Peter F

Another emenently sensible decision from the SCC. I love the SCC.

well I'm glad you didn't mention it because conscripted or not they still died for their country and therefore has no bearing on the issue.

And nothing else mattered. Horseshit.

And two nukes did it? I think not. I think it was the complete crushing of Japan; Its Navy, its Army, its Air Force; its Industry, its leadership and its people; and it took two and a half years not two weeks and the nukes were but a drop in the bucket.

I agree with you - that is NATO's goal. Others thinks different - argue with them.

Are you suggesting that Afhani's kill birth-mothers and/or think all other cultures must Die? Your argument has nothing to with the present situation in Afghanistan, particularly Myata's argument that the supposed goal of Nato's intervention ( to make Afghanistan safe by remodelling it - and doing all the work for them) will be an effort in futility. And who gives a hoot if cultures are not equal? The fact is Afghani's actually like thier culture - unbeleivable as it may seem.

Good point. I forgot that war lasted 1 week.

Do they indeed? How do you figure that? So, if I have this right, you are saying that there are two seperate problems: population control having to do with the amount of people on the planet) and Intelligence of the people on the planet in that there are too many dumb people. That these two problems can be dealt with by smart people controlling the breeding of dumb people. and in reply to White Doors point that there are some dumb rich people you said Why is health creeping in there now? Perhaps health should be an indication of intelligence? Healthy people are smarter than unhealthy people? The Smart people should rate everyone on thier health and thier IQ to determine Smartness and thus who gets breeding rights and who doesn't. The end result of this would be a world where dumb people wouldnt have many children because the smart people would not let them, and smart people wouldn't have much children because they wouldn't anyways because they're smart. Of course, this would require some sort of UN Agency (or something) wich would determine the Ideal Population of the Earth (UNIPOTE) and then 'Breeding Licenses' could be issued to Catagory B people when the worlds population replacement rate falls into the negatives....no. wait...that would work only for maintaining the worlds population level. It would be counter productive to maintaining the world population intelligence level. Since Catagory A people don't breed much, the only variable is the breeding of Catagory B people. Any breeding of Catagory B people is a diluting of the gene pool. DOH! Catagory B people really can't be allowed to breed at all...unless perhaps they breed with Catagory A people. In fact, now that I consider it, Catagory B males could only be allowed to breed with Catagory A females. Catagory B females could only be allowed to breed with Catagory A males. (of course Catagory A people can couple amongst themselves all they want and should be encouraged to do so) Such sexual mixing of Catagory A's and B's would be no guarantee that any resulting offspring would be measured as Catagory A therefore a disinterested committee of geneticists or somthing like that, would be required to approve such couplings. Naturally such committe members would be Catagory A people because they're smarter and would know best. ...and thats just off the top of my head. I'm sure smart people can figure out a better way of making sure dumb people don't breed. Wich gets me to thinking about the supposed problem of increasing dumbness in the world. Why are people on welfare dumb? Are they dumb or are they smart? I can understand that taxpayers don't like thier taxes going to people for nothing. But that really has nothing to do with dumb or smart, that has to do with wasting government resources. Its really got nothing to do with dumb or smart at all. There's nothing dumb about being on welfare. Actually its kinda smart to be on welfare. On welfare I get X$ for doing nothing. Not on welfare I get X$ for doing something. Usually the something I do to get X$ bores me to tears and subjects me to the arbitrary whims and insults of somebody supervising me (X$ is no big Captain of Industry income by the way), whereas getting X$ for doing nothing allows me to do whatever should happen to please me (read books, surf the net, breed with my significant other etc). Why is working for X$ considered smarter than not working for X$? If I gain more liesure time with no decrease in my income is that better than less leisure time for the same income? If a person works like a sled dog to get an acceptable inome and another gets the same income for far less work - and Smarter is the label that must be assigned to one of the two, who would be labeled smarter? Smart people breed less and Dumb people breed more. Eventually the Smart people will dissappear and everybody will be dumb. Smart people, if they were truly smart, would breed more to avoid this...like dumb people. In fact, they'd breed so prodigiously that it would be the dumb people who would dissappear. But the smart people don't seem to understand that because they breed far less. It would seem that the 'dumb' people are actually the 'smart' people since they are the ones breeding more.

White Doors asked a very good question 'What problem?" Whats the problem here? That people have kids or that poor people have kids? If the problem is about overpopulation whats this horsebollocks about 'contributing to society'? Would it be okay to have kids and increase the worlds population as long as there is 'contributing' happening? Your arguments appear contradictory. Then you endorsed Olegs point that the foxes were running the hen-house...except you endorsed it on the grounds of his assertion that the genetic inferiors were somehow running the hen-house of the genetic superiors and thats wrong for some reason or other. I think your argument isn't about overpopulation at all - but about genetics. People on welfare are inferior to those not on welfare so they should not be allowed to breed prodigiously because that will effect the quality of the gene pool. I won't even go into the fundemental inhumanity of the state denying folks the joy of having and raising children - be they poor or not. White Doors is right on the money regarding this whole idea of state interferance of who can or cannot have kids.

Quite true...What people learn is inversley proportional to income! Eureka!...

and he was rightly condemned by his peers for such a statement. 'Regulate' is a harmless word but I wonder by what means the state would 'regulate' breeding habits? and how this would be limited to only people collecting welfare checks? 'Tend' is interesting too. Unspecified 'regulation' would be applied to people on welfare not because of thier actual breeding habits...but because some one welfare may or may not have more children than others on welfare. I also note the assumption that people on welfare are there volountarily somehow...and this is somehow tied to how many kids they have and somehow they do not and apparently never have nor ever will 'contribute' to society. The entire argument for 'regulating' the lives of people who collect welfare is certainly not racist but certainly is bigotted bunk.

Hey! Maybe if they got paid less they'd learn even more!

I cannot agree. Yes, Saddam Hussien was a dork and fully deserved his fate. Yes, the USofA is one of the most enlightened and free countries on the face of this earth. Yes, the Iraqi's suffered at the hands if their own government - in far too many cases brutally so. But - was the answer to that Civil war and a free-for-all bloody power struggle? Was regime change worth pulling the cork out of the bottle and letting the blood flow? What greater good has been served? Hated Saddam is dead and that fact justifies five miserable years of internecine battle and reciprocal atrocity? And we can't point accusitory fingers at America for that? They're in there like a dirty shit! True, hind-sight is 20/20. Who could have forseen such things? Certainly not the Moron's who foresaw democracy flowing like honey. Despite the USofA's good intentions the whole thing has gone south and thousands of Iraqi's are paying the price of those good intentions. A fat log of good the good intentions of the west has done them.

A gay leader...now I'm curiuos about who is leading Heterosexuals

So who claims Social Engineering always works? No doubt the Industrial Revolution was putting paid to mass labour. I agree the end of slavery would have come about eventually had no one interfered with slave owners buying and selling human beings. But your claim is obviously rediculous - Such laws and wars and social engineering campaigns made all the difference in the world to put an end to slavery. Just like laws against child labour in the Factories of the Industrial Revolution put an end to those abuses because the Industrial Revolution certainly didn't. And those laws/wars/edicts didnt come out of the blue. There long slogging political campains required to create the necessary environment for such laws etc to be enacted. Social Engineering at its very best - from the bottom up. Wich is why the Cultural revolution and the Cambodian Killing fields were ineffective and why women have the vote in most countries, why the US is one nation and not two and why the USofA does not include Canada or Mexico...and also a large and significant contribution to the Victory of the Allies over the Axis powers in WWII. Huzzah for Social Engineering....its a good thing (sometimes).

Actually, slavery was tremendous benefit to quite a few - wich is why it lasted the many thousands of years it did. Social campains to eradicate slavery were long hard political struggles that eventually led to the RN interdicting the transportation of slaves; the US civil War and various South American revolutions. War is the greatest Social Engineering operation of them all. See Germany, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan

France should cave to the vandals? There's an actual reason that such vandalism occurs? The French government should seek means to appease? This is hilarious!

Neither do I. My daughter took a trip to there too. So have many many people. But, apparently, now that a second Canadian Prime Minister has visited, the Ghosts of Auschwitz can rest easy...

Yeah. and thats why we were threatening to leave if someone (but not us) didnt cough up 1000 troops.

because Canada isn't up to putting in 1000 more troops? Sorta like the rest of NATO?

...and neither is Canada, apparently.

Of course not. They're the opposition -- not the cheerleaders.

Ok, I see the point. If I collect a bunch of stuff together - stuff of no value to anyone else - and I labour to create from that stuff something of value to others then I have created wealth...unless, of course, i refuse to sell it to anyone or no one is interested in buying. I could labour long and hard creating crap that no one wants to buy or I could labour long and hard creating crap peaple are willing to pay for. If no one wants to give me thier wealth for the product then I have created wealth nontheless? How much wealth I create is entirely dependant upon how much wealth people are willing to transfer to me. If wealth is created - it is only created in the mind of the buyer; No buying - no wealth. Thus advertising. Everything is still determined by the willingness of folks to transfer thier wealth to someone else.

No, not General Hillier. Instead it is an exact quote of John Stuart Mill ,English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873). Quotations page John Stuart Mill quotes Perhaps quoted by the General during the interview

I could do the same with a map of Russia