Originally Posted by Jefferson

1. Without Western money buying their oil, there would be no money for middle-East terrorists.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

2. The United States should NEVER ratify Kyoto. It's crap. It's stupid. It does NOT protect the environment. It's nothing more than political grandstanding.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

3. I don't think so. Idiot terrorist CANNOT FIX ANYTHING. They have no plan for peace. They have no plan for national infrastructure - anywhere. They have no plan for helping people live free and prosperous lives. All they know is hatred, violence, mayhem and death.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

4. I'd be for that. But it isn't going to happen - and you know it. In fact, if the US DID stop all aid to foreign counties, the world would fall into complete chaos and turmoil.

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

I would consider that particularly encouraging. If the terrorists don't get money from oil, they will have to face the problem of developing infrastructure. They will fail, and then lose relevance. It has happened in Paksitan. The North Western Province was taken over by the Mullah's in the last election. Since then they have majorly fucked it up, and they are on their way out next election. THank god. I suggest much the same treatment in the middle east. But that means leave them alone ... NOT invasion and forcible conversion to Democracy.

Dude. as the largest polluter in the world ( BY ANY statistical evidence) i think the US has more responsibility. US environmental concerns will have a COLLOSSAL impact on environment as compared to that of Venezuela for instance. The US does NOT have the best track record. BUt it SHOULD. As the world leader in development and industry. Kyoto is not political grandstanding. At least it's a step towards a global environment policy . The they-aren't-doing-it-so-we-aint-doing-it argument is infantile.

I agree. If only the US would stop calling ALL muslims nuts, and listen to our collective concerns, maybe the muslim countries would tell the idiot terrorists to get lost. Like i said several times, we don't want them any more than you do. And honestly we suffer more at their hands than you do.


Yeah but how would that be ANY different from what is goin on in the world these days. I say cut off aid. And while ur at it, cut off intereference in local matters as well as stop paying our dictators to stay in power. isn't that a fiar enough deal?

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

I would consider that particularly encouraging. If the terrorists don't get money from oil, they will have to face the problem of developing infrastructure. They will fail, and then lose relevance. It has happened in Paksitan. The North Western Province was taken over by the Mullah's in the last election. Since then they have majorly fucked it up, and they are on their way out next election. THank god. I suggest much the same treatment in the middle east. But that means leave them alone ... NOT invasion and forcible conversion to Democracy.

Dude. as the largest polluter in the world ( BY ANY statistical evidence) i think the US has more responsibility. US environmental concerns will have a COLLOSSAL impact on environment as compared to that of Venezuela for instance. The US does NOT have the best track record. BUt it SHOULD. As the world leader in development and industry. Kyoto is not political grandstanding. At least it's a step towards a global environment policy . The they-aren't-doing-it-so-we-aint-doing-it argument is infantile.

I agree. If only the US would stop calling ALL muslims nuts, and listen to our collective concerns, maybe the muslim countries would tell the idiot terrorists to get lost. Like i said several times, we don't want them any more than you do. And honestly we suffer more at their hands than you do.


Yeah but how would that be ANY different from what is goin on in the world these days. I say cut off aid. And while ur at it, cut off intereference in local matters as well as stop paying our dictators to stay in power. isn't that a fiar enough deal?

Originally Posted by alias

You state America is the largest polluter in the world. That may be, but I would say China, India, and Russia would have to be close. We are also the breadbasket of the world. It takes a lot of energy to produce enough food to feed a lot of the world or else there would be more starving than already are. Do you think America should cut back on energy use and let millions more starve to death?

Originally Posted by hevusa

Who the fuck cares what others are doing, we can't force them to do anything and now we have even less influence since we jumped of Kyoto. It is a fact we could be doing a HELL of a lot better if we didn't bow down to the mighty dollar of industry and big business.

Originally Posted by alias

Kyoto is a joke. The earth has cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed over millions of years. It sure wasn't because of fossil fuels being burned. What caused it?

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Uh, the statistical evidence about the sharp increase in average global temperature since the Industrial Revolution is pretty clear. The huge increase of greenhouse gasses in the atomosphere during this time period are due to nothing else except, da Da!, combustion of fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Uh, the statistical evidence about the sharp increase in average global temperature since the Industrial Revolution is pretty clear. The huge increase of greenhouse gasses in the atomosphere during this time period are due to nothing else except, da Da!, combustion of fossil fuels.