Don’t get me wrong – i am grateful that we live in a free society where i can have a beer and watch your girlfriend in tight jeans. But i think the most important reason for the freedom we have is being tolerant of other people’s opinions, attitudes, views and habits. I’m sure you will agree with that. And i surely agree with you that any person’s freedom to think and act the way he chooses should not have a negative influence on anybody else.

But then you might start wondering why Islam was in general far more tolerant than Christianity a century ago, yet why there currently is a large militant fundamentalist faction within Islam.

Bit of a moot point really, since neither the Baghdad Museum nor the hospitals were protected from pillaging. That honour only bestowed the Ministy of Oil.

Originally posted by Tempest
Countries have a right to act against groups that oppose their interests and support those who act in their interests.

The point is that “opposing one’s interest” is a matter of perception, and depends as such on the views a country or group already has. As such, there is no real difference in the US seeing a threat in militant Islam, and militant Islamists seeing a threat in an expension in Western ideology and culture.

I was merely pointing out that at what point does tolerance become irresponsibilty. Does tolerating the repression of women, the preaching of violence, matrydom, and radical Islam make us more liberal or make us guilty ignoring the victims of this kind of extreme ideology.

What is the alternative you propose? I can’t see being intolerant from the outset doing anything but preventing at least a peaceful coexistance, and at worst frustrating muslems which will then cause even more to seek justification through militant fundamentalistic ways.

And although i am not sure about Anglican and other Christian churches in Britain, but in the Catholic part of the Netherlands where i’m from, martyrdom is a significant part of the Christian heritage. In quite large protestant groups, opression of women is also an accepted part of their faith (those fundamentalist Christians are even represented in parliament here). As for the preaching of violence: this is all too common, and not just in militant Islam. Fundamentalist violent Muslems use violence to defend, consolidate and possibly expand what they believe in. President Bush preaches violence to defend freedom, justice and democracy.

Although i am certainly no supporter of any form of terrorism, i am extremely weary of a lot of people’s arguments why militant islam is ‘evil’. The way i see it, their way of reasoning doesn’t differ much from that of the terrorist themselves, only the labels are different.

Originally posted by ageorge
Good point about VCR’s though , but remember V2000 , it was better than both Beta or VHS but eventually the JVC marketing pushed out the Sony betamax and the Phillips V2000 systems .

Actually, V2000 was effectively killed by it’s inventor Philips (who did manage to set the standard for CD’s shortly after) when they refused to give licenses to pornography distributors. When porn was only available on Beta and VHS, the V2000 system was lost.

Unfortunately, i missed out on CVIX last year as i didn’t visit Britain, and back in it’s operational days i’ve only seen one of the Llanbedr Sea Vixens on the ground (oh, and i was born after the RN withdrew them from).

Seeing a Sea Vixen in flight was high on my wish-list. But not anymore. To me, this colour scheme has absolutely nothing to do with the Sea Vixen as an aircraft, but it degrades the airframe to a flying billboard. I don’t consider the aircraft to be a representative anymore of it’s fellow Sea Vixens, as to me this paintscheme eradicates the aircraft and the type’s history. Compare it with painting a steam engine locomotive like a can of Boddington’s, or painting the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum in the colours of Aristoteles Onassis’ shipping company. Or, since we are talking military equipment here, why not paint the HMS Hood like a giant pot of Marmite?

Expecting a lot of (justified) flak to come over me after this: i prefer a static airframe in it’s original markings over a grotesquely painted flying aircraft. I know an aircraft should be flying, but it should do so with respect to it’s own merits, and not as an easily exploitable object (because it is gets quite a bit more attention as a static billboard). I’m sure Sir Geoffrey DeHavilland and his henchmen could have come up with a far more practical design for advertising purposes.

Moggy, you are (hey, you admitted it yourself) in marketing, you’re passionate about aircraft and you are one of the many here who are proud on British heritage. Can you properly explain me the motivations for a company to sponsor such a unique aircraft as the Sea Vixen? If they chose CVIX because it is such a uniquely shaped aircraft, i don’t see why they have given it such an outrageous colour scheme. If they just wanted a flying billboard, i guess they’ll leave the Sea Vixen as soon as they have the chance to sponsor a Canberra as you can put your corporate logo even bigger on that one.

Sowdy Arabia (in the GWBush-pronounciation) will be a tough nut to crack…

Politically of course since it would be a perverted demonstration how much a friendship between countries is worth. With SA being on the friendly-list for the better part of the last 20 years, it will require a grandiose PR-stunt to pull that one off. Not only internationally (we’ve all seen how well the Bush Jr-administration is in forging large alliances :rolleyes: ), but also domestically. Although i would love to see some former general explain on Fox or CNN why those terrorist-supporting Sowdies fly brand new F-15s.

But economically it would be even more difficult. The Saudies are one of the main pillars on which the US keeps it’s stampede economy rolling. The US of course has a trade deficit of six percent and rising, but it is currently saved from (inevitable) collapse because of massive foreign investments *. One of the large investors in the US economy (and actually one of the least demanding) is Saudi Arabia. George W. Bush might be called a cowboy, but i doubt he is that stupid to destroy the bank on which he depends for his horsefood and Colt ammo…

* = Practically this means that one out of every 17 American dollars is borrowed, hence a European, Japanese or Saudi dollar. This figure is rising, and the only way to stop this would be for the US to cut down it’s consumption… bwhahahahaaa!

Couldn’t have said it better than Garry when it comes to Microsoft. When it comes to Bill Gates, i’m sure Vortex will understand the parrallel with Isaac Newton. Yes, i agree that Bill Gates is a smart businessman. But he’s a butthole as well.

Oh, and i do not oppose free trade. If it was applied consistently, the world’s wealth would be spread far more even then it is now. Alas, the country which presents itself as the great protagonist of free trade is actually a country with one with the most restrictive trade policies. Both to punish unfavourable governments (Cuba), but also in an attempt to keep it’s increasingly hollow economy (Trade deficit 6% and rising… of every 17 dollars spend in the US, one is borrowed from Europe, Japan or Arabia… one of the great effects from Reaganomics).

And as far as MSDOS well, there are BMW’s and there are Toyota’s but Toyota dosn’t put ‘BMW’ logos on their cars do they, so your China story dosn’t wash.

I know i’m going completely off-topic, but if you replace BMW in your above sentence with Mercedes… Ever heard of the car brand Lexus? They are simply knocked-down Mercedeses built by Toyota, to create a posh car with a more expensive name then that one of the company which brought us the Corolla and the Starlet. The trick worked extremely well, i actually think there are people who believe a Lexus is a cool snobby car and a decent replacement for a Mercedes S or a Lincoln…

Re: haha Arthur….

Vortex,

Bit touchy again aye 😉 ?

Vortex, the Dutch surrendered to the Germans after five pitiful days of resistance on May 15th, 1940. The first proclamation of the German kommandatur (local proclamations had already been made in other areas which were occupied even sooner) was in order to maintain order, stability and civil services.

The prosecution of the Jews didn’t start for another year, which makes it perfectly besides the point. Unless you know something about US plans in Iraq we don’t }> ? (I really really want that devil back!).

Sauron,

The Soviet behaviour of stealing German artefacts is not acceptable, but it was not an issue back then because UNESCO was not yet in function. But i understand you don’t see a problem in the US moving to the same standards as the stalinist Soviet Union lived to? I’m impressed…

Let me remind you again: a country’s standards are as high as a country claims them to be. If the US governments states it represents freedom, democracy and free trade, it better make sure it doesn’t lie too much. When North Korea is presenting itself as the pinnacle of freedom and decency, i’m sure i won’t be leaving them alone either.

As a sidenote, perhaps you can tell me the difference between the Soviet theft of German art (and art stolen by the Germans during the war as well) and Operation Paperclip, in which the US gave German research a new owner?