So what? How reliable have France and Germany turned out to be?
I think that's a myth. There is plenty of mixing among the Shi'ites and Sunnis, even at the level of families. What we need to pay more attention to is tribal bonds.
Left to themselves?? If the tribes didn't kill each other off Iran and Syria would divvy Iraq up between them. Throw the Kurds (not just Iraqi Kurds) into the mix and all bets are off.
I'd be really surprised if we didn't establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Assuming of course that we don't pull out entirely.
Who else is going to provide internal security until the Iraqis can do it themselves?
We could have found *something* that he wanted. It may have meant sacrificing large numbers of his countrymen, but frankly, better them than us.
Yep. It's hard to find people willing to take truly effective action.
Correct. However, when they don't, the consequences should be excruiatingly severe. So severe that when anyone in the Knesset who dared to suggest that Israel act without first receiving explict US approval would be literally torn apart by his fellow members.
Absolutely correct. However, for what we give to them, and we have done for them, Israel should be calling the White House at 0800 - sharp - every morning and asking: "Sir, what may we do to please you today?"
Pfft! They have turned over large areas of their civil judiciary to religious courts. Quasi-official mobs have been known to roam the streets attacking people for violating the Sabbath. There are religious tests for government positions. The distinction between this and the Taliban is one of degree, not principle.
Although claimed to be "Granted by the creator", without "mere men" they would be meaningless. In fact, they would not even exist. Where were they prior to 1776? Why didn't he grant them to China then - or today? Why were they absent in Berlin in 1942? This was just pap to provide the imprimatur of legitimacy in the context of the time (mid-18th century) when the status quo was that God had "granted" the right of rule to kings.
Exactly, but with modern techology. Without religion to provide either a common glue or common enemy to these regimes, would they have become as powerful? Without religion, would the Allies have lost?
Not "secular humanism", but rationality. If you allow that there are Greater Laws out there that warrant violating Man's laws, what definitive leverage is there to say that what Mohammed Atta, et al, did was wrong, other than by degree or direction? THIS world and the people that live on it TODAY must follow the laws of man. Period. Leave religion to help the individual deal with the consequences of this in the afterlife.
I accept that spying is normal business. But, I resent it when someone claims to be a friend, and spies. But THEN wants the spy returned AND condemns his imprisonment.
Get real indeed. We finally got the S.O.B. (another possibly in the works), you are supposed to be a friend, stop whining about him.
At least the spy exchanges with the Sovs. in the Cold War made sense. Nobody was pretending friendship there, just old-fashioned politics.
Yeah, it was kinda late when I read this. Been to 4 parties in the last week (crabs are $200 a bushel right now !!) so between son coming back for a visit and massive parties, been getting a little ragged.
Lesion to self, don't post late at night anymore :)
Considering that you didn't even know that the Liberty was NOT sunk during the attack (s) you still want to expose that the Israeli's were killing prisoners ??
How come you're not all over Brazil to stop the emissions and pollution (to say nothing of the terrible impact on ecology) caused by the systematic burning and destruction of the Amazon rain forests? Come on, Bassticles, get out there and hug a tree.
My home page:
formatting link
" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon
"AM" schreef in bericht news:ooCdnb2jv5sUB6 snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com...
I agree it seems a bit confusing at a first glance but it is really not as unfair as it seems. Some polluters cleanse a part their own pollution by preserving forests which clean the air. Other countries don't even pollute at all but only cleanse other's emissions instead. It is like trying to find the right balance. Remember that if each nation would only pollute their own part of the atmosphere, the people in the US and Western Europe would probably have suffocated by now.
I think most countries would like to participate, but some can't afford it. Therefore I think those countries that can afford it should make a start with it, and others may want to join in later when they're able to do their own part.
Confusing no, unrealistic yes. Tell me what countries DONT pollute ? And please tell me the corralarry between preserving forests and how it counters industrial pollution on a scientific basis ? I dont think there is any to prove this one way or another, and besides, if what you are saying is that if they preserve forests, they can get a pass on polluting ?
Like I said, here is where the inequality starts. The countries that cant afford it, don't have to comply, and therefore can keep polluting, while they advance themselves. Again very unfair, they don't have to take the loss. The one's that can afford it, have to take a painful loss to comply
And I just bet, after US companies spend the tens of millions of dollars perfecting reduced emissions, you will expect them to give the technology away to the rest of the world for free, right ?
It's amazing how the rest of the world expects the USA to just give away it's wealth.....................
Fairness means ONE standard for all ! Any other solution leads to contempt, and distrust.
Just more of your socialist doublespeak; how predictable. You would have a couple nations suffer the financial consequences and carry the entire load while many others continue on their merry polluting way unabated. You want us to pay your way yet again, huh? It doesn't work unless every nation agrees to reduce pollution. Smart as you claim to be, you should have already known that?
My home page:
formatting link
" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon
Actually, it was Muslim Arabs who were and are still slave traders. Pls correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that according to Islamic theology, it was and is still acceptable to capture and trade/sell slaves, including fellow Muslims. If this is true, is this a religion or a business or a business hiding behind a cloak of religion?
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.