Terrorists attack people to create fear to promote their agenda, the United States attacks people for access to natural resources. Get it right dumbass.
The funny thing is that many banks (the huge ones mainly) are in fact allowed, by their respective central banks, to "invent" money out of nowhere.
I find that extremeley unplausible. Got any source on that?
What you did say is:
If the US and/or Russia did not become involved the *best* outcome for Europe is England suing for piece, and Vici France pretending to be a real nation.
And that's just a useless premise (to think Russia could *not* be involved), since WWII can't be imagined without Hitler going for Russia: that's what all of it was about. France and England just got in Hitler's way he invaded Poland.
6 months of phoney war later, Hitler having to secure his back before going east, he attacked Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France, tied it all very tightly, and aimed USSR again. He finally headed east, several months later than he would've preferred, because of the delay fighting in western europe.
Most americans and western europeans always like to think they're the center of the universe. In this case, they
like to think Hitler's plan what all about conquering France and England. Which doesn't make any sense.
Hitler always aimed to the East. Russia was his primary target, and that's where he put most of his resources and war efforts. Just compare the SIZE of the war in both fronts, and you'll realize it yourself. Yeah, I know Hollywood films tells you otherwise, but hey, you can do better than that to learn history, right?
That said, it's also fair to remember also that US involvement in the war began much before "D day", with money, supplies and kind of help to UK and Russia. But to think that US/UK/Canada/etc DECIDED the war by winning the western front, is to be EXTREMELY naive.
That's ridiculous! It's obviously not a "Right" if the government can throw you in prison for exercising it!
Ehm... it's called responsibility. That's how freedom works.
Well, guns are not allowed in any major university or school of ANY "civilized" country I know, and yet, this kind of happy shooting incidents only seem to happen in the USA.
There must be something causing these incidents... and everyone NOT having guns doesn't seem a logical answer.
People seem to take the romantic "american hero" role Hollywood have always talked about when "americans" are involved anywhere in the world, as something real, that has to be enforced.
We would all love to see there is democracy, civil libertirs and free speech in India, but it's up to the Indians to do it, not Google.
since iran has signed the treaty, and didn't have nukes at the time, they are not allowed to get/research them.
They do have, though, the right to research and develop nuclear technology for civilian uses. USA won't accept that.
And if someone accuses Iran of doing militar nuclear R&D, he has to prove it, and not the other way around.
To the radical fringe, the destruction of Israel IS "winning"
It's a common idea -and a really pedantic one- to think that Iran is full of nuts who want nothing more than destroy Israel or die trying it. Actually, the western powers try to make us think that all muslims are like that.
That's ridiculous. They are people, just like you and me, and they want to live their live without being bothered. Iran possesing nuclear weapons as synonim for APOCALLIPSE is nothing more than US-Israel propaganda. Iran knows that only by being powerful they won't be attacked by US or Israel, so there they are, in the pursuit of power.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is... you don't NEED an iPhone. If you think you do, then you a have a problem.
Is the wii/iphone supply not enough to meet demand? Well too bad, lost sale for them, and move on with your life, right?
And Isr...
Oooh I see. Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons.
Well, that sounds like an agenda to me...
(I know, i know, he was being sarcastic, but wtf)
Bill?!? is that you??
Google?
I find that extremeley unplausible. Got any source on that?
What you did say is:
If the US and/or Russia did not become involved the *best* outcome for Europe is England suing for piece, and Vici France pretending to be a real nation.
And that's just a useless premise (to think Russia could *not* be involved), since WWII can't be imagined without Hitler going for Russia: that's what all of it was about. France and England just got in Hitler's way he invaded Poland.
6 months of phoney war later, Hitler having to secure his back before going east, he attacked Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France, tied it all very tightly, and aimed USSR again. He finally headed east, several months later than he would've preferred, because of the delay fighting in western europe.
Most americans and western europeans always like to think they're the center of the universe. In this case, they like to think Hitler's plan what all about conquering France and England. Which doesn't make any sense.
Hitler always aimed to the East. Russia was his primary target, and that's where he put most of his resources and war efforts. Just compare the SIZE of the war in both fronts, and you'll realize it yourself. Yeah, I know Hollywood films tells you otherwise, but hey, you can do better than that to learn history, right?
That said, it's also fair to remember also that US involvement in the war began much before "D day", with money, supplies and kind of help to UK and Russia. But to think that US/UK/Canada/etc DECIDED the war by winning the western front, is to be EXTREMELY naive.
Because the (usamerican) citizens deserve it, maybe.
After all, they could elect some other "representatives", right? And yet, they don't.
Ehm... I think GP was trying to be sarcastic...
Ehm... it's called responsibility. That's how freedom works.
Well, guns are not allowed in any major university or school of ANY "civilized" country I know, and yet, this kind of happy shooting incidents only seem to happen in the USA.
There must be something causing these incidents... and everyone NOT having guns doesn't seem a logical answer.
People seem to take the romantic "american hero" role Hollywood have always talked about when "americans" are involved anywhere in the world, as something real, that has to be enforced.
We would all love to see there is democracy, civil libertirs and free speech in India, but it's up to the Indians to do it, not Google.
USA can't conquer the world. It can though destroy it.
How can you wreck your phone with a JAVA application?
They do have, though, the right to research and develop nuclear technology for civilian uses. USA won't accept that.
And if someone accuses Iran of doing militar nuclear R&D, he has to prove it, and not the other way around.
It's a common idea -and a really pedantic one- to think that Iran is full of nuts who want nothing more than destroy Israel or die trying it. Actually, the western powers try to make us think that all muslims are like that.
That's ridiculous. They are people, just like you and me, and they want to live their live without being bothered.
Iran possesing nuclear weapons as synonim for APOCALLIPSE is nothing more than US-Israel propaganda. Iran knows that only by being powerful they won't be attacked by US or Israel, so there they are, in the pursuit of power.
Yeah, he was born in connecticut, but he was produced in Texas
That's interesting. Maybe we can collect the Big Mac prices all over the world and use it as indication of the cost of life in different countries!
We could call it "The Big Burger Index" or something like that. Man, I have to patent this...
Yes, it will.
You say what you wish to happen. But come on, you know how it's gonna be.
"Most board members are chosen by the CEO"
I sorry, what? AFAEK, the Board hires a CEO to run the company. Members of the board themselves are elected by the general meeting of shareholders.