AshNazg

Link Yushchenko! Yuschenko! I hope he wins. He won't. Ukraine will either drift back into Moscow's cold embrace or be pulled apart by the US-Russia tidal force. Ukraine has no future as a self-governing nation, it will either be consumed by the East or the West and the latter is less likely.

I don't think its possible to mess it up any more than the Americans did. If their position from the start was to inflict as many casualties as possible and frequently use collective punishment, the whole place would be pacified by now. Too bad for them they thought they could win the war in the white gloves - goes to show how little experience in ground combat and occupation they have.

Don't you horny people who can't wait the appropriate place - Most people with an ounce of intelligence know you are on your best behaviour while flying these days. Whos to say it wouldn't happen in Canada, I bet it would So this is the definition of a free state? A place where you must tread extremely carefully, because one step to the left or to the right of the "right path" results in a reprimand (if you're lucky) or a jail sentence.

You'd rather live in USA than Saudi Arabia? Are you serious? If I had enough work experience and was working in a profitable sector I would move to OAE / Saudi in a heartbeat. They treat professional Westerner workers extremely well and in addition, certain Islamic laws and traditions are not applied to Westerners. For example Westerner females don't have to wear any headwear if they choose not to, they can wear bikinis to the beaches and so on. They wont get into any trouble at home or work for it. Also if you are working in a highly profitable area such as oil industry, you will basically have many of your expenses covered by the Saudi government. You can work and rack up major $$$ and you will have a lot less stress than you might in a similar workplace in USA. The only bad thing is that most of the contract based jobs over there eventually end and you have to go back :x

At least it'll be a quick death Beats being tortured in g-bay.

Such people exist because there is an audience for it. In a few hundred years, provided nothing goes astray, there simply wont be an audience for discrimination based on sexual preferences and the preachers will die off naturally, or change their job profile. Like I said, in the strictest sense of the word anomaly is a deviation from common. Need there more be said? If my genes had an opinion and a voice of their own, and I asked them what would they think if I informed them that from now on I will never procreate (and we're excluding in-vitro and other artificial birth methods from this for the sake of the argument), do you think my genes would call me insane and destructive? I think they would. I was speaking specifically about the population of the Western world. There is a marked decline in the birth rates and they have fallen below the self-sustainable rate of 2.2 births per family. The only reason why the population of the Western world countries continues to grow is because of the immigration rates. Although some immigration is never a bad thing, complete reliance on immigration to sustain the country is folly and will eventually destroy it. This is a topic for another discussion altogether though. But even if I were to concur that the population is not threatened, that still does not weaken the original argument that at the very least an option of a "cure" should be available for gays should they choose to make use of it.

This is a recent development. Didn't use to be the case. Of course when the medicine is sufficiently advanced that we no longer even require a partner to produce a child, and a child can be cloned from a body cell, all the negative mumbo jumbo about homos vs heteros will die off on its own. At this pace, eventually we will become asexual (or unisexual?) beings, that reproduce through artificial methods only (ala Matrix). This is not a negative thing, simply inevitable progress. When we develop a sufficiently advanced technology to shed the limitations of our imperfect shells, we can usher in an era of total personal freedom. However, we're not there yet. I have no negative opinions on bisexuals. While in the strictest sense of the word, bisexuality is an anomaly, it is a "non-restrictive anomaly" whereas being gay is a " restrictive one" People who are equally attracted to both sexes enjoy the best of both worlds - a complete personal freedom of sexual choice. Being restricted to either the homo or hetero side is less than perfect, but given a choice I would rather be hetero than gay. Must this be a bipolar world where something is either "ok" or "wrong"? Can't something be less-than-ok but still an acceptable deviation? Being fat is not ok, but I think we don't call being fat "wrong" anymore. It is a lifestyle choice which is destructive and unhealthy and hence it is not "ok" but at the same time it is a personal preference and we hope that most adults are smart enough to understand the consequences. Probably not. However the population growth rate is already below the rate of self-sustainability and every new homosexual pair is two more people that are gone from the reproductive pool.

You misunderstand me. When I said they can't do things that other people can, I was referring to sexual reproduction. If being gay is not a choice those people are given willingly (ie. they're born with it), then such a restriction seems unfair, does it not? Should they not have the option of selecting a cure that would restore their "sexual desire" for opposite sex. If they choose not to pursue it, fine, but if a homosexual man (for instance) wants to be attracted to a female so that he could have a normal family with her, but he cannot due to no fault of his own, but rather his genes, is it humane to not research a way to cure him? As far as indoctrination goes, you have a point. I was simply arguing that we should try to steer clear of any subliminal messages, whether "being gay is cool" or "being hetero is the only right way to be", since younger kids are vulnerable to both. Basically we need to ensure that kids grow up to make a sensible, fully aware choice, instead of going with peer pressure or societal indoctrination. Your choice of color has no relevance whatsoever of course. However, it is also fairly inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things. However, imagine if you were born infertile as opposed to undergoing infertile treatments at an adult age. I think its unfair and cruel to condemn people to a lifetime of infertility because it is perceived "un-PC" to do research into the subject. Its one thing when someone chooses it and another entirely when someone has no choice in the matter. How on earth does masturbation interfere with your ability to produce offspring? Masturbation simply relieves excess boredom, hormone build-up or loneliness. I don't think it has ever been proven that masturbation causes infertility, hairy palms or blindness. Masturbation would only be as bad as homosexuality from the standpoint of reproduction if you masturbated all your life instead of seeking a mate. In that case, sure it is a deviation. If you want to bring Bible into it, go for it. If you bothered to read my entire post, you'd see that I am not proposing to discriminate against them, but rather inform them that they have a non-lethal/non-disabling disease that can be cured should they ever choose to have biological progeny from people they love. Children should not be indoctrinated period (in an ideal world anyway), but they should be made aware of the fact that at the very least they should be bisexual in order to keep the population going.

I guess one would have to unwaveringly believe in the afterlife in order to throw ones life away so willingly. That, or the living conditions in the ME are so bad that even death seems to be a reprieve. Secular, fat Europe on the other hand sees no such reasons to risk their lives

In any discussion concerning homosexuality one thing needs to be defined first Is homosexuality a "lifestyle choice" or a natural predisposition. In other words, are people born gay? The answer to this question is crucial because it provides insight into whether or not homosexuality is something that people choose or something that they have no control over. Either way, it is obvious to anyone that homosexuality is an abnormality as defined by Nature. It directly interferes with the ability of an organism to produce offspring and is therefore tantamount to impotency or infertility from the standpoint of biology. If it is established that homosexuality is a natural predisposition (in other words an error in the genes that causes people to be born gay, feeling attraction for the same sex only) then clearly some homosexuals do not want to be homosexuals and instead of telling them that "its ok to be gay" we should instead develop a cure for it. Right now, excessive political correctness would inhibit it, but it really is illogical not to research into it. Clearly, if you were born with autism you might want to get it cured so you can do things that other people can do. Right now homosexuals do not have that option and might not have it unless proper medical research is conducted in the area. Conversely, if it is established that homosexuality is not a natural predisposition, or at least is a combination of natural inclination AND a lifestyle choice, then medical research can be foregone, since it could be assumed that had people wanted to be with the members of the opposite sex, they could make a conscious effort to "ungay" themselves. However, if it turned out that being gay was a fully conscious choice (in other words people could "be born hetero" and "turn gay" over their lifetime) then restrictions would need to be imposed on society to ensure that our children do not get indoctrinated into being gay. Although I disagree with the original quote that homosexuality is brought about by immorality and wickedness (I happen to think it is entirely biological, and history seems to agree) I cannot see how anyone can disagree with the fact that homosexuality is in fact an anomaly. The original quote is also right in stating that although we must treat homosexuals like any other person and must not discriminate against them, we must also conduct research into eliminating the causes of homosexuality and finding an effective cure for it (which will of course be completely voluntary).

Ever consider that maybe Europe is simply tired of all the bloodshed? They have been spilling each others blood for two thousand years before North America was even colonized. At some point you get tired of it and you want to evolve beyond that. Its a pity their neighbors don't feel the same way, but thats when you call the American muscle instead of getting your own hands dirty.

Unfortunately the core values of the Western world are no longer adhered to by the West itself. In today's world, trying to imitate the West means trying to imitate a dying culture and a failed government system. This Canadian is going to take his chances with the BRIC countries. Rather live in an anarchy state than in a police one.

What are the specific resolution numbers that authorize military intervention in case it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the WMD program was terminated? I want to read through the resolution texts and see if there is any shelf life attached to it, or it is standard practice to declare certain agreements null and void after some time has passed without enforcing them. Besides, didn't you say that the opinion of UNSC is that the war was not illegal? Why is there so much heated debate among the members of the UNSC itself that it is? Some members consider it not to be, some members consider it to be. If there are resolutions that permit "finishing" the war from 1991, clearly they're not drafted in a language that is binding, or there would not be so much flak over it.

Untrue. The war was started without a resolution permitting it, and hence was illegal. The fact that Iraq did not comply with previous resolutions, including 1441, does not mean that USA was free to declare war on it. In fact when 1441 was adopted, it was agreed that failure to comply with it will not cause immediate war with Iraq, but rather lead the way to more resolutions permitting stricter actions.

Its amusing that there are still foo..people who believe that the US led invasion into Iraq had any notion of legitimacy behind it. Nevermind that you have to have an approval of UN for the war to even start to be considered legal, which the US not only failed to secure, but didn't even bother appealing for because US knew it would be vetoed by several countries (France, China, Russia). In fact, the US reasoning was akin to this: "Since we wont get an approval for legitimately waging war in Iraq, we'll go ahead and do it illegitimately, since UN is powerless to stop us anyway". Kofi Annan denounced the war shortly after, saying that it was a blatant violation of UN security chapter and international law. But hey, this isnt enough to call the war "illegal", is it?

Not sure why this is in this thread, but I'm really not a leftist. I couldn't care less if USA invades Iran and massacres every last person. In fact, Middle Eastern people respect a show of power and if USA didn't pussyfoot around in Iraq but instead adopted Russian tactics in Chechnya, the whole area would be pacified or dead by now. Let the strongest survive, and all that stuff. Human history is one of bloodshed, pain and misery. No need to shy away from that now, might as well embrace it and remember that evolution comes through strife and those who are unworthy to continue will be defeated by those who are more adapted, even if they're weaker. The only thing I have issue with is the blatant hypocrisy of some of my fellow USA citizens, who honestly believe that they're seeding democracy and .. well, no need to repeat myself. And those who believe that USA is somehow better than "brutal dictatorial regimes of the ME" when many of their tactics are adopted by our illustrious government as well, albeit in a more subtle form, so as to not disturb the simpletons too much.

Not anymore...but it worked like a charm in 1945. One big problem was definitely resolved. The original statement is incorrect. If you bomb or nuke someone, your short term (and sometimes even longterm problems as in the case with nuclear weaponry) are solved. In fact, if you bomb everyone out of existence except for your own kind, your problems will go away for a long time. Better yet, if you kill anyone who disagrees with you, you wont ever have any problems. I'm happy to see so many of my former fellow countrymen agree with me. I am even happier to see Bush in the office, since he seems hell-bent on propagating that line of thinking!

It'll be like Lebanon all over again. As well all know Hezbollah is now non-existent because of that offensive. EDIT: Nvm, sorry!

Oh I agree. I think that every country has a right to do whatever they deem necessary to ensure their own survival, be it lie, cheat, abuse their power or whatever. So really, I see nothing wrong with Israel abusing their close ties with US to eliminate its Middle East enemies. After all, we live in a jungle and we all follow the rules of the jungle - might makes right. The only thing that pisses me off is people taking the moral high ground and claiming they are "holier than thou" with regards to the people who are on the other side of the scope. And what doubly pisses me off are people who honestly believe that their country (US, brits, israel, etc) is "seeding democracy and improving peoples lives" and that muslims are unwashed barbarians. Hypocricy is what i cannot stand.

What power does "Yo, Tony" wield? We should just go straight to his American masters. But then again, you'll just get thrown in Gitmo and tortured until you confess to killing JFK and then get tried and jailed for the rest of your life in some out of the way prison. Went back to the CIA and the defense department companies that made and supplied the nerve agents in the first place? *Shrug* We may never know.

If I have a problem with a mafia boss I should take it up with him only, not with the thugs that he sends to break peoples kneecaps?

Actually no. Read up on the Napoleonic campaigns, and then read Clausewitz. The rest of it is an interesting way to turn marxian thought on its head though... Granted its been a long while since I brushed up on my French history, but do Napoleonic campaigns really classify as small scale warfare?

He did rule through fear and intimidation and brute force, but we need to remember that Iraq is a made-up country. Unlike other countries such as England, Russia, Japan and even US (although to a much lesser extent) Iraq does not have centuries of history that unite the people within it, it does not have centuries of existenence as a power behind it. Iraq is basically a small room where three kids who hate each other have been tossed in. Saddam was like a maniacal, white trash parent who beat his kids but through the beatings he ensured the relative safety of the kids. He even provided basic education and kept them from becoming criminals. Come 1991, the "Social services" came in and slapped Saddam around for mistreating the kids and then imposed a harsh embargo on the house, preventing Saddam from getting any food, school supplies or entertainment into the country. The kids grew more violent and angry, but still Saddam kept them in check. Come 2003, Social services invade again, behead Saddam and let the kids do whatever they want. Naturally, the first thing the kids do is cheer because the evil parent was decapitated and then they remember that they hate each other and they turn onto one another, tearing each other to pieces savagely, forgoing any degree of civilty that the previous regime kept up. Obviously the analogy is superficial, but it more or less illustrates how I feel about the issue. People only deserve democracy until they can realize that they need it and that they want it and that they're ready to do something about it. Having it shoved down their throats, especially with a heavy death toll AND demolishion of infrastructure (at least during Saddam era they had electricity and fresh water) will not go well, and will not serve anything but promote hate for the west. Iraq has also become a training camp for terrorists and militants, where they can get real-life experience of fighting american security forces. When the Americans pull out, the Shia majority in Iraq will want to merge with Iran or at least establish a government that is friendly with Iran. Instead of having a divided Middle East (Secular / Sunni muslims under Saddam vs Hardcore islam regime under Iranian ayatollahs) now the "Islam crescent" will be complete. So basically we had two choices. Let the Middle Eastern countries sort their own things out and then deal with the resulting government or interfere (and interfere clumsily at that) now and screw the pooch by making the whole world apprehensive of our "democratization process". Oh yeah, having a leader who has no charisma and no diplomatic tact whatsoever, who keeps talking about crusades and downplays all the atrocities that Israel commits in the Middle East does not help.

I think that in the near-future country borders will mean less and less until one day they disappear entirely and the whole world agglomerates into a large union. This union will be presided by a token government, which will have no say in anything important. The real power will be in the hands of corporations and corporate heads who will subdivide the world according to their interests and rule there as they see fit, enforcing their will with private military companies, which will grow to be more sophisticated and effective than state militaries of today. Traditionally armies of mercenaries have been more effective than state militaries in small scale combat, which is most of the todays combat is. Rich people will live as they do now, immune to most laws and above the troubles and problems of common people. As the science develops towards a singularity point, the well-being of an average person would not improve, but the well-being of the elite would skyrocket. Embryos will be grown in vats to be harvested for organs to lengthen the livespans of those who can afford it. People in general will be in throes of cultural and religious warfare, which will be kept at a level just below a total war, to ensure that people can never focus enough to overthrow the rich, but do not destroy themselves either.

You are right, american citizens DO bear the same responsibility. The beauty of democracy is that people are responsible for whatever they elect in the office, be it a benevolent person or a thug-murderer. I merely hate seeing my own tax money go towards financing things that I do not want to support. Right now I am a citizen of a country that neither supports nor opposes the war in Iraq and is in fact quite distant from all the political affairs. I am doing something that I enjoy doing here and the money that I pay in tax go towards improving life quality of the people in this country, as opposed to destroying the quality of life of people in another country. I think thats wishful thinking at this point. Besides, like I already said I have lost faith that anything can change here, I think we've slid down too far to stop or reverse the trend now. I want my children to have a better future than they'd have in US 10 years from now, hence my flight. Why, I think so. Saddam, for all his faults, knew how to handle Iraq. Clearly, the present command does not. They are not ready for democracy and all that our soldiers have achieved in there is destabilizing the country and stirring up a hornets nest. Democracy, fancy thing that is, is supposed to come from within, it cannot be "planted" forcefully, and it amazes me that people still think so. Be assured, our leadership knows that damn well and they did not even for a second consider going to Iraq to plant democracy there. In fact, if not for the mercantile reasons, Iraq would be left alone, because with Saddam in power it was a secular goverment that did whatever it can to suppress terrorists. In other words, Iraq with Saddam in it was a far safer place for the world in general than Iraq with Americans in it. That would be true in general, but when the whole war is illegal in the first place? Thats going into the grey zone. The basic question is this: if a troop commander orders his troops to slaughter or torture 50 iraqi prisoners, can the soldiers disobey the commander? Yes, because the order is illegal. They will stand trial and most likely be acquited. Now, if you go to a larger scale: A government that is guilty of flagrant human right abuses, violating geneva conventions and wiping its ass with international laws orders soldiers to invade an innocent country under false premises (WMD search). Do the soldiers not have the MORAL and ETHICAL obligation to disobey the commanders orders and not go anywhere. Defending our soldiers in this case is like defending SS troops who invaded countries during WW II. Sure, they acted like sheep and went along with the crowd, but that should-not absolve them of responsibility of killing millions of people in the name of an illegal cause. The problem with democrat vs republican debate is that both sides support basically the same bills. Sure, there is a little difference here and there, but in general if you look at the history of the bills that got passed in Congress they have equal support from dems and republicans. So really, what is the difference. Hence why I said its a one party system.