Good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Printable View
Good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I have studied about various countries and their system and my impression is that Finland has really a very, very good system, likely the best in the world. I have to say however, that this is a result of many factors like the size of the country, the population, the culture of the country, its history etc, etc. Still, I respect your system tremendously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Yes, it might not happen for example in the US. To me it seems that Americans aren't very willing to compromise, they want to see "blood" and the other party win and the other party lose, not some wishy-washy compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
Hmmm-- compromise-- you think the "palestinians" should get land (and be called a country) that they never owned, espcially as they care nothing about the majority of "their" land taken by Jordan; therefore you must be on the side of the South Ossetians who broke away because they wanted to be part of Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
S. Ossetia is only a small piece of land that neither threatens nor benefits Georgia.
South Ossetia wanted to be independent, not part of Russia or Georgia and it has as much right to be independent as Russia or Georgia:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia...f_independence
Quote:
The Republic of South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia in 1990. The Georgian government responded by abolishing South Ossetia's autonomy and trying to retake the region by force.[4] This led to the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War.[5] Georgian fighting against those controlling South Ossetia occurred on two other occasions, in 2004 and 2008.[6] The last conflict led to the 2008 South Ossetia war, during which Ossetian separatists and Russian troops gained full, de-facto, control of the territory of the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast.
In the wake of the 2008 South Ossetia War, Nicaragua, Russia, Venezuela and Nauru recognized South Ossetia as an independent republic.[7][8][9][10] Georgia does not recognize South Ossetia's existence as a political entity, and considers most of its territory a part of the Shida Kartli region within Georgian sovereign territory.[11]
You really should stop being a mouth-piece for the wiki half-assed articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
INTERVIEW-Rebel S.Ossetia wants unity with Russia, more troops
* Rebel leader says wants more Russian troops, weapons
* Says wants to unite his people with Russia
* Says wants stability, not another war
TSKHINVALI, Georgia, Aug 1 (Reuters) - A year after Russia and Georgia fought a war over South Ossetia, the leader of the rebel enclave said he wanted to unite his people with Russia and called on the Kremlin to deploy more troops and weapons.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1268080
So, you're talking about some rebels in South Ossetia, not South Ossetia itself? As far as remember those rebels were Russians living in South Ossetia. I can see why they want to live in Russia instead of Georgia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
So, you're talking about some rebels in South Ossetia, not South Ossetia itself? As far as remember those rebels were Russians living in South Ossetia. I can see why they want to live in Russia instead of Georgia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
You are wrong- again- and again- and again- and .....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
"Ninety eight percent of South Ossetia's population hold Russian passports, Russian is the lingua franca and the Russian rouble their currency."
S. Osettia is the enclave spoken of in the article.
Main Entry: en·clave
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from enclaver to enclose, from Vulgar Latin *inclavare to lock up
: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory
Read the article before you flatulate with your keyboard, or bow before your wiki-god.
It causes a problem all over the world where a significant amount of people living in one country identify more with the country next door. Just like Kosovo, Northern Ireland etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asi...c/10211314.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has announced his resignation after just eight months in office.
It comes after he broke an election pledge to move an unpopular US military base away from the island of Okinawa.
I take it that this wasn't "peacefully inclined and responsible government"?
Russian passport does not necessarily mean an ethnic Russian. South Osseatia is only recognized as an independent country by Nicaragua, Russia, Venezuela and Nauru, so they obviously need some other passport and currency than South Ossetian, if they want to go abroad or trade. Language means little. For example, most Americans speak English although they aren't English, so do most Irish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
At least they didn't listen to the "freely expressed will of the Japanese people".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I am not sure about that, Eki. For me part of Americans, the red voters, or more likely part of the Republican voters might be as you describe them, as evident from the forum. But in the end, the people elected Obama, who is seen to be more willing to compromise and seeking peaceful solutions. In the past elections, the Republicans had more voters only once, at the second win of W., we all know that the first one was a bit fishy, like the 1998 British GP, lol :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
But there are powers, firms, rich and influential people, for which wars are good. And they use their massive influence to convince other people that they are right, that's at least what I think. I am sure that most people in the USA want to enjoy life and be happy, except maybe some ultra religious cuckoos ;)
Read the article it says you are wrong, but then you rarely are not, read the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1268080
Quote:
"My goal in life, my political goal, is to unite my people," the self-styled president, Eduard Kokoity, told Reuters in an interview in the enclave's capital Tskhinvali.
"We will build our own state, which will be in alliance with Russia, together with Russia and I am not excluding that one day, we will be part of Russia," he said.
Finland was an own state in alliance with the European Union until 1995, when it became part of the European Union. Finland is still Finland and Finns are still Finns, that didn't change.Quote:
Ethnically distinct from Georgians, South Ossetians speak their own, Farsi-related language and say they have been separated from their fellow people in the neighbouring region of North Ossetia in Russia.
Actually I would have to include the elected ones in particular, since their decisions on public matters are influenced by corporations/special interests groups. Which is why I'm an advocate for public-funded campaigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
:up: Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Blue voters (Democrats) have no claim for being egalitarian anymore than Red voters (Repubs.) believe they’re the designated spokespersons for God. Take it from Obama on down to the local avenues – it doesn’t matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
who was driven off the land???Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
ever wandered around israel and saw all those derelict mosques?
Hopefully some of the members here (who want to better understand the topic, rather than just make hackneyed partisan points) will take the time to read the book I mentioned a few pages back: Thomas Madden's Empires of Trust.
Rethinking what I said before, the U.S. would be seen as an empire (of sorts). But it's an empire as Madden describes it: an empire of "trust". He refers to Rome as this same sort of empire. He's much more well versed on the subject than I am, but I have noticed that to make his point that Rome was an empire of trust, and not of conquest, he glosses over some of the sticky details (like the full extent of what happened to Carthage and Gaul at the hands of the Romans).
But he details three types of empires:
empires of trust (Rome and the U.S.)
empires of commerce (Venice and the British Empire)
empires of conquest (Alexander's Greek empire)
With an empire of trust, the defeated are usually rebuilt rather than oppressed (the Marshall Plan). And most of the time, a certain moral code will be applied to the defeated... the same moral code that would be extended to an ally. As Madden points out, this is why Abu Ghraib and some of the goings on at Gitmo didn't sit right with many Americans. We want to be able to maintain, at least the facade, that we possess a degree of moral superiority over our enemies. And like the Roman's desire to turn barbarians into proper Latins (or kill them trying), we want to spread democracy and freedom around the world... whether you want it or not. But anyway, it's Madden's contention that we can basically be trusted to act in a certain way, whether you're friend or foe. And so, those who are smart enough to see that, well, they spend their money on infrastructure, education or what have you, while the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines maintain their security. I haven't completed the book yet, but I've noticed that Madden hasn't mentioned that the Romans didn't exactly "work for free". Julius Caesar found great wealth as he conquered Gaul, for example. If we had gotten even 10 barrels of free oil out of Iraq, I might have less of a problem with it. But the last time I looked, the bill for the American taxpayer for our "freedom mission" into Iraq stood at around $1 trillion (yeah, with a "T"), and the Iraqi treasury had something close to $100 billion stashed away in reserves. IMO, that's three shades of stupid.
Even with what he seems to be leaving out or glossing over, it's a seriously interesting book. His definitions of empire certainly made me rethink my position on the question of "empire", as it applies to the U.S. Hopefully a few of you will take the time to buy it or pick it up at the library.
Yes, I know . . . I'm late on this one . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
but 41.5% . . . . . 41.5% is being spent for the military in a country like mine where the economic situation is dire, the education is mediocre, health care is sick and our infrastructure is in need of a facelift.
Yes, the military in this day and age need a % . . . . but 41.5%?
Our grandchildren will look back at this and say . . . WTF?????
As a matter of fact, we should be the ones saying that.
It's nuts.
*now I will duck because I can see the salvos coming this way.
peace dammit!!!!!!!!!
:s mokin:
Just to be clear, race aficionado, we spend about 4.7% (FY2010) of our GDP on the military. The 41.5% is our percentage of the global total.
For the sake of comparison, Russia spends about 3.5% of GDP on its military. China spends about 2%. Taiwan (right next door to the Chicomms) spends about 2.1%. The UK spends right at 2.5%. France, 2.3%. Germany and Canada, both at 1.3%. Mexico, 0.5%. Those are 2008 figures.
But to your point, yes, roughly half of the military spending in the world is being done out of the pockets of the American taxpayer. If you really want to feel good about the future, I'll put up some info detailing how no developed nation has ever survived for very long once its infrastructure began to crumble. Guess what's been happening in the U.S. for the past 20+ years? ;)