Since WWII, there has been a division of labor, with the combination of being the world currency and providing a military pax Americana driving down military expenditures elsewhere.
They may make a lot of noise about Israel, but its just posturing. Iran has never participated [directly] in any wars with Israel.
Fixed that for you.
Here is news: the rest of the region (Sunni) tolerated Saddam because he kept the pesky Shiites at bay.
9/11 was a pretext, given the uncertainty of what would happen after Saddam, for the Great Satan to be allowed in to effect regime change. We had proven reliability in Gulf War I, recall.
In summary, the Iranians may not be much worse than the rest of the region, but angels they ain't.
Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 270 years.
If embassies are sovereign territory of the other country, then the takeover of ours in 1979 refutes your point. But that's pedantry. I'll even give you the wars with Iraq, where the U.S. supported Saddam, in the 70s & 80s, as they hardly constituted 'invasion' at any point.
You know, if it wasn't for Iran's post-Khomeni record for sponsoring terrorism (Hezbollah et al.), you point might be more than a thought-free equivalency.
Exit question: Howard Zinn; systematic prevaricator, or all-around lying sack?
There you go again with the rationality. Listen, tough guy: it's all farce. "Progress" means, far from effecting improvements, talking about improvements as if they had been effected.
Our government consists of no-talent rodeo clowns who figure that they can utter the word "jobs" and trigger 1,000 hires.
The actual mechanisms of economics in particular, and reality in general, elude these pencil-necks.
Redistribute power, not wealth, and see if the sign on the slope coefficient doesn't flip positive.
No. I predict some sort of staged attack, which will be broadcast as a triumphal attack on the Great Satan.
Because the Iranian people are nearly as daft as Americans, to judge by the election results.
Sure, but, if you're really packin' the gear, you know that:
-- Real men leave their Xs in Texas, and
-- X11 is a waste of admin bandwidth; command line or bust.
Slashdot Mirror
All you do is judge. H8er.
Well, I had to work in a shaving connection in a tight, tight space. While keeping everything family friendly.
Apache Allura
Hot as Uhura
Whose legs a fine sheen
Good soap will assure-a
Burma Shave
I didn't suggest; I said this was a union for CEOs. Because MOAR UNIONS, right?
Not a bad analysis. I've also been on record as saying: "I bureaucracy is cancer, then let liberty be a plague."
Bureaucracy is low intensity conflict, i.e. war. War is hell. Hell surely has a hellish bureaucracy.
If this was a union, wages would have risen, not been artificially lowered.
The CEOs got raises, didn't they?
They artificially reduced labor market competition
See what I mean?
they inhibited the exchange of fresh ideas
You make my point beautifully.
I thought unions were the good guys?
scentipeed
goes around the world
They may make a lot of noise about Israel, but its just posturing. Iran has never participated [directly] in any wars with Israel.
Fixed that for you.
Here is news: the rest of the region (Sunni) tolerated Saddam because he kept the pesky Shiites at bay.
9/11 was a pretext, given the uncertainty of what would happen after Saddam, for the Great Satan to be allowed in to effect regime change. We had proven reliability in Gulf War I, recall.
In summary, the Iranians may not be much worse than the rest of the region, but angels they ain't.
Duff's Device
Had Monty Python
Been Klingon he might have said
Effing near water
Klingon beer
Gutteral suds
Your blade will steer
Past Romulan duds
Burma Shave
Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 270 years.
If embassies are sovereign territory of the other country, then the takeover of ours in 1979 refutes your point. But that's pedantry. I'll even give you the wars with Iraq, where the U.S. supported Saddam, in the 70s & 80s, as they hardly constituted 'invasion' at any point.
You know, if it wasn't for Iran's post-Khomeni record for sponsoring terrorism (Hezbollah et al.), you point might be more than a thought-free equivalency.
Exit question: Howard Zinn; systematic prevaricator, or all-around lying sack?
Fairy nuff, magical boy.
An excellent job of reading half the sentence, sir. Stay beautiful, hear?
There you go again with the rationality. Listen, tough guy: it's all farce. "Progress" means, far from effecting improvements, talking about improvements as if they had been effected.
Our government consists of no-talent rodeo clowns who figure that they can utter the word "jobs" and trigger 1,000 hires.
The actual mechanisms of economics in particular, and reality in general, elude these pencil-necks.
Redistribute power, not wealth, and see if the sign on the slope coefficient doesn't flip positive.
Because the Iranians are all peaceful and stuff, right?
The Progressive side. That they suit up on opposing teams for election theater is purely for hysterical raisins.
No. I predict some sort of staged attack, which will be broadcast as a triumphal attack on the Great Satan.
Because the Iranian people are nearly as daft as Americans, to judge by the election results.
Sure, but, if you're really packin' the gear, you know that:
-- Real men leave their Xs in Texas, and
-- X11 is a waste of admin bandwidth; command line or bust.
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/GnuEmacs
Not a joke, and also not in the Creationist camp either, is Nagel => http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception-ebook/dp/B008SQL6NS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395494879&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+nagel
One views with some amusement that the magnitude of Evolutionist dogmatism roughly equals that of the Evolutionists.
For the record, I'm kind of disinterested in the topic.
You can certainly be bound in the sense of committed to a toolset, the way, say, Django binds you to Python. Not such a bad tradeoff.