

Well, good or bad must surely include whether it's really needed. It will never work, as nukes can be delivered by boat! yes, I did mean Iran, sorry 'bout that. Firstly, the whole Soviet threat was made up. The Soviets never intended to invade the West, they just wanted to 'hold their own'. The threat was made up to make money for the arms industry, which had become huge as a result of WW2. Secondly, the idea that Iranian leaders are mad mullahs hell bent on matyrdom is PROPAGANDA! Most of the things the Iranian president is supposed to have said is twisted by translators to mean something quite different to that actually said. Thirdly. if one actually wants 'mad mullahs' in power the US is going the right way about it. China does not even have ICBMs. They are very hard to make. It's true that Israel could be threatened anyway, but Iran are not going to nuke Israel as they'd get fried and they know it. Agsin, it's all propaganda. You just fall for it every time! Putin may be acting like a thug, but far less than US presidents do in Central and South America, in Iraq, and in Africa. You just never hear about it 'cos your spoon fed CNN or Fox news all day. Putin has had to act like a thug against the 'Russian Mafia', the Oligarchs, Terrorists, and of course the ever present CIA, who are very very active in Russia and Eastern Europe. It's not pretty, but it's required. Putin also stands up against the multinationals, unlike the weak, impotent western leaders. Democracy is rule by the majority. If the majority of a country wants a person to stay in power, who has the right to say no? I understand the purpose of the US rules, but anything that prevents the people making a choice is a limit on democracy. Again, you listen to and believe the propaganda. It's the USA that is guilty of being an oppressive theocracy, and has committed genocide, and talks of 'forever wars'. Anyway, it's the people of Iran I'm talking about really, not their current government.

Putin effectively confiscated those corrupt corporations so that the profits now go into the Russian economy rather than billionaire's pockets. The Beslan incident was a no-win situation. The terrorists could not be reasoned with and would have killed everyone. As far as running for re-election, if the people want him they should have the right to amend the consititution, else it is not democracy! The reason the US puts a maximum term on US Presidents is to limit democracy. In the US if a president has already served two terms they gotta go, even if the public wants them to stay - that ain't really democracy. I'm not really anti-Bush. He's just a brainless front-man for the real rulers of the world. But to get back on subject, this is about $$$. It always is. If not, why doesn't the US offer to collaborate with Russia on the project? Iran are no threat to the West unless we make them enemies. I have no beef with Iranians myself, and Iran is far more stable than Pakistan. Why is nobody complaining about Brazil's attempt to get nukes? Don't believe the hype!

This is about money for the US defense industry The cold war was the most lucrative war ever, and produced no direct US deaths, and the USA defense companies (who rule the USA) miss it. They've tried Iraq as a replacement, but it's so costly in lives the US public are turning against it so they need to re-start the cold war and fast. As a defence system against North Korean nukes it wouldn't work, as they'd have to launch the interceptor missiles BEFORE the North Korean ones! As a defese against non-existent Iraqi weapons its also badly placed. Iraq would also NEVER threaten the USA with nukes as they know they'd be destroyed utterly if they tried. They just want nukes to protect themselves from US aggression. They will NEVER have the capacity to build ICBMs anyway. The whole thing is a big lie, as usual. Oh, and as for Putin's supposed clamp down on freedom, just look at what's been happening in the US with the Patriot Act and in the UK! This is all mostly western spin as well, triggered by Putin's 'confiscation' of the billion dollar industries that were bleeding Russia dry. Putin's popularity in Russia FAR exceeds Bush's, and I'm quite an admirer myself!

Total and utter nonsense. I went to a Spatial Planning workshop meeting last week to help the Welsh Assembly Government plan for the future with regard to the environment. It included a lecture by a very clever chap from the Environment Agency who demolished the argument that the current increase in temperature is due to changes in solar activity. It's nonsense and not supported by the science. The evidence that it's caused by man is overwhelming and supported by the vast majority of the climate scientists.

I am familiar with the Chinese box argument - and don't agree with it at all. I think the whole proposition is wrong IMHO. But there we are... However, I read the above and just can't concentrate long enough to understand it. I think I'm probably too stupid. Is it possible to explain this with glove puppets!?

Well, it's unrestrained capitalism really. All the controls have gone so things like the transport system, for example, is in chaos with all different modes of transport competing with each other. Also, you can't very well subsidise a private company 'cos all your doing is subsidising shareholders to make more money! Capitalism works (in the short term) but it needs controls, just like roads need traffic lights and rules...

You are right on both counts. However, it is plain maths that if you expand the student population massively (up to 50%) it has to be payed for somewhere, and if he'd put up taxes people would have complained more. However, I actually disagree with making university education more of a common choice. So long as those that need/want to go to university can do whatever their background I think its fine. The expansion of university education just leads to stupid degrees - I have seen offered a BSc in Estate Agency and get this Traditional Chinese Medicine! (NEWI in Wrexham, North Wales if you don't believe me!). What's the point of having a degree in, say, plumbing - either you're a trained plumber or your not, you don't need an ACADEMIC qualification to plumb!! But that's another story...

It may well have had consequences, although there are other issues that have occurred regarding the global economy which have had more of an impact. I'm sure Gordon Brown didn't anticipate that corporations would be so mean (more fool him) - but people should really be pressing the issue with the employers NOT the Government. What ever happened to strikes!