Saddam was indeed a fascist Murderer. However the Islamic revolution was a populist one. It wasn't a story of a small group of zealots seizing a country against it's will but rather a country of zealots who kicked out a monarchy and installed a theocracy. Murderer isn't a good tag for that as the revolution wasn't that violent. Iran ideology is very dangerous but don't believe the PR. If the Us invades Iran it'll find ~70 million hostile zealots on it's hands. Real allies? that region is led by snakes and murderers. They aren't' even real allies to each other let alone a universally despised Imperialist power. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt have more direct links to 911 then Iraq. Remember the guys who flew the plans were all from those 3 nations. Those 3 nations are the closest thing to a US ally in the region aside from Israel. It might have damaged 2 of Israels enemies but Israel itself has a very fickle alliance withe the Us that mostly goes 1 way.
PS. I'm not a "Zionist conspiracy" nut, but can Israel hasn't gone out of it's way to help it's primary benefactor.
Iraq vs Iran was a military aggression initiated by Iraq with the blessing and funding of the Americans. America didn't need to take one side or the other. This wasn't an intellectual "well if I had to choose I'd pick Iraq." it was a "well I hear you don't like your neighbors. Did you know they called your father a pig fucker? yes I know.. well let me tell you what I'll do for you. I have these tanks..."
It was 1 of 3 choices. Do nothing, Back a murderer, back a zealot. They chose to back the murderer. Not only back him but to encourage and fund his war.
We rebuilt a whole bunch of infrastructure that we damaged during the invasion. Then it got blown up. By Iraqis. I was totally against the Iraq war, but the reason it's in shambles right now is because there are many, many Iraqis who are perfectly willing to kill their neighbors and put their country in flames than see their religious opponents exercise their democratic majority power or exercise basic personal freedoms. If you want to blame the USA for that, go ahead and do so. But be honest and admit that what America really did by removing Saddam was free Iraqis to show the world their theocratic totalitarianism and their pure hatred they have for each other.
Iraq wasn't a theocratic totalitarian regime. It was a secular military dictatorship. Your confusing Iraq with Iran and the Us was partly responsible for placing the current theocracy in Iran as well. Iraq was deeply divided along religious and ethnic lines for a long time. Ironically Saddams sadism kept the various factions form killing each other. There was a very common belief in non-Us nations that civil war would occur once Saddam was gone. It was partly why the Sr. Bush didn't invade after desert storm. He couldn't see a good chance at a positive outcome.
Part of the problem is Bush removed too few troops so once they disposed the republican guard they also removed the rule of law. Leading to the chaos we see. Instead of fearing Saddams troops they now fear Saddams former troops, bandits, each other, the American soldiers.
One the truly puzzling things about most Chinese that I meet is there bottomless capacity to defend the snake of a government they have - even the ones that have already immigrated away. I find that the upper-middle class tends to be the worst - the ridiculously rich are too educated to fall for the government's lies, while the poorest suffer too much to believe anything the government says. It's the people who fall down the middle that actually believe the things the government teaches them.
I've known many Chinese who admit their government's deficiencies, and admit that officials are almost always corrupt and self-serving. But for some reason they still declare their allegiance to the government, claiming that as a Chinese by blood they cannot possibly turn away from the Chinese government. This puzzles me greatly, since I've long ago refused to consider myself a supporter of anything BUT a Western democracy - if the government is shooting your kind by the hundreds, is corrupt, etc etc, what kind of loyalty do you owe to them? It seems very ego-driven, and amounts to stubborn refusal to admit that perhaps the West has a better sociopolitical system.
In a sick way, it's like Stockholm syndrome... a whole race of people who are culturally conditioned to remain loyal to their government, despite the innumerable atrocities that are committed against them in front of their own eyes.
As another side note... it's depressing the "history" they learn in their schools...
It's not just a Chinese thing. Everybody will carry some portion of the place they grew up with them. It's part of who they are and they are part of that too. So when you attack someones homeland it's partially an attack on them (or so they perceive). Unless the party that is being attacked hurt them directly they will usually try to defend or justify it.
It's not just countries but any affiliation. The foaming at the mouth republicans and democrats who defend their side against all logic. The Reform, NDP, Bloc, Liberal supporters here in Canada who will rationalize everything about their party. It's not the nature of just Chinese people. It's people as a whole will defend what ever they have some investment in. China does horrible things but the odds of you getting caught up in one of those things are small. Just as Canada and the US have done some pretty bad things but by and large most people been a part of that. Forced sterilization, internment camps, gitmo, Arar, Chinese head tax, residential schools, successful native American genocide, etc.. The difference is after the fact we can talk about it while in china talking about it too publically will often get you in toruble.
Thus Chinese aren't unique in lamenting that they don't really have a democracy but will say it isn't that bad. Which for a large majority of Chinese is true. The current Gov is better then any china has ever had. But the bar isn't as high as the West.
As a side note... From my experience, more Americans know about these atrocities than Chinese. It's depressing, really. It's also depressing the number of new Chinese immigrants who are totally blown away by Canada's democratic government, since they thought (or were taught) that they had democracy all along.
Depends on where your from, my relatives in Xin Hua and Guangzhou are acutely aware of the deficiencies with their government. They are aware of the bad things that go on but persist to live a quiet live to avoid that trouble. But they're in a different socio economic class then the rest of China. They're owners of factories, doctors, accountants, the upper middle class of china. Their proximity to HK might be part of it too.
They have had brushes with some of it. My uncle was offered a promotion to Dean of one of the medical schools in the region. He had been a professor for a long time and was about to retire. He smelled a fish and took early retirement instead. Turns out they were attempting to find a scape goat for some embezzlement that happened. The person they did promote was arrested for embezzlement.
I am sure my shoes are made from the finest Falun Gong hides
I am from canada, I have never had a positive non creepy encounter with a Falun Gong practitioner. China is severely over stepping the bounds of what is right or just but I get the same vibe from Falun Gong people that I do from Scientology's. A sort of creepy vibe, sort of like the person in front of me is just a shell of a real human being.
In America, you can have a website and a donate money to form an organization saying "Bush sucks". In China, if you did that, you would wind up in jail.
But you stand up in a public Q&A and do the yell the same stuff and act like an obnoxious prick you get tasered.
Sure because every degree above absolute zero is same the temperature.
Think what you will of America and it's policies. But to even compare it with China is absurd in that regard. American government has, for the majority of the time, been a boon to the world as a whole. Yes, there are conflicts where wonderful leaders like Saddam are overthrown and it makes people unhappy. And no, I'm not justifying Iraq with that sarcastic statement. But I am pointing out that no matter what side of the fence you're on, Iraq was an issue that should have been delt with. It wasn't Atlantis being invaded. American foreign policy is enormous. The most influential country in the world. While it easy to find examples of harm in there, there is more good then harm in the case of American foreign policy. Where as my biggest gripe with China is how the entire world stands by and let's a country like that into open markets so easily considering how disgraceful that country's government is.
You do realize for a long time the US backed Saddam directly? America is good to it's people. Less so then most western powers but more so then the third world or the former warsaw pact countries. However it backs the worst allies. So if the submitters problem was with china and Myanmar then he really should boycott the US for Iraq, egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, much of Africa and much of South America.
America aims only to look out for it's own economic interests which is what all countries do. But if you want to point figures at who causes the most human suffering you really have to point it back at the US. They fund more human misery then almost anyone besides the former British empire.
The worst part about the US going into Iraq is the entire world should have gone. Leaders like Saddam who routinely kill their own people en masse should not be allowed. While everyone was busy living in their free little NA or Europe, few seemed to care what was actually happening in Iraq. Until the US went in there.
No, I don't buy the reasons given to us all as to why the US went in. But Saddam was a threat. To the world, to the region, and to his own people. He was a disgrace. The type of leader that the world shouldn't tolerate. So forgive me for not weeping that some shoddy reasoning (and who really knows the true purpose) was used to go in there.
You invaded a fairly stable dictatorship and destroyed almost all of the infrastructure over 15 years, then remove the government and promoted civil war. It was bad under Saddam it's worse under the US. Unlike Japan or Germany there isn't multi billions pouring in to rebuild the infrastructure, we have multi-billion pouring in just to try to maintain order and supply your troops there. There wasn't a good reason to go in and that is why few countries did. Unlike Serbia or Rwanda there was no hope of making the situation better.
You remember whose payroll Saddam was on in the 70's and 80's? Remember who was training and supplying Osama? Saddam is the type of leader The US promotes. It's asinine for you to say much about it. It's a bigger disgrace that your knowledge of history or world politics seems to come directly from fox news. Any an all action by Saddam were indrectly sanctioned by their main backer the US. So if the submitter has a problem with Chinese products because they backed the oppressive myanmar government then he should also boycott US products due to us backing Saddam and various other tyrannical dictators.
"I'd be more incline to be pro-life if they'd show an inclination to support the people who seek abortions but many of the pro-life camp aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve." This is simply wrong. The pro-life movement is intimately connected with crisis pregnancy centers and charities. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard someone at an abortion mill talking about "sex in a fashion they don't approve." You're much more likely to hear offers of help and alternatives. Which is good, since many women who get abortions don't really want them; but feel trapped by financial situations, "boyfriends," worry about family's reaction, etc. Have you ever seen what goes on in the pro-life movement or do you just assume we "aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve?" Because I don't think you could be much more wrong.
It does vary by organization. My church was part of a pro-life collation and it wasn't because they thought mothers needed help to make the right decision. IT was a agenda to remove one factor in enabling pre-marital sex. I have left that church.
I see this arguement constantly, "we can't legislate against it because it will force people into "back alley abortions".
WAKE UP PEOPLE in what alternate reality do you base laws on what people "are going to do anyway"? I mean by that logic we should get rid of all of the laws against normal murder, because hey, since we can't just walk people into a "deathspital" and have them killed, we have to go and do it in an alley. That's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.
Or, lets see, people are going to steal stuff, but since it's against the law they actually have to break in and steal it, and sometimes they, or the people they are stealing from get hurt. Lets just make stealing legal, that way people can just go someplace and say "I'm stealing this" and be given it, and no one gets hurt.
That argument just doesn't make sense.
It's one of several arguments. There are often such "pragmatic" laws. The key is often "harm to another" angle. For instance fair use is somewhat relates. It is the issues of economic harm to the producer of some content vs the rights of a end user to modify or use the content. So it is a consideration. The conflict of the control of ones body vs the right to life of a unborn child is one thats pretty cut and dry. One side is death the other 9 mo of inconvenience and a dramatic change in a person life. I wouldn't hang my entire opinion on the subject on it. As I do believe the kids right to life ought trump the mothers right not to have to deal with it. However it contribute to my opinion as it's a consequence of banning abortion.
The problem is Flamebait often coincides with a valid or interesting point. Controversial posts shouldn't be buried simply because they are controversial. A post that conveys a side of an issues may still contain content of value.
I hope a pro-life group starts a text msging service to compete with the pro-death one.
Hrt beats @ 22 days after conception. Happy u werent aborted? Most ppl r. Yur pro-life.
pro-Choice is about leaving it up to people concerned. pro-Life is a wish to return to the back alley abortions days. Each side has every right to start a messaging service and spread their opinions and views.
I'd be more incline to be pro-life if they'd show an inclination to support the people who seek abortions but many of the pro-life camp aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve. I think abortion is wrong but is a pragmatic work around to the things that were happening before. Being young implies being foolish and though you may frown on sex before marriage it's a consequence of the set up of our society. If our society accepted that at about 14 the hormonal urges makes abstinence a interesting fantasy and was more accepting and supportive if those who do end up pregnant I would agree abortion ought not be allowed. But our society is inconsistent with our biology and with what a mother needs to raise a child without the sanction of family and community. This forces many young mothers into desperate straights. Thus they risk their lives with shady practitioners. They act in despair and alienation. Having known several young unwed mothers it's a lot of struggle. Fortunately these women had the support of a social network that did not ostracize them. They brought a new life into the world and were happier for it. But they'd still get dirty looks from the same busy bodies that fall within the pro-life camp.
A key abortion "prevention" tool is knowledge about sex and biology. Which many within the pro-life camp feel is wrong too. There is such an enormous over lap between the pro-life camp and the anti-sex camp. If you really want to fight abortion you'll support good sex education, the distributions of prophylactics to teens, support programs for single mothers, and the acceptance of young mothers.
Society has pushed the age of "legitimate" sex up to a point where it is not reasonable for a person to weight 1/2 of their reproductive life to have sex. At the moment the average age to get married is very high. It's hovering around 30-35 before a couple has enough wealth or desire to engage in marriage. The urge to have sex starts about 15 years before that. Now if your not in the anti-sex camp and are pro-life I can agree that abortions is not a good solution. But until we revise some key problems within our society it must be a tolerated evil as it's better then the evil that existed before.
he Canada Revenue Agency is doing its job (this concept may be unfamiliar to Americans when relating to governmental agencies)
You know what they say, the most efficient part of any government is the department that takes your money. The CRA is run less aggressively then the IRS so it's not as confrontational.
The best option then is for government to stop trying to "pick winners" and subsidise them to success. That's a socialist command and control way of thinking and leads to decades of heading in the wrong direction.
Simply allow the power generators to choose their preferred technologies. The most economically viable solutions will be popular, the unviable ones will fade away. If nuclear is viable it'll get rolled out. if not, it won't.
the Market is great for somethings. It is not for others. Some industries are so integral but so immensely capital intensive that only very few entities could establish them. If you leave it up to the market you get default monopolies in those industries because to create a competitor is immensely expensive. The Market isn't' a solution for everything as it does have failure conditions and if a particular industry defaults to these conditions then you not have a free market and thus market is not a good choice.
About terrorism, I'm not imagining anything: the media talk of dirty nuclear bombs are, so ask them.
The media is authoritative sorce on something aside from hair, make up, and grammar? The media imagines a lot of things that aren't true. You could pack a dirty bomb with uranium/plutonium an it'd be as dangerous as packing it with arsenic or finely powdered lead.
My main argument against nuclear power is financial, the costs of waste disposal, security and decommissioning are not fully known, and every study into the UKs current nuclear cleanup bill pushes that cost higher. I'm also not 100% convinced by the safety issue, given the huge possible down side of a Chernobyl style accident occurring. (agreed that this is unlikely, but exactly how unlikely? we should always guard against the worst case.)
The main issue surrounding nuclear power isn't the technology itself but the politics surrounding it. Chernobyl was a incident that exemplified what can happen if you have multiple people make the worst possible decisions. The design itself was also flawed but it took a chain of command with people at each stage making the worst possible decision to get the accident to happen. Modern design now account for gross stupidity and even older designs that were peers of the Chernobyl design were safer. Accidental coolant venting is an issue with things like the three mile island reactor but the Chernobyl incident could have happened with a standard power plant too. As the explosion was super heated gases/steam and not nuclear itself. The radiated debris it kicked up made it worse but you can have a similar explosion at any other power plant minus the radiated material.
Much of the draw backs is the corruption that goes into selecting builders, disposal, maintenance etc... Nuclear isn't cheaper then other technologies if you factor everything but it is the only alternative once other sources run out. It does shift pollution from one a less controllable source to a more concentrated form. Done well it produces very little material. It's the plutonium boogey man that pushes politics to go half assed on the use of the material and only half using up the fuel.
They CAN spew radioactive material all over as with Chernobyl, but that was a very different and flawed design.
Not as flawed as most thing. Intentional human error had as much to do with it. The management there overrode almost every safeguard designed it not he system. It was beyond incompetence. The moderns designs now take into account willful and immense stupidity. A modern pebble bed reactor is less prone to be destroyed by a bout of incompetence.
For some values of 'deal with' maybe. Bury it underground, and hope for the best. That's not a sustainable plan.
If the energy department revised it's goals and fully processed nuclear fuel then it wouldn't be an issue. By the time it's done the byproducts is as slightly dangerous as lead or mercury. However such reactors could also breed weapons grade material (so I'm led to believe) so they half use the material and dump the still radioactive waste.
The mass market "music" (if one can call it that) which is being produced by the record labels these days is so unoriginal, bad, and generally lacking in talent that it really doesn't matter how high quality the recording of crap is, crap is crap at any bitrate, one cannot polish a turd after all.
It's not just these days. It's actually for all of recorded history. Don't lament the good old days. There was significant volumes of crap back then too.
The ratio may fluctuate but it's pure nostalgia that compels people to believe it was all gold back then and shit now.
Examples of modern Talented individuals:
Daft Punk, Kanye West, Gwen Stefani, NIN / Trent Reznor, Timbaland, The rascals, Kaos, Beck,
many many more. They put out music that will likely endure at a ratio of gold:crap similar if not exactly the same as any other time period.
A compact disc bought at retail is guaranteed to have equal or better quality than any pirated digital copy.
It also won't have "[di5tribut3d by l33tgr00p]" crammed into every goddamn ID3 tag, as pirate files often do.
Except for some NIN tracks. As he made high quality raw track available. I guess if you remixed it exactly the same as the album it's still a derivative work so it's not a pirate copy.
However (and I am repeating myself here) the right to object to (not censor) material that one finds offensive is very much part of free speech, and I will not apologize for objecting.
You certainly have that right. In fact deleting it wouldn't have really crossed into censorship either. As he had the right to say it and the government didn't intervene and imprison him or to forcefully attempt to stop him.
Slashdot Mirror
Saddam was indeed a fascist Murderer. However the Islamic revolution was a populist one. It wasn't a story of a small group of zealots seizing a country against it's will but rather a country of zealots who kicked out a monarchy and installed a theocracy. Murderer isn't a good tag for that as the revolution wasn't that violent. Iran ideology is very dangerous but don't believe the PR. If the Us invades Iran it'll find ~70 million hostile zealots on it's hands. Real allies? that region is led by snakes and murderers. They aren't' even real allies to each other let alone a universally despised Imperialist power. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt have more direct links to 911 then Iraq. Remember the guys who flew the plans were all from those 3 nations. Those 3 nations are the closest thing to a US ally in the region aside from Israel. It might have damaged 2 of Israels enemies but Israel itself has a very fickle alliance withe the Us that mostly goes 1 way.
PS. I'm not a "Zionist conspiracy" nut, but can Israel hasn't gone out of it's way to help it's primary benefactor.
apologizes. The AC was me. If you had some references I always enjoy reading more about history. I click AC by accident. I wanted "no karma bonus".
Iraq vs Iran was a military aggression initiated by Iraq with the blessing and funding of the Americans. America didn't need to take one side or the other. This wasn't an intellectual "well if I had to choose I'd pick Iraq." it was a "well I hear you don't like your neighbors. Did you know they called your father a pig fucker? yes I know.. well let me tell you what I'll do for you. I have these tanks..."
It was 1 of 3 choices. Do nothing, Back a murderer, back a zealot. They chose to back the murderer. Not only back him but to encourage and fund his war.
We rebuilt a whole bunch of infrastructure that we damaged during the invasion. Then it got blown up. By Iraqis. I was totally against the Iraq war, but the reason it's in shambles right now is because there are many, many Iraqis who are perfectly willing to kill their neighbors and put their country in flames than see their religious opponents exercise their democratic majority power or exercise basic personal freedoms. If you want to blame the USA for that, go ahead and do so. But be honest and admit that what America really did by removing Saddam was free Iraqis to show the world their theocratic totalitarianism and their pure hatred they have for each other.
Iraq wasn't a theocratic totalitarian regime. It was a secular military dictatorship. Your confusing Iraq with Iran and the Us was partly responsible for placing the current theocracy in Iran as well. Iraq was deeply divided along religious and ethnic lines for a long time. Ironically Saddams sadism kept the various factions form killing each other. There was a very common belief in non-Us nations that civil war would occur once Saddam was gone. It was partly why the Sr. Bush didn't invade after desert storm. He couldn't see a good chance at a positive outcome.
Part of the problem is Bush removed too few troops so once they disposed the republican guard they also removed the rule of law. Leading to the chaos we see. Instead of fearing Saddams troops they now fear Saddams former troops, bandits, each other, the American soldiers.
One the truly puzzling things about most Chinese that I meet is there bottomless capacity to defend the snake of a government they have - even the ones that have already immigrated away. I find that the upper-middle class tends to be the worst - the ridiculously rich are too educated to fall for the government's lies, while the poorest suffer too much to believe anything the government says. It's the people who fall down the middle that actually believe the things the government teaches them.
I've known many Chinese who admit their government's deficiencies, and admit that officials are almost always corrupt and self-serving. But for some reason they still declare their allegiance to the government, claiming that as a Chinese by blood they cannot possibly turn away from the Chinese government. This puzzles me greatly, since I've long ago refused to consider myself a supporter of anything BUT a Western democracy - if the government is shooting your kind by the hundreds, is corrupt, etc etc, what kind of loyalty do you owe to them? It seems very ego-driven, and amounts to stubborn refusal to admit that perhaps the West has a better sociopolitical system.
In a sick way, it's like Stockholm syndrome... a whole race of people who are culturally conditioned to remain loyal to their government, despite the innumerable atrocities that are committed against them in front of their own eyes.
As another side note... it's depressing the "history" they learn in their schools...
It's not just a Chinese thing. Everybody will carry some portion of the place they grew up with them. It's part of who they are and they are part of that too. So when you attack someones homeland it's partially an attack on them (or so they perceive). Unless the party that is being attacked hurt them directly they will usually try to defend or justify it.
It's not just countries but any affiliation. The foaming at the mouth republicans and democrats who defend their side against all logic. The Reform, NDP, Bloc, Liberal supporters here in Canada who will rationalize everything about their party. It's not the nature of just Chinese people. It's people as a whole will defend what ever they have some investment in. China does horrible things but the odds of you getting caught up in one of those things are small. Just as Canada and the US have done some pretty bad things but by and large most people been a part of that. Forced sterilization, internment camps, gitmo, Arar, Chinese head tax, residential schools, successful native American genocide, etc.. The difference is after the fact we can talk about it while in china talking about it too publically will often get you in toruble.
Thus Chinese aren't unique in lamenting that they don't really have a democracy but will say it isn't that bad. Which for a large majority of Chinese is true. The current Gov is better then any china has ever had. But the bar isn't as high as the West.
As a side note... From my experience, more Americans know about these atrocities than Chinese. It's depressing, really. It's also depressing the number of new Chinese immigrants who are totally blown away by Canada's democratic government, since they thought (or were taught) that they had democracy all along.
Depends on where your from, my relatives in Xin Hua and Guangzhou are acutely aware of the deficiencies with their government. They are aware of the bad things that go on but persist to live a quiet live to avoid that trouble. But they're in a different socio economic class then the rest of China. They're owners of factories, doctors, accountants, the upper middle class of china. Their proximity to HK might be part of it too.
They have had brushes with some of it. My uncle was offered a promotion to Dean of one of the medical schools in the region. He had been a professor for a long time and was about to retire. He smelled a fish and took early retirement instead. Turns out they were attempting to find a scape goat for some embezzlement that happened. The person they did promote was arrested for embezzlement.
I am sure my shoes are made from the finest Falun Gong hides
I am from canada, I have never had a positive non creepy encounter with a Falun Gong practitioner. China is severely over stepping the bounds of what is right or just but I get the same vibe from Falun Gong people that I do from Scientology's. A sort of creepy vibe, sort of like the person in front of me is just a shell of a real human being.
In America, you can have a website and a donate money to form an organization saying "Bush sucks". In China, if you did that, you would wind up in jail.
But you stand up in a public Q&A and do the yell the same stuff and act like an obnoxious prick you get tasered.
Sure because every degree above absolute zero is same the temperature.
Think what you will of America and it's policies. But to even compare it with China is absurd in that regard. American government has, for the majority of the time, been a boon to the world as a whole. Yes, there are conflicts where wonderful leaders like Saddam are overthrown and it makes people unhappy. And no, I'm not justifying Iraq with that sarcastic statement. But I am pointing out that no matter what side of the fence you're on, Iraq was an issue that should have been delt with. It wasn't Atlantis being invaded. American foreign policy is enormous. The most influential country in the world. While it easy to find examples of harm in there, there is more good then harm in the case of American foreign policy. Where as my biggest gripe with China is how the entire world stands by and let's a country like that into open markets so easily considering how disgraceful that country's government is.
You do realize for a long time the US backed Saddam directly? America is good to it's people. Less so then most western powers but more so then the third world or the former warsaw pact countries. However it backs the worst allies. So if the submitters problem was with china and Myanmar then he really should boycott the US for Iraq, egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, much of Africa and much of South America.
America aims only to look out for it's own economic interests which is what all countries do. But if you want to point figures at who causes the most human suffering you really have to point it back at the US. They fund more human misery then almost anyone besides the former British empire.
The worst part about the US going into Iraq is the entire world should have gone. Leaders like Saddam who routinely kill their own people en masse should not be allowed. While everyone was busy living in their free little NA or Europe, few seemed to care what was actually happening in Iraq. Until the US went in there.
No, I don't buy the reasons given to us all as to why the US went in. But Saddam was a threat. To the world, to the region, and to his own people. He was a disgrace. The type of leader that the world shouldn't tolerate. So forgive me for not weeping that some shoddy reasoning (and who really knows the true purpose) was used to go in there.
You invaded a fairly stable dictatorship and destroyed almost all of the infrastructure over 15 years, then remove the government and promoted civil war. It was bad under Saddam it's worse under the US. Unlike Japan or Germany there isn't multi billions pouring in to rebuild the infrastructure, we have multi-billion pouring in just to try to maintain order and supply your troops there. There wasn't a good reason to go in and that is why few countries did. Unlike Serbia or Rwanda there was no hope of making the situation better.
You remember whose payroll Saddam was on in the 70's and 80's? Remember who was training and supplying Osama? Saddam is the type of leader The US promotes. It's asinine for you to say much about it. It's a bigger disgrace that your knowledge of history or world politics seems to come directly from fox news. Any an all action by Saddam were indrectly sanctioned by their main backer the US. So if the submitter has a problem with Chinese products because they backed the oppressive myanmar government then he should also boycott US products due to us backing Saddam and various other tyrannical dictators.
"I'd be more incline to be pro-life if they'd show an inclination to support the people who seek abortions but many of the pro-life camp aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve." This is simply wrong. The pro-life movement is intimately connected with crisis pregnancy centers and charities. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard someone at an abortion mill talking about "sex in a fashion they don't approve." You're much more likely to hear offers of help and alternatives. Which is good, since many women who get abortions don't really want them; but feel trapped by financial situations, "boyfriends," worry about family's reaction, etc. Have you ever seen what goes on in the pro-life movement or do you just assume we "aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve?" Because I don't think you could be much more wrong.
It does vary by organization. My church was part of a pro-life collation and it wasn't because they thought mothers needed help to make the right decision. IT was a agenda to remove one factor in enabling pre-marital sex. I have left that church.
I see this arguement constantly, "we can't legislate against it because it will force people into "back alley abortions".
WAKE UP PEOPLE in what alternate reality do you base laws on what people "are going to do anyway"? I mean by that logic we should get rid of all of the laws against normal murder, because hey, since we can't just walk people into a "deathspital" and have them killed, we have to go and do it in an alley. That's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.
Or, lets see, people are going to steal stuff, but since it's against the law they actually have to break in and steal it, and sometimes they, or the people they are stealing from get hurt. Lets just make stealing legal, that way people can just go someplace and say "I'm stealing this" and be given it, and no one gets hurt.
That argument just doesn't make sense.
It's one of several arguments. There are often such "pragmatic" laws. The key is often "harm to another" angle. For instance fair use is somewhat relates. It is the issues of economic harm to the producer of some content vs the rights of a end user to modify or use the content. So it is a consideration. The conflict of the control of ones body vs the right to life of a unborn child is one thats pretty cut and dry. One side is death the other 9 mo of inconvenience and a dramatic change in a person life. I wouldn't hang my entire opinion on the subject on it. As I do believe the kids right to life ought trump the mothers right not to have to deal with it. However it contribute to my opinion as it's a consequence of banning abortion.
The problem is Flamebait often coincides with a valid or interesting point. Controversial posts shouldn't be buried simply because they are controversial. A post that conveys a side of an issues may still contain content of value.
ahh the partisan modding continues...
People with mod points, please mod parent up in any fashion you think fits.
I hope a pro-life group starts a text msging service to compete with the pro-death one.
Hrt beats @ 22 days after conception.
Happy u werent aborted? Most ppl r. Yur pro-life.
pro-Choice is about leaving it up to people concerned. pro-Life is a wish to return to the back alley abortions days. Each side has every right to start a messaging service and spread their opinions and views.
I'd be more incline to be pro-life if they'd show an inclination to support the people who seek abortions but many of the pro-life camp aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve. I think abortion is wrong but is a pragmatic work around to the things that were happening before. Being young implies being foolish and though you may frown on sex before marriage it's a consequence of the set up of our society. If our society accepted that at about 14 the hormonal urges makes abstinence a interesting fantasy and was more accepting and supportive if those who do end up pregnant I would agree abortion ought not be allowed. But our society is inconsistent with our biology and with what a mother needs to raise a child without the sanction of family and community. This forces many young mothers into desperate straights. Thus they risk their lives with shady practitioners. They act in despair and alienation. Having known several young unwed mothers it's a lot of struggle. Fortunately these women had the support of a social network that did not ostracize them. They brought a new life into the world and were happier for it. But they'd still get dirty looks from the same busy bodies that fall within the pro-life camp.
A key abortion "prevention" tool is knowledge about sex and biology. Which many within the pro-life camp feel is wrong too. There is such an enormous over lap between the pro-life camp and the anti-sex camp. If you really want to fight abortion you'll support good sex education, the distributions of prophylactics to teens, support programs for single mothers, and the acceptance of young mothers.
Society has pushed the age of "legitimate" sex up to a point where it is not reasonable for a person to weight 1/2 of their reproductive life to have sex. At the moment the average age to get married is very high. It's hovering around 30-35 before a couple has enough wealth or desire to engage in marriage. The urge to have sex starts about 15 years before that. Now if your not in the anti-sex camp and are pro-life I can agree that abortions is not a good solution. But until we revise some key problems within our society it must be a tolerated evil as it's better then the evil that existed before.
he Canada Revenue Agency is doing its job (this concept may be unfamiliar to Americans when relating to governmental agencies)
You know what they say, the most efficient part of any government is the department that takes your money. The CRA is run less aggressively then the IRS so it's not as confrontational.
The best option then is for government to stop trying to "pick winners" and subsidise them to success. That's a socialist command and control way of thinking and leads to decades of heading in the wrong direction.
Simply allow the power generators to choose their preferred technologies. The most economically viable solutions will be popular, the unviable ones will fade away. If nuclear is viable it'll get rolled out. if not, it won't.
the Market is great for somethings. It is not for others. Some industries are so integral but so immensely capital intensive that only very few entities could establish them. If you leave it up to the market you get default monopolies in those industries because to create a competitor is immensely expensive. The Market isn't' a solution for everything as it does have failure conditions and if a particular industry defaults to these conditions then you not have a free market and thus market is not a good choice.
About terrorism, I'm not imagining anything: the media talk of dirty nuclear bombs are, so ask them.
The media is authoritative sorce on something aside from hair, make up, and grammar? The media imagines a lot of things that aren't true. You could pack a dirty bomb with uranium/plutonium an it'd be as dangerous as packing it with arsenic or finely powdered lead.
My main argument against nuclear power is financial, the costs of waste disposal, security and decommissioning are not fully known, and every study into the UKs current nuclear cleanup bill pushes that cost higher. I'm also not 100% convinced by the safety issue, given the huge possible down side of a Chernobyl style accident occurring. (agreed that this is unlikely, but exactly how unlikely? we should always guard against the worst case.)
The main issue surrounding nuclear power isn't the technology itself but the politics surrounding it. Chernobyl was a incident that exemplified what can happen if you have multiple people make the worst possible decisions. The design itself was also flawed but it took a chain of command with people at each stage making the worst possible decision to get the accident to happen. Modern design now account for gross stupidity and even older designs that were peers of the Chernobyl design were safer. Accidental coolant venting is an issue with things like the three mile island reactor but the Chernobyl incident could have happened with a standard power plant too. As the explosion was super heated gases/steam and not nuclear itself. The radiated debris it kicked up made it worse but you can have a similar explosion at any other power plant minus the radiated material.
Much of the draw backs is the corruption that goes into selecting builders, disposal, maintenance etc... Nuclear isn't cheaper then other technologies if you factor everything but it is the only alternative once other sources run out. It does shift pollution from one a less controllable source to a more concentrated form. Done well it produces very little material. It's the plutonium boogey man that pushes politics to go half assed on the use of the material and only half using up the fuel.
They CAN spew radioactive material all over as with Chernobyl, but that was a very different and flawed design.
Not as flawed as most thing. Intentional human error had as much to do with it. The management there overrode almost every safeguard designed it not he system. It was beyond incompetence. The moderns designs now take into account willful and immense stupidity. A modern pebble bed reactor is less prone to be destroyed by a bout of incompetence.
For some values of 'deal with' maybe. Bury it underground, and hope for the best. That's not a sustainable plan.
If the energy department revised it's goals and fully processed nuclear fuel then it wouldn't be an issue. By the time it's done the byproducts is as slightly dangerous as lead or mercury. However such reactors could also breed weapons grade material (so I'm led to believe) so they half use the material and dump the still radioactive waste.
The mass market "music" (if one can call it that) which is being produced by the record labels these days is so unoriginal, bad, and generally lacking in talent that it really doesn't matter how high quality the recording of crap is, crap is crap at any bitrate, one cannot polish a turd after all.
It's not just these days. It's actually for all of recorded history. Don't lament the good old days. There was significant volumes of crap back then too.
The ratio may fluctuate but it's pure nostalgia that compels people to believe it was all gold back then and shit now.
Examples of modern Talented individuals:
Daft Punk,
Kanye West,
Gwen Stefani,
NIN / Trent Reznor,
Timbaland,
The rascals,
Kaos,
Beck,
many many more. They put out music that will likely endure at a ratio of gold:crap similar if not exactly the same as any other time period.
A compact disc bought at retail is guaranteed to have equal or better quality than any pirated digital copy.
It also won't have "[di5tribut3d by l33tgr00p]" crammed into every goddamn ID3 tag, as pirate files often do.
Except for some NIN tracks. As he made high quality raw track available. I guess if you remixed it exactly the same as the album it's still a derivative work so it's not a pirate copy.
However (and I am repeating myself here) the right to object to (not censor) material that one finds offensive is very much part of free speech, and I will not apologize for objecting.
You certainly have that right. In fact deleting it wouldn't have really crossed into censorship either. As he had the right to say it and the government didn't intervene and imprison him or to forcefully attempt to stop him.