ScottSA

If I'm not mistaken, fire in and of itself has never been equated with hell in Christianity. I believe the "lake of fire" is meant to illustrate eternal torment rather than fire, literally. I dunno, but I imagine theology students would be able to demonstrate a link between Judeo Christianity and Agni, the Zoroastrian god of fire, but that's just a guess on my part. In any event, fire was as often seen as a good omen as it was a bad omen to the early to mid medieval mind.

Here we go again, with a replay of the left in Iraq. Sanctions are imposed, and the left spends the next decade inventing statistics and yowling about the "tremendous human cost." Then war comes, and the left steps up the yowling about more "tremendous human cost," and pines for the good auld days of sanctions, which in retrospect were seen to be working after all. Now, apparently, some on the left want to re-enact the ancient Germanic and medievalist custom of single combat. What's next? The rack? Drawing and quartering? The fact of the matter is that the US at this point in history can, by strategic doctrine, take on both China and Russia and win, quite easily. The wars, at least, if not the occupations. Not even the British Empire at it's height bothered to try occupying China in perpetual colonial force.

Don't worry about it.

I hate to mention this, but that's gotta be one of the silliest analogies I've ever read, not only since the "UK" today consists of exactly those three, but also because a few years prior to British partition, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. "Not gonna happen?" It did for a few centuries, since...why, come to think of it, there's that pesky 14th century popping up again! Before that it changed hands and government since...well, since the dawn of civilization, literally. So I don't think the evil colonialists started anything particularly novel, and I'm damned sure that Bush didn't. I suppose, though, that he should have gone in and enslaved entire cities and slaughtered the menfolk like the Muslims did a few centuries before...that seems to leave a more lasting impression on conquered lands than nicey nice and the occasional bumpile.

That's a couple of rather overbroad statements methinks when talking about a billion or two people encompassing numerous regions. No doubt there are areas of China where it's scarcely noted that anything has changed since the Mongolian invasions.

Can you post a list of the countries that require no income tax?

For whatever reason, the problem is fixed now. Thanks.

Contemplating them and misinterpreting them are two different things. I sincerely doubt that Terence meant to embrace and accept all human behaviour. The sack of carthage, for one, is an emminently human endeavour, but I somehow doubt that Terece would have encouraged it as quite alright because of its humanness. What he meant to say is that he understands all human behaviour, not that he accepts all human behaviour by virtue of its humanness. If he meant the latter, he was a fool.

If the Chinese government falls, it will have more to do with economics; either galloping inflation or recession.

Case in point.

It's sad that the basic ability to discriminate has been destroyed in the western world. I suppose it has to do with the abstraction of real life through the media of television, where there seems little difference between a movie and real life, but it goes deeper than that, with the assault of nihilism on thought. Too many these days can't seem to make a distinction between 'us' and 'them', and it may not actually become real to some people until the barbarians are actually ripping their heads off with paring knives. Fortunately for them that won't happen in this generation, at least. In fact, too many seem to actually buy into the myth that there is no 'us' and 'them,' and that we're all one big happy kumbaya if we can just 'get past it.' We are at war. It's real. Our soldiers are fighting and dying. This is not some abstract debate over two morally equivalent "sides," and it's not some game between the reds and greens, an historical reference that you'll miss, but that's apropo here. I have no idea what your imagined distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan is based on, or how you would possibly defend it, but it doesn't really matter; by virtue of your culture, nationality, and a host of other factors long forgotten in the west you are on one side and not the other. It may seem enlightened to you to pretend to stand atop an ivory tower gazing down on the amusing antics of the rest of the world as if it's some play being acted out for your debating enjoyment, but in the final analysis you want one side to win, even if you don't know it now.

No, it's called a war, and the object of war is precisely to "impose our will" on the other side. Holding votes in the middle of a firefight is rather hard to do, regardless of what the NDP thinks. The Clausewitzian dictate that war is an extension of politics, or politics by other means, or whatever his exact phraseology was, didn't mean that 'time out' should be called while we hold a vote. Yeesh.

Since the incident, Slotervaart has seen rioting almost every night. The Amsterdam Moroccans are “shocked†because one of them has been killed by an infidel woman. According to his family, Bilal Bajaka was mentally deranged and had a suicide obsession. Ahmed Marcouch, the Moroccan-born Socialist mayor of Slotervaart, criticized the Dutch authorities for failing to provide adequate health care for Bajaka’s mental problems. [...] Similar events are currently taking place in Brussels, the capital of neighbouring Belgium and of the EU. Last Sunday, demonstrating Turkish youths ransacked an Armenian restaurant in the Sint-Joost-ten-Node borough. According to the owner the police was present at the scene but did not interfere while his establishment was being demolished. The Armenian had to flee for his life. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2584

Link please

Link please?

Prol. We used to send our used ascots to your type, eh wot? *sniff* http://www.s-sm.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1

Excuse me, but WW II was often referred to as the "European Theatre" and the "Pacific Theatre," but they were hardly stage sets or auditoriums. They are also referred to as "conflicts," as are all conflicts. Further, just to burst your bubble: because Korea was under the authority of the UNSC, and because it took place when elements of Chapter VII, to wit, articles 45-47, were actually taken seriously, the "proper" term is "police action," although even that is a Trumanesque description and not a legal term. "Conflict" has no legal meaning. Just so you know. You can call Vietnam anything you want, but the folks who fought in it on the American side call it a war, and the folks who fought on the other side call it a war of liberation, and the history books call it a war. It's a war, and the fact that it's also a conflict is largely irrelevant. Here's another tidbit for you: "declaration of war" is a relatively recent convention often honoured in the breech. A declaration of war is a formal action, but not technically a "legal" action. It has no weight in and of itself in any way shape or form, other than to formally tie the combatants to the GC, insofar as they are willing to abide by it in the first place. And that itself is more a reflection of European nation's agreements between each other than the North South axis shift of today. Prior to the 16th century, no one ever 'declared war' on anyone else, yet I daresay you'd be hard pressed to find an historian who will agree with you that wars didn't exist prior to the rennaissance. One does not need to "declare" war on another in order for two states to be at war; states of war often exist between nations and groups with or without declarations. Japan didn't declare war on the US before Pearl Harbour, insofar as sharing the news with the US, just as one example, yet I challenge you to find someone who thinks Pearl Harbour was not an act of war, or who thinks the war only began with Roosevelt's declaration a day later. We can keep arguing this until the cows come home, but I know quite a bit more about this than you do, regardless of what you scrounge up on google U. We are at war, whether declared or not.

We can only hope.

The wages of 50 years of non-stop pot smoking, I imagine.

I see the usual suspects have nothing but mockery and ad hominem to offer...now, if we can inject some much needed humour into the lame attempts at funnies, we;ll be off to the races.

No doubt. Meanwhile, we'll all have to pitch in and pay her welfare cheque and his plane fare. Incidentally, Cair-can, one of those allegedly "moderate" organizations, is screaming for his return...

You know that because I told you too... However, one might profitably argue that the First Barbary War wasn't under the aegis of the UNSC.

errr..hello? You're citing guyser and gloating? Oy vey. Here's a list of other wars that are not declared but nonetheless known to history as wars. Note the "Gulf War," which was also undeclared. Note also that each war is characterized by combat, not by declaration: Quasi-War France 1798 J. Adams Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine) First Barbary War Barbary States 1801 Jefferson Second Barbary War Barbary States 1815 Madison Intervention during the Russian Civil War Bolshevist Russia 1918 Wilson Protection of Lebanon Rebels 1958 Eisenhower Vietnam War National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964 88-2 416-0 Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon Peace agreement signed in Paris, January 1973 Multinational Force in Lebanon Shia and Druze miltias; Syria September 29, 1983 54-46 253-156 Reagan Force withdrew in 1984 Invasion of Panama, also known as Operation Just Cause Panama Defense Force December 20, 1989 George H.W. Bush Manuel Noriega deposed Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm Iraq January 12, 1991 52-47 250-183 The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991 2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaida S.J. Res. 23 September 14, 2001 98-0 420-1 George W. Bush Ongoing Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq H.J. Res. 114, October 16, 2002

I suppose insults are one way to squirm out of your ignimonious defeat. Beats just admitting you're wrong, I guess.

Lol...you're just gonna keep this fighting retreat up until you have no further place to go, huh?