I don't actually consider Democracy as a pretense as such, because Democracy is generally more cohesive to trade. So basically the establishment of Democracy was genuine, but the motivations for it were not Liberal they were economic. 'unexpected consequence' is referring to the wave of revolutions now, not what's happened in Iraq after Saddam.
Gadaffi is relatively friendly to the West compared to what he was. What logic would there be in America removing Gadaffi when the protestors despise America?
I think iraq would be seeing scenes similar to that of Libya and not Egypt right now.
Another way of looking at it is that the toppling of Saddam has contributed to the Democracy movement of the Middle east. Other Arabs seeing that Iraq is more Democratic now could only be inspired towards opposing their own dictators.
This isn't saying the invasion of Iraq was a broad attempt to promote Democracy across the region, I don't for a second believe it had anything to do with Democracy, but it has been an unexpected consequence.
We need oil. Oil is running out so we need to keep drilling deeper, doing this is both more dangerous and expensive - so as long as society remains dependent upon oil then you can only expect to see more spills in the coming years.
The only 'solution' is that humanity rejects the use of oil, this in turn would cause the deaths of millions or even billions of people and the survivors living like peasants. With the exception of the very rich, those people whom could afford the prices of energy and goods in a world where we don't use oil.
It is, of course, a natural process to draw a conclusion upon anything you encounter that you find interesting. And you're right there is the technical difficulties of language which are, if anything, exacerbated by communicating online.
I still think that beyond the technical problems you have firstly, a limit on your perception(you can't see or hear the individual). And secondly, absence of any knowledge of the individual. These paired, make judgement itself a more ambiguous task.
Yes on the posters side of things it is probably to do with accountability, the fact that you can switch off the computer and then carry as normal afterwards. However some do value their online reputation so peer-pressure and etiquette can factor in on behaviour online.
Then again it is probably the best example of ill-judgement to judge the person behind the opinion online, because you are completely detached from eachother in a way that isn't matched in real life. You leave a lot of room for misperceiving why people say something as well as what is meant.
Unions used to be good in their early days but not anymore. A Union is just a collection of people, so high quality people create a good and honest Union and low quality people form a bad and corrupt Union - a Union can only be a good thing if its members have a proper work ethic to begin with.
An Anti-Semite may be very pro-Zion. After all the more Jews there are in Israel, the less Jews there are everywhere else. It's muddy water the anti-Semite/anti-Zionist argument, but I don't believe the popular wave of anti-Zionists we're seeing are anti-Semites.
Maybe it does sound similar but you could relate these passages to other revolts that have gone wrong in other countries. In terms of history what is happening in Egypt now isn't something new or even uncommon - just look at the European revolutions of 1848 and contrast that to what's happening today in the Arab world.
Yea but when you talk politics you hear the ideals of the Left and the Right and then later you find out what happens, which usually has little to do with either.
I've seen that happen. My Mum was much the same when she was divorced from my Dad. It's like people will easily go from one extreme to the other but finding the balance is difficult.
In my opinion it may be easy to get into the knickers of bad girls but getting into their hearts is a whole different story.
The good girls on the other hand won't drop them but they'll fall in love with you left, right and centre, and will carry on giving when they really shouldn't - this is where they go wrong.
It's just like anything else in life, if you gain something too easily you don't show proper gratitude and respect for it. Where as when you've had to work hard for it then you do.
What i'm saying is that Islam is a growing problem in England, anybody streetwise has been aware of it for some time. The problem is that English people completely detached from the street are ignorant of what's actually going on, and the how and why so many of us are getting very pissed off with Islam.
The English Protestants fought back the Catholic absolutists centuries ago. Now thanks to some silly sods within our own culture(!)we're heading for round two except this time it's Kafir V Islam.
Actually Syria is the nicest of the Arab countries in my opinion, there's no real sense of fear in Damascus and the people were quite friendly and helpful - they were much nicer than the rich Arabs like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that's for sure.
As for Israel I've not been there yet, but I can say i'm impressed by what they've managed to build, the level of infrastructure, the law system, very impressive. They've really torn themselves from nothing, they've achieved far more than the worth of the aid given to them in the past.
Would it be viable to have one in the field you're in? Is the economy going to facilitate applying it in the real world?
Some people like to collect qualifications like stamps, as a kind of badge of pride thing, but in my opinion if you don't apply what you learn and what you know it's useless to both you and everybody else.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: gaddafi
It's desperation that brings masses of people to their feet, their banner is purely secondary.