NYRangerfan1994this might be a bit of a stretch… but i think georgia was used… the US egged georgia on to make this brazen move… the US never, i don’t think, realistically expected that they would be able to have a foothold that close to russia, especially not in the caucusus region… the trade off, georgia for closer eastern european relations with the US and the world remembering the threat of russian imperialism, would be definitely worth it for the neocons i think… plus, they might just get that second cold war that they’ve wanted so badly… fills the gaps for places that the war on terror couldn’t take them with a nice defined enemy…
NYRangerfan1994it really does suck… he was one of the people who actually wasn’t afraid to tell it like it is… why joe pesci? WHY?!
NYRangerfan1994it really does suck… he was one of the people who actually wasn’t afraid to tell it like it is… why joe pesci? WHY?!
NYRangerfan1994Good to see they can afford it. I’m sure the £1 billion in aid the UK gave recently has been well spent.
Pity the Royal Navy’s bankrupt.
oh i don’t know about that, minus the £1 billion of aid to india, the uk still should have £52 billion left over from the record foreign direct investment india has made in the uk… ;):rolleyes:
NYRangerfan1994phil collins? peter gabriel > phil freaking collins…
NYRangerfan1994phil collins? peter gabriel > phil freaking collins…
NYRangerfan1994no one on the flight crew or on the plane was bilingual?
NYRangerfan1994well… we’re the ones who are responsible for moves like this… no reason to push the blame to the companies… we want everything cheaper to the point where the cheapest comes from somewhere abroad… and when the companies do move abroad we hear some of the typical responses we have above… you know, we should stop this from happening, government should penalize the companies, we should stop using the service… a few days pass by and we’re back in the same position looking for the cheapest good or service… the only problem i have with these moves is that it would be one thing if easyjet cut a few dollars from the overall cost and that few dollars directly translated into a few dollars savings when you buy a ticket but that isn’t the case… most of that savings goes to the investors… makes sense as they do put up the money and take the risk, but the problem is maybe too much of it is going to the investors… maybe maximum dividends isn’t the best long term policy… many of these investors are rich people who’ve inherited the money and then make more money on top of that by playing with money that they made no effort to attain (i do understand that there are also those small investors who invest through pension plans and etc., but there needs to be a greater distinction between the two, at least here in the U.S. where i don’t believe that great of a distinction exists), while the sucker who was born poor gets it in the ass with all the regular taxes on everyday things which he pays (for example the sales tax in the U.S.)… okay clearly i got off topic… i’ll shut up now…
NYRangerfan1994forget the fact it’s a goat… forget the fact that it only made a small bang… the fact is, this is a part of the livelihood of the guy who owns the animal… just imagine if someone did something to screw around with your car or something… how pissed would you be?
there are worse examples on that site of bigger bangs and animals in close proximity to the owners… this is not harmless fun… these are crimes and should be prosecuted as such…
NYRangerfan1994forget the fact it’s a goat… forget the fact that it only made a small bang… the fact is, this is a part of the livelihood of the guy who owns the animal… just imagine if someone did something to screw around with your car or something… how pissed would you be?
there are worse examples on that site of bigger bangs and animals in close proximity to the owners… this is not harmless fun… these are crimes and should be prosecuted as such…
NYRangerfan1994I agree entirely (i am also a regular reader of the economist 😉 ), there is one further point I would make though and that is that one has to be careful that such democratic institutions are not used for the imposing of extreme Sharia law. For instance there was a case in Iran where a young girl was executed for being sexually abused by her father and others. This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be prevented. Indeed I would say that this is why Turkey is (at least up to now) such a good example, the secular nature of the state, and to an extent society as well, ensures that what one could call western values (although I prefer to call them modern liberal values) are upheld.
this is true… however i think it needs to be stated that the ideal type of democracy has as cornerstones (in my opinion) universal suffrage (which is a major step and this would involve more than just a political change as social attitudes would also need to be adjusted, although there is movement towards this direction, even though very very slow) and secondly the protection of minority rights (think about the moors in spain who co-existed peacefully with the jews and christians and respected their way of life, perfectly possible within islam it would seem)… if these two conditions were met, i think we wouldn’t have as much of those problems you mentioned above…
and finally, cultures cannot be changed over night… we (the west) didn’t get it all right from the very beginning but it took some time to adjust… maybe these islamist parties are just a part of the course in the islamic world… and we can’t force a giant leap from their way of life now into our way of life, which took hundreds of painful years and mistakes to get to… let’s not forget only 150 years ago, blacks weren’t treated as human beings let alone allowed to be treated as equal citizens and women weren’t given a say in their governance and they still aren’t in some more very personal cases (abortion)…
NYRangerfan1994I agree entirely (i am also a regular reader of the economist 😉 ), there is one further point I would make though and that is that one has to be careful that such democratic institutions are not used for the imposing of extreme Sharia law. For instance there was a case in Iran where a young girl was executed for being sexually abused by her father and others. This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be prevented. Indeed I would say that this is why Turkey is (at least up to now) such a good example, the secular nature of the state, and to an extent society as well, ensures that what one could call western values (although I prefer to call them modern liberal values) are upheld.
this is true… however i think it needs to be stated that the ideal type of democracy has as cornerstones (in my opinion) universal suffrage (which is a major step and this would involve more than just a political change as social attitudes would also need to be adjusted, although there is movement towards this direction, even though very very slow) and secondly the protection of minority rights (think about the moors in spain who co-existed peacefully with the jews and christians and respected their way of life, perfectly possible within islam it would seem)… if these two conditions were met, i think we wouldn’t have as much of those problems you mentioned above…
and finally, cultures cannot be changed over night… we (the west) didn’t get it all right from the very beginning but it took some time to adjust… maybe these islamist parties are just a part of the course in the islamic world… and we can’t force a giant leap from their way of life now into our way of life, which took hundreds of painful years and mistakes to get to… let’s not forget only 150 years ago, blacks weren’t treated as human beings let alone allowed to be treated as equal citizens and women weren’t given a say in their governance and they still aren’t in some more very personal cases (abortion)…
NYRangerfan1994Again very well put, however I would raise a note of caution. A democracy in Saudi Arabia (purely as an example) may well result in a near Al Qaeda government. The reason Iraq looked so promising was that it been under 30 years of enforced secularism- it was thus percieved that it was a good candidate to become a second Turkey. Unfortunately the level of pent up ethnic tension, how weak saddams rule actualy was and the ultimate involvement of Al Qaeda elements combined with spectacular post war faliures by the coalition made that impossible and created the genocidal anarchy we have today.
i’ve actually thought about this, but in the context of turkey and it’s mildly islamist government (as the economist likes to put it)… i’ve come to the conclusion that in such cases, i support democracy as long as the institutions of democracy are put above all other concerns… that means, even if the islamists come to power, as long as they don’t take away from the institutions of democracy, i can live with it… the thing is, you can get rid of a bad islamist government as long as the institutions are there… but you won’t be able to do so without the proper power… it is very easy to change those who are in power as long as the means are there… it is very difficult to get those means (elections etc) after you’ve democratically given them up…
oh and thanks…
NYRangerfan1994Again very well put, however I would raise a note of caution. A democracy in Saudi Arabia (purely as an example) may well result in a near Al Qaeda government. The reason Iraq looked so promising was that it been under 30 years of enforced secularism- it was thus percieved that it was a good candidate to become a second Turkey. Unfortunately the level of pent up ethnic tension, how weak saddams rule actualy was and the ultimate involvement of Al Qaeda elements combined with spectacular post war faliures by the coalition made that impossible and created the genocidal anarchy we have today.
i’ve actually thought about this, but in the context of turkey and it’s mildly islamist government (as the economist likes to put it)… i’ve come to the conclusion that in such cases, i support democracy as long as the institutions of democracy are put above all other concerns… that means, even if the islamists come to power, as long as they don’t take away from the institutions of democracy, i can live with it… the thing is, you can get rid of a bad islamist government as long as the institutions are there… but you won’t be able to do so without the proper power… it is very easy to change those who are in power as long as the means are there… it is very difficult to get those means (elections etc) after you’ve democratically given them up…
oh and thanks…
NYRangerfan1994No you have it wrong here, its not the world its within islamic countries themselfs they want an islamic government a united block from morocco to indonesia, that is their aim to unite all muslim countries under their way of thinking. Its muslims who are more at risk with this ideology than westerners, if the west really does want to tackle such issues then they have to promote proper democrasy in these countries and stop supporting tip pot rulers in saudi arabia and other parts.
which is precisely why the moderates need to step up… the u.s. should absolutely stop supporting the regimes such as the one in saudi arabia… they support extremism, they are corrupt and keep their people under their heal… but, a country like the u.s. can’t do it the way they did it in iraq, we’ve seen how large a failure that was… of course we would never attack saudi arabia, but what i am saying is, external pressure from the u.s. will not work… it will lead to a worse standing for the u.s. in the eyes of muslims and the rest of the world… we’ve done too much of that in the past and it’s never really worked out well (just look at s. america)… for democracy to be promoted there first needs to exist a desire for democracy which is visable internally… and the only way this can happen is for moderates in those country’s to stand up… or have within there ranks a person of the character and nature of attaturk…
Sign In
