TheBigOne

Israel has all rights to defend it self and attack the hamas in gaza , but they aren't doing themselves a favour by pissing of the Red Cross and not caring about civilian losses or at least really pretend to care about civilian losses. They will have a few months rest after the attack and then it will start again, like it did dozen times before. The Problem is that any military action which would minimize civilian losses would increase the short-time losses on side of the israel army

Strategy : Master of Orion I and II and Homeworld Cataclysm (didn't like Homeworld 2 too much) Flightsimulators : Wing Commander 1 and Tiefighter with the 2 mission packs. Privateer 1 and 2 are pretty good too, if you want to take a look at a bit more modern games there is also Starlancer and Freespace2.

don't get me wrong I, wouldn't like to live their either - I just find the argumentation "USA elected a 'socialist', now it will fall down and a(nother) socialist country will become new superpower" a bit strange. And that it works great is not really true either, 10% growth is impressive , but you shouldn't forget that its 10% of a very low level.

skyrocketed is the wrong term I think, 10 to 15% annual growth is nothing too spectacular for a 3rd world country. They were smart enough to improve their educational system in the recent years a lot but it will take 30 to 50 years before that pays of on a large scale and there is only so far you can get without a high skilled population, even with abundant resources and shamelessly infringing patent laws and copyright. Even in absolute numbers it doesn't look so impressive they got a

[quote who="Moderateman" reply="5" id="2013138"]Dr Guycomment 1Rahm Emmanuel said it. They are using this recession (it is not a crises - yet) to bring back the New Deal. Which was a bust. But then we wont have a war (hopefully) to get us out of this one.' When {not if} Obama goes socialist this country will become a second rate power much like France and England, the next real superpower will be China, then look out world! [/quote] ironically china i

its more likely because the Hamas relies on Allah to win the war and Isreal relies on a modern army.

china surely considers climate change a threat as well because of Al Gore and Robert Redford...

[quote]Yes, in Economics they are called Type I and Type II errors. Basically, doing nothing is a type I error. Doing something that is wrong is a Type II error and much more severe.[/quote] "in economics"? thats a very narrow view, its basic statistics and is used everywhere. It also always depends on the context if a Type I error is worse or better than a Type II error; saying that one is more severe than another is false. Given that the null hypothesis can be made either

[quote]I'm all for no tourture... as soon as our enemies agree to stop as well. But the simple truth is when your men and women are falling on the battlefield (or as civilians) you will do anything in your power to keep it happening to more of them.[/quote] you do see the problem that the can make the exactly same point about torture then? "Why should we stop torturing when the USA does?" "How can you say its bad to torture when your allies torture as well"? Surely you

[quote]burden of proof[/quote] there is no thing as a proof in sciences (except for formal sciences like mathematics and logic), you can only proof that something is wrong, but never that something is right.

[quote]Unless the 'rough idea' is wrong. Making decisions that impact us on such a massive scale on the basis of a 50/50 proposition is pretty dicey, at least in my opinion.[/quote] thats true for both directions though, taking no action is just as much a decision based on luck as taking action then (that is from your standpoint that all the studies which indicate the probability of a manmade influence are not even slightly better than a cointoss.) If you argue this way why i

I won't deny minorities are overrepresented in that crimes, but even if you exclude them it is way above those of other industrialized countries, so taking that as explanation is a bit cheap (and won't solve the problem either) as it doesn't explain why the murder rate of non-hispanic whites (3 per 100.000) is two to three times higher than in other industrialized countries. I am not saying that would go down with stricter gun control, the world would be a better place if it was so easy to ju

I can understand when people need weapons to feel safe but this "guns are needed to claim civil rights against government" is a bit strange considering two of the most successful revolutions of the 20th century had been accomplished by being peaceful: India and eastern Germany. People chanted "no violence" and it worked; I don't even want to imagine what the Communist Parties of Russia and Eastern Germany had done if there had been 70000 gun-wielding demonstrants on 9th october 1989 in

militias and people in selfdefense have those rights as well if they are defending their own country.

I would appreciate if you link to statistics about murders/severe injuries during burglary by class/income for the USA and UK. George Harrison was attacked by a psychopath not a "normal burglar", and no free society can do anything against psychopaths, I mean maybe he would have shot him but it wouldn't have prevented the psychopath from trying. gun control usually doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to carry guns in most europe countries just that they have to pass some t

Isn't it more fault of GM that they let have UAW such a big and negative impact? I mean saying that its fault of a union or even unions in general is a bit of a weak argument if you look at Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW or even Renault, Citroen and Peugeot. Most of their workers are in unions and there are even works councils. (speaking about "socialist" europe here where corporations also have to pay for pensions and health care and all that stuff and are incredibly high taxed) <

[quote]Um, no. Citizens. NOt POWs or ECs. The Geneva specifically addresses the first (and forbids it) and the latter is taken care of in that document as well (as in NO rights, other than any the host country deems to give them). [/quote] I wonder why the third geneva convention exists if POW have no rights. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu

it was english, stop trying to make a fool of me: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp (and don't try to seriously tell me you don't know the english bill of rights of 1689 which heavily influenced most modern constitutions) Could you please give some examples why UK was a feudal society in the 19th c

I really would like to see what happens if the Queen decides to remove the sovereignty from the parliament :-) real sovereignty means factual power not being in possession of some theoretical power. "The fact that she happened to decide that her sovreignty is parliamentary" parliament gets elected by the people so they are the de-facto in possession of this sovereignty not the queen (she has one vote&nbsp

Leauki, how much power has the queen and how much power have the citizen via their representation by parliament? (I admit that this might be a bit of a pragmatic definition of sovereignty but a sovereign monarch is a absolut one, not one who is just monarch because of tradition) And I never said the citizen are "The Sovereign" just that they possess

Leauki, Sovereignty is usually defined by having the legislative and executive power (or at least most of it) and while the queen has to sign laws she has no real legislative and executive power at all. The Sovereign in UK is all their citizen which are represented by their parliament. superamus = above anything/everyone Maybe anglo-saxon definitions are a bit different from what we consider sovere

[quote]1800 = 19th centure[/quote] I don't see who used it wrong honestly.

[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="7" id="1933661"]UK is still a monarchy. If you want to compare 21st century UK with 19th century Uk (which BTW had slavery) [/quote] Slave Trade was abolished 1807 and Slavery completely abolished 1833, while it is not completely wrong what you said as this was in the 19th century, Marx was 15 years old in 1833. I am not argueing that Marx wasn't influenced by the late-feudal countries in Europe, but England definitely wasn't feud

just because she is called "Sovereign" doesn't mean she is in possesion of the sovereignty. Someone who is Emperor by By the Grace of God very likely wasn't really appointed by God either. Sure she is formal the head of the state she has no large legislative or executive force (okay she can dissolve the parliament but you know very well that this would be the end of the british monarchy&n

[quote]You noticed I said socialism and feudalims (or you can say Monarchism). About all he did know was a class system based upon royalty and position in society. SOmething the US (with the exception of some self apointed snobs) has never had.[/quote] UK is still a monarchy. Since 1689 the sovereignty lies into the hands of the parliament so when you call the England of the 19th century a feudal state it sti