Welcome to the board, can’t help you on the drawings though.
Well the Gripen is a great low cost jet but Sweden is somewhat against Morocco’s W. Sahara policy so we won’t get them.
Everybody is against the policy of the Western Sahara, somewhat the same policy that the Israellis do against the Palistinians. But lesser know to the world. But what strikes me most is that you call it “we” and not they.
I thought Marrocco was in for the K-8.
Well Moroccan AF needs some good replacement for their F-1s and F-5s because they are pretty obselete against those Mig-29s of Algeria. Even with their best upgrades they can still not match Mig-29Ms of that Algeria will be getting nor can they even match the early Mig-29s.
Yes, what does this forum think, are the Moroccans going to choose for the French or the American product? I mean I think if the Moroccan AF is going to seek for a successor to the F-5 Tiger II and the Mirage F1 they will opt for a single fighter. My thought goes to the F-16 (naturellement) but they might still go for a French fighter, or will they go economical and get the Griphen instead. Never the less an interesting Air force. All things considered I think they might be the best served with the JAS-39. Good all round fighter for the minimum of cost.
I thought the first A380 wasn’t due untill sometime next year.
I haven’t been able to log on for a couple of days, anybody having the same problem??????
Strange I have had no problems, it is working fine.
What does this orange flag look like? I’ve always only been familiar with the one Dutchy has in his avatar. I always wondered why the soccer uniforms were orange.
Here is the royal standard:

and the coad of arms of The Kingdom of the Netherlands:

And all you ever wanted to know and more about the Dutch Royal Family:
Law? It’s just a matter of constitutions, which is important for everyone, even if you don’t study law. However, you don’t want me to defend in you in court as a lawyer. π ‘ll just stick to teaching a bunch of uninterrested nose-picking scholars the essence of history
To add one more thing on the capitals. In 1810 when Napoleon conquered the Netherland (which was just a formal action as the king was his brother), he made Amsterdam the second capital of his empire, and Rome the third.
Why the title “Landsadvocaat” then? Surely Belgium doesn’t need to be defended on this forum π
What can a tanker do if it gets attacked? How can refeulling fighters help? If they can cuz they are probably low on fuel……. :confused:
If a tanker is atteck everything else has failed. Tankers generally don’t operate in danger zones. If everything has failed they should run!
Airplanes stop whining when you shut the engines off
Women will do so eventually, the difference is with an airplane you can bring her back to life again.
Well Jeroen, I think the Dutch sentiment towards Europe has to do with the fact that the Republic was very much related to the new trading system. The reason why the Republic survived was due economic reasons, so that explains probably why the Republic rather cooperated than fighted with the other major European superpowers, 3 wars with England which it provoked itself being the exeption.
However, Flags, national anthems etc. you have to be careful with. These are 19th century ‘Romantic’ inventions to promote nationalism. Belgium had The Guldensporenslag, the new kingdom of the Netherlands the Batavian myth. So the national symbols are not very historical anyway, they are more a product of 19th century invented traditions. And it changes all the time. During nazi-occupation, the Germans tried to bring the Flemish and the Dutch together by bringing back the topic of a “Groot-Nederland.” History can be used as a political tool as well. In the early days of the Belgian kingdom, historians didn’t even mention the fact that north and south were once very close.
The official name of YOUR country now is not “Nederland” but “Koninkrijk der Nederlanden”, in plural. When north and south were brought together again in 1815 it was called “Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden/The United Kingdom”. And while we are busy: your queen is “koningin der nederlanden”, our king is “koning der Belgen.” What’s the difference? Well, our king is – how strange it may sound – only chosen by the will of the people. Theoretically, the people should just inform the king with a note “get lost” so he could look after another job π In the Netherlands, the queen is constitutionally a lot more powerful.
On the language issue I can tell you one thing: different language doesn’t mean a different culture. As much as I like the Netherlands, apart from the language, Flemish and Walloons have really more in common. The Dutch spoken in Belgium today is actually the language used in Antwerp, a bit like Holland became the cultural frontrunner in the Netherlands. So there do exist Belgians, and not only Flemish and Walloons. In fact, being Belgian is less artificial than the other two, because it has been united 250 years before its formal independence in 1830. Regionalism is not bad, but not in it’s current form which is related to extreme right.
One last remark. South Africa has actually 4 capitals. Parliament in Capetown, Gov’t in Pretoria, Supreme Court in Bloemfontein (?) and the national bank, thus economic centre, in Jo’burg. And ofcourse another example of dividing powers between multiple cities is the EU: Brussels, Frankfurt, Luxemburg, Straatsburg and a national capital.
On a side note, when did you take up law, Ben?
BTW Ben , where is this Orange colour coming from?
Is it from the Orange House dynasty?
Yes Allan, the monarchy is the House of Orange, and our Queen is still princess of Orange-Nassau. And Orange is a town in France. So that would make every Dutchman an European minded person, I mean we wave a flag which reminds us of a Dutch Town, in our national anthem we honour the king off Spain and say we are from German origin. Strange people whom occupy this small piece of land which is called The Kingdom of the Netherlands.
As a history major you could answer this question Ben, I always thought that in the time that our two lovely countries were still one it was called “De Nederlanden” instead of nowadays Nederland. I like the Flemish dialect a lot, I think it is more pure then the Dutch language, which was the dialect in Holland btw before it became the official language.
Another strange fact about Holland is that the capital and the place of government aren’t the same, Amsterdam and The Hague respectively. Don’t know of any other country who has that, but there must be more.
Essentially, yes. Although the group doesn’t necessarily have to pressure an individual. Individuals are usually more than willing to be part of a group, and adjust themselves to that group. There are dozens of examples: people willing to offer their freedoms to join a religion or cult, people willing to put their life on the line for their country, people feeling superior to others not belonging to The Group.
In the prison experiment you didn’t just have a no-restrictions on human cruelty and practical problems with applying absolute power, but also two Groups: the Prisoners and the Wardens. Worst of both worlds, if you ask me.
For me this is only a part of the explanation, there’s got to be more to it then that. In the experiment, and real life imprisonment, the prisoners got de-humanised so they were obedient to the guards. Achieving this and getting people in the state in which they were, guards, prisoners and in fact the researchers themselves was that easy, only took them SIX days. That is the scary-part, take a sane βnormalβ human being and condition him to act in that either sadistic or obedient way. I can’t help wondering what I do in such a situation or in other extreem situations for that matter. I think I can’t find the answer untill I am in that situation, neither can anybody else for that matter.
So it is an eternal battle between selfishness and group pressure?
Here is the link to the experiement for anyone who is interested. http://www.prisonexp.org/
Nope, it’s only that people’s true nature tends to come out if people are given absolute power over other people. We’re quite a disgusting species at that. Extreme circumstances [i]might[/Γ] make the process go faster or be more extreme. But the original experiment was conducted on a university campus IIRC, the circumstances for the people involved in the test were as normal as they could be.
So then you believe that all humans are basically evil. I don’t tend to agree with that. Given the right circumstances we are all capable of extreme deed, sure, even murder. The funny thing in the movie wasn’t that they were given absolute power (or is it indeed: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely) or at least the power was constantly challenged by the “inmates”. That’s what I “liked” about the movie. I mean you could see the social processes at work, action -> reaction –> re-reaction —-> re-re-reaction. So a gradual process, until the point of no return, and then it escalates rapidly. You could see the danger of group thinking / behaviour, the battle for power and the changing mindset. Give people an enemy and it draws the group together.
Do you know anything more about the real experiment conducted? What were the results of this experiment?
This movie really fascinated me, and I could recommend it to anyone whom is interested in human behaviour.