Many times a newly independent nation would be taken over by another colonial power.
Widespread violence would often occur because of tensions among various ethnic groups.
Power would often go back and forth between civilian and military rulers.
Civil war would often break out as different factions fought to rule the country.|||Wrong: Many times a newly independent nation would be taken over by another colonial power.
Why? Because as Colonialism began to decline many colony holding nations began to deal with unrest and violence from their colonies. As a result a Colonizing nation would be unwilling to enter into a ready made war.|||1.|||The first is false. There have been some serious border disputes but most newly independent countries had well established and long recognized borders that the other African nations respected.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
What are the benefits of eliminating all individualities in Government of the EU and the rest of the nations?
If the purpose is NOT the achievement of a Global Order, then WHY is so much emphasis put into it?
Ok, I am not believing the "conspiracy" theories going on globally; but IS THERE A REAL explanation to discard the notion of a "conspiracy" by interest groups, people with lots of power and - in general - a similar vision?|||And replace it with what? Some computer that is honest and knows what is best for you?
Ok, I am not believing the "conspiracy" theories going on globally; but IS THERE A REAL explanation to discard the notion of a "conspiracy" by interest groups, people with lots of power and - in general - a similar vision?|||And replace it with what? Some computer that is honest and knows what is best for you?
If NASA discovers another world with life on it, will all nations on earth unite as one?
NASA has launched their space rocket to look for other planets with life on them. If they do discover it, what will they do? What if that planet has human like lifeforms with technology similar to ours. (Lets say, the lifeforms are almost exactly like humans, they can talk, and do everything we can do on earth) Will the earth unite as one big nation/country, and fight the other planet in hopes of capturing it, and taking over their world? Or will we make an allience with the other planet, and make earth one big nation/country?|||Depending.
-If they are advanced they have already spotted us for more before we spotted them. They might be peaceful. If they are, they wont want anything to do with earth. If they are mean. They have probably infiltrated earth already.
-If they are the same as us they will probably want to get their grubby hands on our technology and our hands on their technology. Thats how ignorant the governments on earth are.
- If they are not as advanced and are in the mid evil ages. They are probably against themselves and would look at us like gods. However, we would probably overun them and take over their planet because again. Thats how ignorant the earth governments are.
There would be no war because it would be to easy to wipe us out if they were advanced. Plus they wouldnt waste the resources. I mean us by that to. We could be used as slaves. If they were the same technology as us we might have a war. Though it would be a racial war.|||We will figure a way to communicate with each other... but yeah if we were to fight them, we would become as one|||The earth's nations will never be able to unite as one peaceful, holistic state. Human beings just cannot cope in social groups that large - we can barely survive without conflict in our own suburbs and cities.
If NASA do find life or evidence of life that is similar to our own, it is possible that there will be warfare between our two planets. However, I doubt the likelihood of this occurring.
If life that is so similar to ours exists, it must be quite a distance from our own planet. If it was close, we would have already identified them, or they would have already identified us. Considering this, war would be infeasible and impractical due to the great distances each life system would have to travel simply to reach the other planet, let alone engage with it in warfare.
The same is true for any allegiances we might make with other planets. Although I think an allegiance is more likely for the research possibilities of combined planets and civilisations, the distance would still be a major hindrance to communications.|||Hell no! That would make us spread even more!
I say someone would have to conquer the world just before the finding otherwise things will all collapse.|||Will the earth unite as one big nation/country, and fight the other planet in hopes of capturing it, and taking over their world?
Not a chance.|||I think that the global systems are so currupt that we would not be able to be organized enough to achieve unity, no-matter how much of a threat any outside life-forms pose. Think about the U.S. for example. The country is so divided along partisan lines (the left and the right) that it cannot even unite against terrorism or anything else. It has never been able to, even in the days of the revolutionary war there was not true unity.
However, I think that discovering intelligent life would be one of the first steps towards eventual unity. Perhaps we could learn from them, and develop a peaceful relationship with them... Hopefully.|||I'd say it depends on the threat level.
The ancient Greeks were far more nationalistic than we are, going to far as to be racist against anyone from another city-state, and barely registering a non-Greek as human. Even they formed a Panhellenic alliance in the face of the invading Persian Empire.
Of course, if we discover that the alien life form is nothing more than a bunch of bacteria, we probably wouldn't have a very large drive to unite.
Another problem is that the satellite in question will be no where near powerful enough to detect if there is life on a planet, or determine what kind of life it is. It is going to be observing stars for slight variances in their luminosity; a sign that planets are in orbit around them. The previous method was to detect the wobble of stars due to their gravitational interaction with their planets. This is no where near sensitive enough to detect the presence of life.
But even if we did somehow discover that there are aliens living on another planet, we simply have no way to communicate with them. Our oldest transmission into space; a speech by Adolf Hitler in the 1940s, has probably gotten as far as Vega by now, which is only 23 light years away, and by now is probably far too hopelessly degenerated for a potential alien to get anything useful out of it. We do have a few interstellar probes floating about, but the odds of an alien civilization randomly stumbling onto it are many trillions to one.
In any event, assuming that we come up with a Faster Than Light communication/travel method (which some scientists have compared to an alchemist looking for gold); The odds of an alien lifeform being similar to us is infinitesimally small. Even if they are carbon based like us, the results of billions of years of completely different evolution would probably make them far too difficult for either race to comprehend. Not to mention the idea of a similar level of technology to ours is also infinitesimally small as well. Human beings have only had civilization for about 10,000 years, and have only been exploring Space seriously for about 100 years. That's barely a blip on a universal scale. They would likely be either millions of years ahead of us, or millions of years behind us.
In the event that there are similarities, ours (and probably, theirs, too) first impulse would probably be to study them. Unless they are overly aggressive, there really isn't a reason for us to want to wage war with them. When you see an animal that you have never seen before, is your first impulse to kill it? Or to look at it and study it visually? I think that it is unrealistically cynical to assume that if we met an alien species, our first impulse would be to wipe it out and take their planet for our own.|||Why fight if we can communicate with it. Before that even happens I'm sure we may try to telecommunications accross the galaxies before we actually meet face to face.
When that will happen? Who knows.
-If they are advanced they have already spotted us for more before we spotted them. They might be peaceful. If they are, they wont want anything to do with earth. If they are mean. They have probably infiltrated earth already.
-If they are the same as us they will probably want to get their grubby hands on our technology and our hands on their technology. Thats how ignorant the governments on earth are.
- If they are not as advanced and are in the mid evil ages. They are probably against themselves and would look at us like gods. However, we would probably overun them and take over their planet because again. Thats how ignorant the earth governments are.
There would be no war because it would be to easy to wipe us out if they were advanced. Plus they wouldnt waste the resources. I mean us by that to. We could be used as slaves. If they were the same technology as us we might have a war. Though it would be a racial war.|||We will figure a way to communicate with each other... but yeah if we were to fight them, we would become as one|||The earth's nations will never be able to unite as one peaceful, holistic state. Human beings just cannot cope in social groups that large - we can barely survive without conflict in our own suburbs and cities.
If NASA do find life or evidence of life that is similar to our own, it is possible that there will be warfare between our two planets. However, I doubt the likelihood of this occurring.
If life that is so similar to ours exists, it must be quite a distance from our own planet. If it was close, we would have already identified them, or they would have already identified us. Considering this, war would be infeasible and impractical due to the great distances each life system would have to travel simply to reach the other planet, let alone engage with it in warfare.
The same is true for any allegiances we might make with other planets. Although I think an allegiance is more likely for the research possibilities of combined planets and civilisations, the distance would still be a major hindrance to communications.|||Hell no! That would make us spread even more!
I say someone would have to conquer the world just before the finding otherwise things will all collapse.|||Will the earth unite as one big nation/country, and fight the other planet in hopes of capturing it, and taking over their world?
Not a chance.|||I think that the global systems are so currupt that we would not be able to be organized enough to achieve unity, no-matter how much of a threat any outside life-forms pose. Think about the U.S. for example. The country is so divided along partisan lines (the left and the right) that it cannot even unite against terrorism or anything else. It has never been able to, even in the days of the revolutionary war there was not true unity.
However, I think that discovering intelligent life would be one of the first steps towards eventual unity. Perhaps we could learn from them, and develop a peaceful relationship with them... Hopefully.|||I'd say it depends on the threat level.
The ancient Greeks were far more nationalistic than we are, going to far as to be racist against anyone from another city-state, and barely registering a non-Greek as human. Even they formed a Panhellenic alliance in the face of the invading Persian Empire.
Of course, if we discover that the alien life form is nothing more than a bunch of bacteria, we probably wouldn't have a very large drive to unite.
Another problem is that the satellite in question will be no where near powerful enough to detect if there is life on a planet, or determine what kind of life it is. It is going to be observing stars for slight variances in their luminosity; a sign that planets are in orbit around them. The previous method was to detect the wobble of stars due to their gravitational interaction with their planets. This is no where near sensitive enough to detect the presence of life.
But even if we did somehow discover that there are aliens living on another planet, we simply have no way to communicate with them. Our oldest transmission into space; a speech by Adolf Hitler in the 1940s, has probably gotten as far as Vega by now, which is only 23 light years away, and by now is probably far too hopelessly degenerated for a potential alien to get anything useful out of it. We do have a few interstellar probes floating about, but the odds of an alien civilization randomly stumbling onto it are many trillions to one.
In any event, assuming that we come up with a Faster Than Light communication/travel method (which some scientists have compared to an alchemist looking for gold); The odds of an alien lifeform being similar to us is infinitesimally small. Even if they are carbon based like us, the results of billions of years of completely different evolution would probably make them far too difficult for either race to comprehend. Not to mention the idea of a similar level of technology to ours is also infinitesimally small as well. Human beings have only had civilization for about 10,000 years, and have only been exploring Space seriously for about 100 years. That's barely a blip on a universal scale. They would likely be either millions of years ahead of us, or millions of years behind us.
In the event that there are similarities, ours (and probably, theirs, too) first impulse would probably be to study them. Unless they are overly aggressive, there really isn't a reason for us to want to wage war with them. When you see an animal that you have never seen before, is your first impulse to kill it? Or to look at it and study it visually? I think that it is unrealistically cynical to assume that if we met an alien species, our first impulse would be to wipe it out and take their planet for our own.|||Why fight if we can communicate with it. Before that even happens I'm sure we may try to telecommunications accross the galaxies before we actually meet face to face.
When that will happen? Who knows.
Can someone from a developing nation be blacklisted from all developed nations cause of poor job performance?
*poor job performance in a developed nation after one year and be reported by the company where he/she works in, to the government of the country where the person works/ the company based in|||you should have worked harder
Why is it all nations do not have foreign legions?
I think all nations should have foreign legions. People who are willing to join a foreign legions are going to make ideal soldiers as they are going to have higher loyalty. If Russia had a foreign legion i would rush to join even if it was Non paying mainly because i want to protect Moscow. I would fight for Russia for free I am an American citizen and the US Military would have to pay me billions dollars to be even an Admiral and i would defect the first chance i got. Slavics are the superior race we were the ones who discovered how to split the Atom.|||I think you are in the wrong section.
and I do not think a foreign legion would be as loyal since they do not fight for what they believe, (except for the occasional exception) they fight for the pay. so if the other party pays more . . .|||Most FL are comprised of Mercs and assassins.
You can pay them just about enough to kill for you but not enough to die for you...|||So much trolling, so little potential. You didn't even get it in the right section.
and I do not think a foreign legion would be as loyal since they do not fight for what they believe, (except for the occasional exception) they fight for the pay. so if the other party pays more . . .|||Most FL are comprised of Mercs and assassins.
You can pay them just about enough to kill for you but not enough to die for you...|||So much trolling, so little potential. You didn't even get it in the right section.
How will all nations rise against isreal in the last days?
Does this really mean ALL nations china usa, russia, canada mexico,etc?
And How do you think america can be persuaded into turning on isreal even though we are freinds with isreal?|||America can be persuaded to turn on Israel when Israel starts launching nukes at the U.S. for cutting off all their welfare checks.
Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.2 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.|||World War I, World War II....|||They won't. That is a theory held by Dispensationalists, and popularized by Hal Lindsey.|||my country mexico is not againts Israel.. and Israel doesnt represent the people of the Bible.. the people of the Bible dissapear|||The democrats are in the pockets of the Chinese. If Hilary gets the Whitehouse it could be quite easy because the Clintons are socialists/soft communists. Very anti-religion. Since Israel is the seat of all Judeo/Christian religions, Judaism, Christian and Islam...to take her out first would be a strong signal to the end of all monotheistic religion on the planet. Hinduism and Buddisim and other pagan practices wouldn't be targeted because they are passive, unorganized and non-political. All nations doesn't mean all countries and I don't think the Bible does say "all nations"...not that I could find...here's what it does say...
“Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh Meshech and Tubal. I will… lead you out with all your army… a great company, all of them handling swords. Persia (Iran), Ethiopia, and Libya… Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah (Turkey) from the far north and all its troops – many people are with you. In the latter years you will come into the land of those brought back from the sword and gathered from many people on the mountains on Israel, which had long been desolate… You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days” (Ezek. 38:3-8,16).
There are other biblical references but I don't know what they are right now...one belief is that all countries will be united in a 10 nation coelition...perhaps, Israel refuses to become a part of that or something..I dunno. Requires further study.
And How do you think america can be persuaded into turning on isreal even though we are freinds with isreal?|||America can be persuaded to turn on Israel when Israel starts launching nukes at the U.S. for cutting off all their welfare checks.
Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.2 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.|||World War I, World War II....|||They won't. That is a theory held by Dispensationalists, and popularized by Hal Lindsey.|||my country mexico is not againts Israel.. and Israel doesnt represent the people of the Bible.. the people of the Bible dissapear|||The democrats are in the pockets of the Chinese. If Hilary gets the Whitehouse it could be quite easy because the Clintons are socialists/soft communists. Very anti-religion. Since Israel is the seat of all Judeo/Christian religions, Judaism, Christian and Islam...to take her out first would be a strong signal to the end of all monotheistic religion on the planet. Hinduism and Buddisim and other pagan practices wouldn't be targeted because they are passive, unorganized and non-political. All nations doesn't mean all countries and I don't think the Bible does say "all nations"...not that I could find...here's what it does say...
“Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh Meshech and Tubal. I will… lead you out with all your army… a great company, all of them handling swords. Persia (Iran), Ethiopia, and Libya… Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah (Turkey) from the far north and all its troops – many people are with you. In the latter years you will come into the land of those brought back from the sword and gathered from many people on the mountains on Israel, which had long been desolate… You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days” (Ezek. 38:3-8,16).
There are other biblical references but I don't know what they are right now...one belief is that all countries will be united in a 10 nation coelition...perhaps, Israel refuses to become a part of that or something..I dunno. Requires further study.
Should all nations promoting freedom boycott China's Olympic Games in protest over Tibet?
China's investment makes it NOW as vulnerable as the Tibetans. This, and current Tibetan revolt, creates unique opportunity. The Games' promotion as creating international understanding is invalid or at least highly questionable. The pre-war Berlin Games did nothing to avert World War 2. I know athletes and nations also have heavy investments - but are these more important than humanity itself? The Games are now merely a vehicle for elite athletes' ambitions, exploited for national ego, TV entertainment, and commercial profit. Against the repression and colonization of the peaceful people of Tibet, doesn't failure to act as and when we can diminish us all? It troubles me - so I'm interested in other opinions.|||What the heck are you talking about?
What is happening right now in Tibet is clearly an organized, well planned VIOLENT "incident" by Dalai Lama who is funded by anti-China foreign government. They picked the moment right before Olympics.
Those people who "protest" are thugs. You can see in the video, they are burning down shops, cars on the streets. They would have been arrested in all countries for doing this.
By the way, Dalai Lama was the biggest slave owner in Tibet. All the land in TIbet were owned by the monks who were serving Dalai Lama. Majority population were bonded to the land owned by those monks. There was no such thing as "Tibet freedom" before communists took over. Western anti-communists mass media brainwashed people to believe Dalai Lama is a peace loving monk, because they want to demonlize the Chinese government.
Just take a good look at the videos in the following links. Those aren't even "protests", it's CRIME.
video #1
A group of Tibetan thugs beating up a Han Chinese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWZuRHpv…
video #2
These terrorists burn down shops, cars. Oh wait, isn't that dude kicking a shop's glass dressed as a monk? WOW, shouldn't buddhist monks doing that? I always thought Tibetan "buddhism" is a joke, it's no where close to the real Buddhism you find ANYWHERE else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYdnkUbzg…
People are just blinded after being brainwashed for all their lives. They don't seem have a problem if someone burn down their houses, cars, beating their family to deaths. Of course, if the government steps in to stop those mobs, it will be "human rights violation".|||Yes, absolutely! They are very afraid that will happen! The US is in a perfect position to receive Human Rights promises from China because of this possibility!|||The money is always more important than the rights of the minorities.
The history is repeating over and over again.|||Yes, we should.
Will it happen? I doubt it....too many greed-head companies on board for that, drooling over that "Chinese market".
And these are the same folks (the mainland Chinese) who keep using lead-based paints in our children's toys. All while the TV rightwads on Fox News have conniptions whenever the rest of us *grown-up humans* correct that situation, you know, to protect ourselves...?
So yeah, I don't see it happening. The damned companies just won't allow it. Imagine that, *capitalism* supporting the Communism of the Chinese. O_O
Somewhere in the Great Beyond I bet some dude named Mao is seriously sick to his stomach.
Just saying....We should do the right thing here....but will we have the *spine* in our bodies to?|||Yes, all free nations should boycott the Olympics!!
Plus buy nothing Made in China.
I know most things are now Made in China, but we could at least try?|||Approiach it differently
Go, but as soon as the athlete is finished, bring them home. so at the closing ceremony, no one is there.
beat the wings off of them in competition|||A case could certainly be made for doing so. The real question is: how effective would it be?|||Again, yes Boycott China's Olympic money making machine, stop buying Made in China, email your MP or Government representitive, ask them what they are doing about the genocide.
Email companies you know use China as a pool of cheap labour, wallmart etc.
Tell them you will not buy from them until things in China change.
These are small things I know, but if one hundred thousand people do it, then the financial effects will begin to show, if one million people do it then it will have a greater impact.
We seem to forget that if we get behind a common cause, and use the power of buying or not buying, then the consumer has a huge power over companies and also governments.
China needs to be tackled or they will dfo whatever they like.
And bully's only respond to strength, so we should become much stronger in our dealing with them.|||I think it should be up to the athletes. banning them is not fair.|||I agree all nations should, I'd be surprised if any do. I boycott all Chinese products.|||Other nations should encourage mainland China to seek a peaceful end to the solution. Encouraging other ethnic groups in other nations to revolt is not the right solution. And boycotting the Olympics would only tell China that the Tibetans have destroyed what they've worked for....which will encourage China to use actual force in suppressing the current protests.
We've suppressed minority rights for blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics, women, etc in our history...if they had revolted it would've been disastrous for the nation. However with time, civil liberties were granted and life did improve.
Besides, the Tibetan theocracy in place before the communist invasion wasn't any better than the current government. The religious class ruled with absolute power and oppressed the average Tibetan just as much as the Chinese police do today, if not more.
Brief Summary:
Qing Dynasty invades Tibet in the 16th century, establishes the chain of Dalai Lama through election
1912, Chinese Revolution by the KMT (now Taiwan) - Tibet, Mongolia, and other regions declare independence
1949, KMT loses the Chinese civil war to the communists. The communists decide to take back territories lost in the early 20th century.
Armed Tibetan insurgency lasts decades, with thousands of Tibetan %26amp; Chinese soldiers and civilians dead. CIA backed armed uprising supported by the current Dalai Lama fails, and he flees to India in fear of assassination.|||agree perfectly with you-so many vehicles are created to carry the 'poison of politics' inside them to complicate matters more.i was wondering at this era why not sit and discuss the problems-say Tibet-.To me I think problems exist only at radicals and both China and Tibet are free of such' microbes'. is there no hope at solutions?At least to let the games go without boycotts?|||Which is more valuable: a gold medal from the Chinese govt or human dignity of the people in Tibet?
The answer is self-evident.|||Stop being biased, these revolts have clearly been organised and they are trouble makers that are taking advantage of a neutral Olympic event to hightlight their nonsense.
Why would the protestors burn shops, police stations, cut off flesh from police officers (yes, they did that yesterday!), cut off innocent by stander's ears etc.
Clearly, all those against the chinese are ill informed. Look at the mess that has been created due to ill-informed spy info in Iraq!
Why aren't ther protests for the starving Zimbabweans who face the highest inflation rate in the world under a mad dictator that has now passed legislation to take 51% of all foreign owned companies? Becuase the is a hidden agenda to conspire the only country that is on track to keep the mighty US in check and prevent them from ever defying the UN and attacking a country without world approval ever again. What a mess they have created in Iraq.|||Yes. Countries that attend the Olympics show that they believe that it is okay to have a horrible human rights record. China is monstrous and every country that attends the Olympic games this summer is basically stating that it condones this unacceptable behavior.|||I can't be bothered by the Olympics at all.|||stop buying Chinese, let them sell their cheap crap locally.|||This may answer your question：
First, a correction is long overdue: the word “China” or “Chinese” cannot be found in “China’s” language or in “Chinese” rich history records. What? Are you kidding? NO, I AM NOT KIDDING!
1) “China” and “Chinese” were imposed /used by the Europeans. A simple explanation might be a convenient reference to the place where a bowl of porcelain was made. But, before the Europeans first lay their eyes on a china, be it a rice bowl or a tea cup, the peoples living in that place already had a name for their country. It is called Zhong Guo. Its literal translation is: the Middle Kingdom.
2) What about its peoples? How do they address each other? There are over fifty ethnicities living in Zhong Guo. The Tibetan people is one of them. The word “Tibet” or “Tibetan” was also imposed by the Europeans. But long before the Europeans (the English) landed on Tibet, Tibetans called themselves “ bod”.or “po” . This is the word still in use, referring to both as the place and the people.
3) So, the question like , “When did Chinese first invade Tibet?” is an oxymoron. The fallacy is comparable to a hypothetical question: “When did Native Americans invade Navajo or Apache tribal lands? “ In America, you have Navajo, Cherokee, Choctaw, Sioux, Chippewa, Apache, etc. In Zhong Guo, they have Han, Hui, Mian, Zang, Zhuang, .. … about 50 plus ethnicities in all living on the land called the Middle Kingdom.
4) So, just like the Navajo people, who is an ethnic Native American, the Tibetan people is an ethnic Chinese. What? How could you say that Tibetan people is an ethnic Chinese, since their culture, clothing, food are so different ? Be calm, my friend. There are at least a dozen of other ethnic Chinese minorities whose culture, language, clothing and ways of religious worshiping are as exotic as , if not more than, that of Tibetans!
Then, what makes the Tibetan issue come to a head? A short answer is : the English and CIA’ s never-ending meddling. A long answer is: well, let’s do the long one:
5) As early as the seventh century, the ethnic Tibetan and ethnic Han Chinese established close ties through royal inter-marriages-------Han Emperor’s daughter married the head of Tibetan tribe. The alliances was cemented further into military and political bond by a mutual agreement or a bilateral practice: Han (or other ethnic Chinese, depending on which dynasty took control.) officials came to Tibetan tribal court to assist in administration and defense matters, whereas Tibetan court sent its officials to Han Chinese court. For a very long time, Central Chinese court subsidized the Tibetan court.
6) To be specific in one period: In the middle of the thirteenth century ( about 100 years after William the Conqueror invaded England), Tibet was formally incorporated into the Chinese territory of the Yuan Dynasty, Yuan Emperor Kublai entrusted to the Sakya Sect the power of administering the Tibet region, setting up the General Council (renamed Political Council in 1288) which was a central government organ exercising administrative power over the country's Buddhist affairs and the Tibetan affairs. The Yuan government instituted the system of imperial preceptor, conferred titles on political and religious leaders, delimited administrative divisions, appointed local officials, took census, collated and stipulated revenue and taxes, dividing the Tibet region into thirteen Wan Hu (ten thousand households). The heads of Wan Hu were conferred upon and appointed directly by the Yuan Court. There were three Chief Military Commands of the Pacification Commissioners' Offices which took charge of garrison troops and the administrative affairs of the various Wan Hu Offices in Tibet proper and other Tibetan areas. (The above was from historical records at the authoritative China’s websites)
7) This type of integrity has kept its steadfastness until the 19th century, when China’s Qing dynasty was vitally crippled by the opium trade imposed by the English. In 1888, The English invaded Bhutan and from there launched its first attack on Tibet. The invasion met Tibetans fierce resistance. (see http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-xzdxxb200403002… ) In 1904 the English army, headed by Francis Younghusband, launched its second invasion on Tibet. “Younghusband slaughtered 1,300 Tibetans in Gyangzê. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_You… On the Chinese records, British had slaughtered 5000 plus Tibetans at the end of the invasion. The Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904 was forced upon the Tibetans. It was at the time when the Tibetans’ usual protector ----China’s Emperor could not protect himself from the uprisings inside; neither could he keep at bay the European powers from outside. (Qing Dynasty ended in 1911.)
8) But In 1906 the English made the Anglo-Chinese Convention with Qing Emperor. It confirmed the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904, Britain agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet" while China engaged "not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet". In the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, drafted by the British, Britain also recognized the "suzerainty of China over Thibet" and, in conformity with such admitted principle, engaged "not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government” (The above was from Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Sven_…
9) In 1914, China was in chaos. English seized chance to shovel “the Simla Convention“ down Tibetan and China’s throat. By this treaty the English would partition Tibet into two: Inner Tibet and Outer Tibet. But In the end, Tibetans by pressure signed the treaty, but China government refused to sign. Since then the World War I, the Invasion of China by Japan, World War II and China’s Civil War ensued. Tibet was in neglect.
10) In 1949, Peoples’ Republic of China was established. Mao Zedong declared that new China shall “abolish all unequal treaties forced upon the peoples of China by foreign powers” This certainly includes treaties coerced upon the ethnic Tibetans by the English.
11) In 1957, CIA was involved. It transported Dalai Lama’s followers to Saipan Island in the Pacific for five months training “in modern weapons and guerrilla tactics. They were also trained in espionage and codes, and in the operation of the hand-cranked radio transmitter/receiver.” "We only lived to kill Chinese," recalled one Tibetan veteran. "Our hopes were high." One of the trainees, Gyato Wangdu (who would later become the last commander of the Chushi Candrug), asked CIA operations officer Roger McCarthy for "a portable nuclear weapon of some kind...that the trainees might employ to destroy Chinese by the hundreds." The CIA declined, but McCarthy noted that Wangdu "did take to demolition training with renewed enthusiasm" and became quite taken with bazookas and mortars. (The above was from WAR at the TOP of the WORLD. By: Bageant, Joe, Military History, 08897328, Feb2004, Vol. 20, Issue 6)
12) In 1959, Tibetan armed insurgents accelerated their attacks on ethnic Han and Peoples Liberation Army. They were supplied with arms and ammunitions air dropped by CIA Mao ordered more troops entering Tibet to quash. On or about March 10, 1959, Dalai Lama made the decision to flee. On March 17, he was smuggled out of Potala palace schemed by CIA, On March 30 he entered into India, starting his exile.
13) In 1972, Kissinger came to Beijing. China broke away from USSR and shifted to the US side. (China attended 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles while the USSR was boycotting it.) It was then that under Nixon’s order, CIA stopped training Tibetans guerrilla on its Colorado military base. But UK did not stop supporting the exile Tibetans. In 1987, “Free Tibet” was founded in UK. Now it branched out all over the world, with 30 branches in UK alone. It was properly then that Dalai Lama made a decision, or under the guidance of MI 6, to go for secession without armed rebellions. Very likely, the end of military support might be interpreted by CIA, or as a joint decision with MI 6, as the start of political support. That requires an image platform for Dalai Lama to leapfrog.
14) 1989 is the year that affords him one. Chinese student movements broke out in the Tiananmen Square. China political structure was shaken. The Tibetans in exiles seized this chance to instigate demonstrations inside Tibet. Had China government lost its control, Tibetan secession might have been done. Anyway, CIA and MI 6 secret campaign guaranteed him a Nobel Prize.
15) In the years ensued, Dalai Lama was elevated to the peak of a praise mountain piled up by Hollywood celebrities. Nobody in the west gave a dame to the Tibetan woman neglected at the very bottom of Tibetan theocratic hierarchy. Invitations, speeches, the spotlight by western politicians are made to wash away peoples’ memory that Dalai Lama was once an armed rebellion schemer, the participant and responsible for mass killings in Tibet. No matter, as long as he can be used to embarrass China or stir up a riot against other ethnic Chinese, he serves the west well.
What is happening right now in Tibet is clearly an organized, well planned VIOLENT "incident" by Dalai Lama who is funded by anti-China foreign government. They picked the moment right before Olympics.
Those people who "protest" are thugs. You can see in the video, they are burning down shops, cars on the streets. They would have been arrested in all countries for doing this.
By the way, Dalai Lama was the biggest slave owner in Tibet. All the land in TIbet were owned by the monks who were serving Dalai Lama. Majority population were bonded to the land owned by those monks. There was no such thing as "Tibet freedom" before communists took over. Western anti-communists mass media brainwashed people to believe Dalai Lama is a peace loving monk, because they want to demonlize the Chinese government.
Just take a good look at the videos in the following links. Those aren't even "protests", it's CRIME.
video #1
A group of Tibetan thugs beating up a Han Chinese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWZuRHpv…
video #2
These terrorists burn down shops, cars. Oh wait, isn't that dude kicking a shop's glass dressed as a monk? WOW, shouldn't buddhist monks doing that? I always thought Tibetan "buddhism" is a joke, it's no where close to the real Buddhism you find ANYWHERE else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYdnkUbzg…
People are just blinded after being brainwashed for all their lives. They don't seem have a problem if someone burn down their houses, cars, beating their family to deaths. Of course, if the government steps in to stop those mobs, it will be "human rights violation".|||Yes, absolutely! They are very afraid that will happen! The US is in a perfect position to receive Human Rights promises from China because of this possibility!|||The money is always more important than the rights of the minorities.
The history is repeating over and over again.|||Yes, we should.
Will it happen? I doubt it....too many greed-head companies on board for that, drooling over that "Chinese market".
And these are the same folks (the mainland Chinese) who keep using lead-based paints in our children's toys. All while the TV rightwads on Fox News have conniptions whenever the rest of us *grown-up humans* correct that situation, you know, to protect ourselves...?
So yeah, I don't see it happening. The damned companies just won't allow it. Imagine that, *capitalism* supporting the Communism of the Chinese. O_O
Somewhere in the Great Beyond I bet some dude named Mao is seriously sick to his stomach.
Just saying....We should do the right thing here....but will we have the *spine* in our bodies to?|||Yes, all free nations should boycott the Olympics!!
Plus buy nothing Made in China.
I know most things are now Made in China, but we could at least try?|||Approiach it differently
Go, but as soon as the athlete is finished, bring them home. so at the closing ceremony, no one is there.
beat the wings off of them in competition|||A case could certainly be made for doing so. The real question is: how effective would it be?|||Again, yes Boycott China's Olympic money making machine, stop buying Made in China, email your MP or Government representitive, ask them what they are doing about the genocide.
Email companies you know use China as a pool of cheap labour, wallmart etc.
Tell them you will not buy from them until things in China change.
These are small things I know, but if one hundred thousand people do it, then the financial effects will begin to show, if one million people do it then it will have a greater impact.
We seem to forget that if we get behind a common cause, and use the power of buying or not buying, then the consumer has a huge power over companies and also governments.
China needs to be tackled or they will dfo whatever they like.
And bully's only respond to strength, so we should become much stronger in our dealing with them.|||I think it should be up to the athletes. banning them is not fair.|||I agree all nations should, I'd be surprised if any do. I boycott all Chinese products.|||Other nations should encourage mainland China to seek a peaceful end to the solution. Encouraging other ethnic groups in other nations to revolt is not the right solution. And boycotting the Olympics would only tell China that the Tibetans have destroyed what they've worked for....which will encourage China to use actual force in suppressing the current protests.
We've suppressed minority rights for blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics, women, etc in our history...if they had revolted it would've been disastrous for the nation. However with time, civil liberties were granted and life did improve.
Besides, the Tibetan theocracy in place before the communist invasion wasn't any better than the current government. The religious class ruled with absolute power and oppressed the average Tibetan just as much as the Chinese police do today, if not more.
Brief Summary:
Qing Dynasty invades Tibet in the 16th century, establishes the chain of Dalai Lama through election
1912, Chinese Revolution by the KMT (now Taiwan) - Tibet, Mongolia, and other regions declare independence
1949, KMT loses the Chinese civil war to the communists. The communists decide to take back territories lost in the early 20th century.
Armed Tibetan insurgency lasts decades, with thousands of Tibetan %26amp; Chinese soldiers and civilians dead. CIA backed armed uprising supported by the current Dalai Lama fails, and he flees to India in fear of assassination.|||agree perfectly with you-so many vehicles are created to carry the 'poison of politics' inside them to complicate matters more.i was wondering at this era why not sit and discuss the problems-say Tibet-.To me I think problems exist only at radicals and both China and Tibet are free of such' microbes'. is there no hope at solutions?At least to let the games go without boycotts?|||Which is more valuable: a gold medal from the Chinese govt or human dignity of the people in Tibet?
The answer is self-evident.|||Stop being biased, these revolts have clearly been organised and they are trouble makers that are taking advantage of a neutral Olympic event to hightlight their nonsense.
Why would the protestors burn shops, police stations, cut off flesh from police officers (yes, they did that yesterday!), cut off innocent by stander's ears etc.
Clearly, all those against the chinese are ill informed. Look at the mess that has been created due to ill-informed spy info in Iraq!
Why aren't ther protests for the starving Zimbabweans who face the highest inflation rate in the world under a mad dictator that has now passed legislation to take 51% of all foreign owned companies? Becuase the is a hidden agenda to conspire the only country that is on track to keep the mighty US in check and prevent them from ever defying the UN and attacking a country without world approval ever again. What a mess they have created in Iraq.|||Yes. Countries that attend the Olympics show that they believe that it is okay to have a horrible human rights record. China is monstrous and every country that attends the Olympic games this summer is basically stating that it condones this unacceptable behavior.|||I can't be bothered by the Olympics at all.|||stop buying Chinese, let them sell their cheap crap locally.|||This may answer your question：
First, a correction is long overdue: the word “China” or “Chinese” cannot be found in “China’s” language or in “Chinese” rich history records. What? Are you kidding? NO, I AM NOT KIDDING!
1) “China” and “Chinese” were imposed /used by the Europeans. A simple explanation might be a convenient reference to the place where a bowl of porcelain was made. But, before the Europeans first lay their eyes on a china, be it a rice bowl or a tea cup, the peoples living in that place already had a name for their country. It is called Zhong Guo. Its literal translation is: the Middle Kingdom.
2) What about its peoples? How do they address each other? There are over fifty ethnicities living in Zhong Guo. The Tibetan people is one of them. The word “Tibet” or “Tibetan” was also imposed by the Europeans. But long before the Europeans (the English) landed on Tibet, Tibetans called themselves “ bod”.or “po” . This is the word still in use, referring to both as the place and the people.
3) So, the question like , “When did Chinese first invade Tibet?” is an oxymoron. The fallacy is comparable to a hypothetical question: “When did Native Americans invade Navajo or Apache tribal lands? “ In America, you have Navajo, Cherokee, Choctaw, Sioux, Chippewa, Apache, etc. In Zhong Guo, they have Han, Hui, Mian, Zang, Zhuang, .. … about 50 plus ethnicities in all living on the land called the Middle Kingdom.
4) So, just like the Navajo people, who is an ethnic Native American, the Tibetan people is an ethnic Chinese. What? How could you say that Tibetan people is an ethnic Chinese, since their culture, clothing, food are so different ? Be calm, my friend. There are at least a dozen of other ethnic Chinese minorities whose culture, language, clothing and ways of religious worshiping are as exotic as , if not more than, that of Tibetans!
Then, what makes the Tibetan issue come to a head? A short answer is : the English and CIA’ s never-ending meddling. A long answer is: well, let’s do the long one:
5) As early as the seventh century, the ethnic Tibetan and ethnic Han Chinese established close ties through royal inter-marriages-------Han Emperor’s daughter married the head of Tibetan tribe. The alliances was cemented further into military and political bond by a mutual agreement or a bilateral practice: Han (or other ethnic Chinese, depending on which dynasty took control.) officials came to Tibetan tribal court to assist in administration and defense matters, whereas Tibetan court sent its officials to Han Chinese court. For a very long time, Central Chinese court subsidized the Tibetan court.
6) To be specific in one period: In the middle of the thirteenth century ( about 100 years after William the Conqueror invaded England), Tibet was formally incorporated into the Chinese territory of the Yuan Dynasty, Yuan Emperor Kublai entrusted to the Sakya Sect the power of administering the Tibet region, setting up the General Council (renamed Political Council in 1288) which was a central government organ exercising administrative power over the country's Buddhist affairs and the Tibetan affairs. The Yuan government instituted the system of imperial preceptor, conferred titles on political and religious leaders, delimited administrative divisions, appointed local officials, took census, collated and stipulated revenue and taxes, dividing the Tibet region into thirteen Wan Hu (ten thousand households). The heads of Wan Hu were conferred upon and appointed directly by the Yuan Court. There were three Chief Military Commands of the Pacification Commissioners' Offices which took charge of garrison troops and the administrative affairs of the various Wan Hu Offices in Tibet proper and other Tibetan areas. (The above was from historical records at the authoritative China’s websites)
7) This type of integrity has kept its steadfastness until the 19th century, when China’s Qing dynasty was vitally crippled by the opium trade imposed by the English. In 1888, The English invaded Bhutan and from there launched its first attack on Tibet. The invasion met Tibetans fierce resistance. (see http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-xzdxxb200403002… ) In 1904 the English army, headed by Francis Younghusband, launched its second invasion on Tibet. “Younghusband slaughtered 1,300 Tibetans in Gyangzê. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_You… On the Chinese records, British had slaughtered 5000 plus Tibetans at the end of the invasion. The Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904 was forced upon the Tibetans. It was at the time when the Tibetans’ usual protector ----China’s Emperor could not protect himself from the uprisings inside; neither could he keep at bay the European powers from outside. (Qing Dynasty ended in 1911.)
8) But In 1906 the English made the Anglo-Chinese Convention with Qing Emperor. It confirmed the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904, Britain agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet" while China engaged "not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet". In the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, drafted by the British, Britain also recognized the "suzerainty of China over Thibet" and, in conformity with such admitted principle, engaged "not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government” (The above was from Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Sven_…
9) In 1914, China was in chaos. English seized chance to shovel “the Simla Convention“ down Tibetan and China’s throat. By this treaty the English would partition Tibet into two: Inner Tibet and Outer Tibet. But In the end, Tibetans by pressure signed the treaty, but China government refused to sign. Since then the World War I, the Invasion of China by Japan, World War II and China’s Civil War ensued. Tibet was in neglect.
10) In 1949, Peoples’ Republic of China was established. Mao Zedong declared that new China shall “abolish all unequal treaties forced upon the peoples of China by foreign powers” This certainly includes treaties coerced upon the ethnic Tibetans by the English.
11) In 1957, CIA was involved. It transported Dalai Lama’s followers to Saipan Island in the Pacific for five months training “in modern weapons and guerrilla tactics. They were also trained in espionage and codes, and in the operation of the hand-cranked radio transmitter/receiver.” "We only lived to kill Chinese," recalled one Tibetan veteran. "Our hopes were high." One of the trainees, Gyato Wangdu (who would later become the last commander of the Chushi Candrug), asked CIA operations officer Roger McCarthy for "a portable nuclear weapon of some kind...that the trainees might employ to destroy Chinese by the hundreds." The CIA declined, but McCarthy noted that Wangdu "did take to demolition training with renewed enthusiasm" and became quite taken with bazookas and mortars. (The above was from WAR at the TOP of the WORLD. By: Bageant, Joe, Military History, 08897328, Feb2004, Vol. 20, Issue 6)
12) In 1959, Tibetan armed insurgents accelerated their attacks on ethnic Han and Peoples Liberation Army. They were supplied with arms and ammunitions air dropped by CIA Mao ordered more troops entering Tibet to quash. On or about March 10, 1959, Dalai Lama made the decision to flee. On March 17, he was smuggled out of Potala palace schemed by CIA, On March 30 he entered into India, starting his exile.
13) In 1972, Kissinger came to Beijing. China broke away from USSR and shifted to the US side. (China attended 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles while the USSR was boycotting it.) It was then that under Nixon’s order, CIA stopped training Tibetans guerrilla on its Colorado military base. But UK did not stop supporting the exile Tibetans. In 1987, “Free Tibet” was founded in UK. Now it branched out all over the world, with 30 branches in UK alone. It was properly then that Dalai Lama made a decision, or under the guidance of MI 6, to go for secession without armed rebellions. Very likely, the end of military support might be interpreted by CIA, or as a joint decision with MI 6, as the start of political support. That requires an image platform for Dalai Lama to leapfrog.
14) 1989 is the year that affords him one. Chinese student movements broke out in the Tiananmen Square. China political structure was shaken. The Tibetans in exiles seized this chance to instigate demonstrations inside Tibet. Had China government lost its control, Tibetan secession might have been done. Anyway, CIA and MI 6 secret campaign guaranteed him a Nobel Prize.
15) In the years ensued, Dalai Lama was elevated to the peak of a praise mountain piled up by Hollywood celebrities. Nobody in the west gave a dame to the Tibetan woman neglected at the very bottom of Tibetan theocratic hierarchy. Invitations, speeches, the spotlight by western politicians are made to wash away peoples’ memory that Dalai Lama was once an armed rebellion schemer, the participant and responsible for mass killings in Tibet. No matter, as long as he can be used to embarrass China or stir up a riot against other ethnic Chinese, he serves the west well.
If capitalism is so wonderful and marxism so bad, why does USA lag behind all nations in technology?
The US has never contributed anything to worlwide technology. The only thing the US has done is taken what others create and invent and then turn it into a company to make profits at the expense of the minorities and poor.|||When did you receive your first concussion?
I'll have to save this question so the next time some Liberal claims they are educated I can show this to them! LOL!|||Simple answer, LAWYERS. I had a Syrian professor in Engineering School, he used to say that in Syria, whey he did his undergraduate and in Spain (where he completed his PhD) and other European countries there are (or were back then) 1 lawyer per 100 engineers and here in America there are 20 layers per 1 engineer. The lawsuits are stumping scientific progress. Scientists are afraid that anything they do would be taken to court, thus they leave the country or stay withing the guidelines. That is the same reason medical treatments are so expensive, doctors and hospitals have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to insurance companies because they keep getting sued.
I agree with john449. The question denotes a total failure of education.|||Culture. We tend to put people down for being "nerds". We alienate those with good minds.
They're building a fusion reactor in europe right now. They intend to harness the power of the sun by fusing atoms together instead of splitting them. It produces no nuclear fall out and produces much more energy than nuclear reactors. Speaking of nuclear reactors, several european countries use nuclear reactors to power most of their electricity.
However in America we condemn such technology through ignorance and strong prejudice.|||Uhmm...no.
The internet (US Military)
Intel (CA)
AMD (CA)
Microsoft (redmond, WA)
IBM (NY)
Apple (CA)
HP (Palo Alto, CA)
Dell (TX)
Linux (Oregon)
Unix (IBM, see above)
FreeBSD (Apple, see above)
The Wiki (CA)
Wikipedia (CA)
Mac OSX (CA)
Windows (WA)
Solaris (Sun, see below)
Sun Microsystems (CA)
YouTube (CA)
Notebooks (IBM)
Desktops (Intel, CA)
Servers (CA)
Dude, your argument is epic failure.|||I know at this stage fact and reason are futile in any attempt to say anything positive about the US, but in the real world (the actual real world, not the one in your media-ingnited fantasies) the US is the world's leading developer and innovator of technology, including the Internet that you are using.|||Since I don't want to sit here typing all day I will give one example, The US is the only nation to have put a man on the moon, granted with help from German and Dutch scientist but lets not forget Robert Goddard (an American) that produced and flew the first liquid fueled rocket 15 years before Germany and from which Von Braun got a lot of his knowledge from.|||Yes, I suggest you go to Cuba and see fleets of cars from the '50s being held together with chewing gum and coat hangers. Or check out Google Earth, the night shot, and look for North Korea. You'll recognize it as the giant, blank spot where there are no lights. Great argument.|||I'd be able to answer this if you could substantiate your claim. The United States is always the innovator. We have invented:
Most modern military technology
Telephone
Lightbulb
Modern automotive technology
Supply chains
Computing technology
and more|||The U.S. has had more inventions than the rest of the world combined.
Like the Internet? Thank the U.S., like flying in airplanes, like the telephone, electric light, penicillin, cd players, etc etc etc|||No, actually the US has made the vast majority of technological breakthroughs in the last 150 years, and tried hard to stop other people from getting them.|||It's really simple... Our politicians are morons. They argue all day and get nothing done. (Both Democrats and Republicans alike)|||I suppose things like airplanes, atom bombs, and rockets that carry people to the moon all just invented themselves then.|||Government regulation removes the incentive to create new technology.
- Libertarian|||Which is why the United Sates has the most technologically advanced military in the world.|||What's with all the morons, idiots, trolls and drama queens today?|||OK Obama...you really need to put that crack pipe down and get rid of your BlackBerry. You're supposed to be running a country, not f'n around on Y!A!|||That's beyond ridiculous.|||Because of 8 years of Bush.|||Go to Cuba or North Korea if you don't like it you commie liberal!|||This question is just yet another example of our Govt run school system!|||too many hamburgers?|||I don't think this is true BUT we might get more out of you if we made you work in a sweat shop with no time off and little stimulation other than work.|||What?
The US created the Internet, you know that thing you're on right now|||People in America are stupid.
I'll have to save this question so the next time some Liberal claims they are educated I can show this to them! LOL!|||Simple answer, LAWYERS. I had a Syrian professor in Engineering School, he used to say that in Syria, whey he did his undergraduate and in Spain (where he completed his PhD) and other European countries there are (or were back then) 1 lawyer per 100 engineers and here in America there are 20 layers per 1 engineer. The lawsuits are stumping scientific progress. Scientists are afraid that anything they do would be taken to court, thus they leave the country or stay withing the guidelines. That is the same reason medical treatments are so expensive, doctors and hospitals have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to insurance companies because they keep getting sued.
I agree with john449. The question denotes a total failure of education.|||Culture. We tend to put people down for being "nerds". We alienate those with good minds.
They're building a fusion reactor in europe right now. They intend to harness the power of the sun by fusing atoms together instead of splitting them. It produces no nuclear fall out and produces much more energy than nuclear reactors. Speaking of nuclear reactors, several european countries use nuclear reactors to power most of their electricity.
However in America we condemn such technology through ignorance and strong prejudice.|||Uhmm...no.
The internet (US Military)
Intel (CA)
AMD (CA)
Microsoft (redmond, WA)
IBM (NY)
Apple (CA)
HP (Palo Alto, CA)
Dell (TX)
Linux (Oregon)
Unix (IBM, see above)
FreeBSD (Apple, see above)
The Wiki (CA)
Wikipedia (CA)
Mac OSX (CA)
Windows (WA)
Solaris (Sun, see below)
Sun Microsystems (CA)
YouTube (CA)
Notebooks (IBM)
Desktops (Intel, CA)
Servers (CA)
Dude, your argument is epic failure.|||I know at this stage fact and reason are futile in any attempt to say anything positive about the US, but in the real world (the actual real world, not the one in your media-ingnited fantasies) the US is the world's leading developer and innovator of technology, including the Internet that you are using.|||Since I don't want to sit here typing all day I will give one example, The US is the only nation to have put a man on the moon, granted with help from German and Dutch scientist but lets not forget Robert Goddard (an American) that produced and flew the first liquid fueled rocket 15 years before Germany and from which Von Braun got a lot of his knowledge from.|||Yes, I suggest you go to Cuba and see fleets of cars from the '50s being held together with chewing gum and coat hangers. Or check out Google Earth, the night shot, and look for North Korea. You'll recognize it as the giant, blank spot where there are no lights. Great argument.|||I'd be able to answer this if you could substantiate your claim. The United States is always the innovator. We have invented:
Most modern military technology
Telephone
Lightbulb
Modern automotive technology
Supply chains
Computing technology
and more|||The U.S. has had more inventions than the rest of the world combined.
Like the Internet? Thank the U.S., like flying in airplanes, like the telephone, electric light, penicillin, cd players, etc etc etc|||No, actually the US has made the vast majority of technological breakthroughs in the last 150 years, and tried hard to stop other people from getting them.|||It's really simple... Our politicians are morons. They argue all day and get nothing done. (Both Democrats and Republicans alike)|||I suppose things like airplanes, atom bombs, and rockets that carry people to the moon all just invented themselves then.|||Government regulation removes the incentive to create new technology.
- Libertarian|||Which is why the United Sates has the most technologically advanced military in the world.|||What's with all the morons, idiots, trolls and drama queens today?|||OK Obama...you really need to put that crack pipe down and get rid of your BlackBerry. You're supposed to be running a country, not f'n around on Y!A!|||That's beyond ridiculous.|||Because of 8 years of Bush.|||Go to Cuba or North Korea if you don't like it you commie liberal!|||This question is just yet another example of our Govt run school system!|||too many hamburgers?|||I don't think this is true BUT we might get more out of you if we made you work in a sweat shop with no time off and little stimulation other than work.|||What?
The US created the Internet, you know that thing you're on right now|||People in America are stupid.
Would the world be a better place if all the nations of the world were Christian?
Here in YA I have read over and over again, concerning wars, "the problem is that people, or governments, or leaders don't believe in God, don't believe in Christ".
Well... in europe, for centuries, there were dozens (or hundreds) of wars between Christian nations.
I guess I could also ask "Would the world be a better place if all the nations of the world were atheist?" Many atheists blame religion for wars. Or "Would the world be a better place if all the nations of the world were Muslim, or Jew or hindu...".
Do you believe that is the real problem? Religion is what makes us kill each other? Or is it just the fight for resources, for political influence, for power?|||First of all ALL wars are fought for control of valuable resources (real or perceived value). Religion is often used as a tool for the people who want to control resources to galvanize their population, but make no mistake, religion is a tool, just like nationalism, racism, fear, and other galvanization tools.
Most of Europe was Christian during the Middle Ages, but they all fought for 100s of years. Religion played very little in WWI and WWII. Those wars were mostly nationalistic in nature.
War will only be eliminated when we start thinking of ourselves as a global population, which religion is a minor obstacle compared to bigger more base forces like racism.
|||No way.|||lol it would be better if no one was lmao|||No...organized religion is a bane on our civility
|||Humans have been fighting since the beginning of time. Religion won't change that. It might make you a better person though|||Then Christianity would be a holy form of
.
Communism
.
To believe as the state says or go to prison
.|||Religion is and has been the root for all wars. I'm afraid this will never change until it's over. Yes they would be better to believe in Jesus and then all the nonsense and fighting could stop.|||No, they would still fight about who was the "One True Religion."
Roman Catholics and Mormons are both Christians, but they both think the other are going straight to hell when they die.|||Religion is bad. It would be better if they were all athiests.|||I think all of those factors affect wars. Religion, politics, power, etc. Religion has caused a lot of wars but I suppose what religion is to blame? Every religion started a war (as far as I know). Just lately certain religions have started them or kept them going. I think the world would be better if we had religion. It brings a sense of hope I suppose to some people (whether it is real or not). Some religions just want peace... others are a join or die mentallity. For those athiests wasting their time trying to get rid of religion (or at least it seems like it)...No one cares boys! Go back in your little whole and have fun with yourself :)|||i do believe this world would be a better place if everyone was a Christian. If everyone really looked to God for guidance and put all there trust and faith in him we would all be better off. i am not saying it should be a law that you be Christian. God gives everyone a choice of whether or not to accept him. but, i know that the more people that would accept him, the better off this world will be.|||Actually it would be better if everyone was a non-theistic Buddhist. They are the most non-violent people ever. |||No. As you point out the Christian nations have found reasons in the past to fight among themselves. Religion could however also still be a catalyst for war because Christian factions could divide nations based on their particular beliefs. There are of course other very fundamental reasons for war but recognizing those reasons does not discount religion as a basis. |||Your question is a paradox.
Christian factions have, and perhaps will, fought against each other as well as against other religions for almost the entirety of history.
Democracies have yet to declare war against each other.
However, without what is commonly perceived as "Christian Values" (and I mean in the best sense of the word, not the insult) which apply to the peaceful side of other religions as well, Democracy can not survive.
Think about it.
Edit: No, Great Britain is not a democracy. They are a Constitutional Monarchy. Not the same.
One other thing...the Falklands war is not a war...it was never declared on either side.|||I think religion is just another way for them to discriminate. Its easy propaganda for the people in order to gain power. Look at WWII, Hilter used the Jews to create world domination. |||First of all, I've been on this site, arguing Politics and R%26amp;S for over 2 years and I have never said what you say you see people saying. I also cannot recall seeing it said.
What I have said is that our nation has been a leader in human rights and foreign aid and I attribute this largely to our Judeo-Christian ethics.
But since you asked, I think the world would definitely be a better place if Christ were running it. No question about it. Human proxy, however, is not the same thing, and I am not a dominionist, by any stretch.
Atheists killed more humans in the 20th century than Christians in history ever have.
Hindus and Buddhists let their poor and sick die while they get run over by cattle.
Muslims rule in the most oppressive 21st century nations.
The Jews are basically about survival.
Our US Constitution, as written, does not need improving upon. No human is going to do it any better.|||Absolutely not. |||I believe that religion often plays a role in wars, as do greed and the need for resources. After all, the Crusades and the Thirty Years War were certainly fueled largely by religious zeal, though the love of plunder certainly had a hand in what took place in those wars.|||What the problem is is that people fight religious wars because of the doctrinal differences... Honestly, I am of the opinion (from many years of studying on my own) that the reason that we are in "religious" wars so much is because it's really a sibling rivaly of sorts... if you look at who is warring against each other it's the Christians vs. the Jews vs. the Muslims... and one could argue that all three faiths stem from the same place.... Abraham, who fathered Ishmael (which is considered to be the father of the Arab nations and an ancestor to Muhammad, the writer of the Koran) and Isaac (who is considered the father of the Jewish faith).... and then Christianity that came thousands of years later... So you can see that the war between the three stems from a sort of rivalry that has sense escalated.
Religion and religious peoples do not cause war in and of themselves... what causes war is ignorance, pride, greed, selfishness, arogance, etc.... the belief that I (in general) am always right and you (in general) are always wrong... Not to mention there are plenty of "religious" people out there that instead of following the scriptures (whether in the Bible, Koran or the Torah) they cherry pick out God's word to justify their sins and cause grief on each other... They claim to know what God is saying, but if they were really doing God's will then they would have absolute victory and not this quagmire, 100 years war crap....
BTW: I do not believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims serve the same God... Nor do I believe that Mormons or Catholics (and even some Protestant demonations) are true Christians (my step father was supposed to become a Catholic preist but did not because he did not feel like his questions were answered about the faith and his family is devout French Catholics.) I believe this because there are too many doctrinal differences that do not represent the words of Christ... and Christians by definition are to be Christ like...|||So if the world all of a sudden becomes Christian, do non-Christians automatically become second-class citizens? I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be offended because I am not Christian. I am a law abiding, highly educated, and productive member of my community. Yet I would be considered a peon because I share different religious views? Is my freedom of religion worthless in the eyes of a Christian?|||I am against any form of organized religion. I believe my relationship with my maker(whomever that may be) is very personal and private. I am not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Considering that most of the world's wars haver been religious, and that more lives are lost because of religion, I think it would be best if we all kept that part of ourselves to ourselves.|||No! The world would be a better place if we were more tolerant and if the true Christians actually lived by The Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule rather than just preach them. For example, "Love thy neighbor," "Thou shall not kill," Do unto others as you want done to you," or "Judge not less ye be judged yourself."|||I don't think it would make much difference at all. There are conflicts and wars that are religion-based but there are just as many that come from other causes. If the world was all one religion, there would still be plenty of conflicts, as you said about resources, power, etc. It's always been part of human nature to be in conflict with others. This is the human condition, at least up to this point. There could be a time in the future when there is less war, but something besides a single religion would bring that about (I have no idea what that would be - I'm pretty pessimistic on this question).
Also, I think having one worldwide religion is an unnatural state. It's also part of human nature to have a diversity of beliefs. What you believe in is very individual, even quirky and hard to explain. I can't imagine a scenario in which every country would be one religion, and that' s not a world I'd like to live in.|||It will be some day.
Well... in europe, for centuries, there were dozens (or hundreds) of wars between Christian nations.
I guess I could also ask "Would the world be a better place if all the nations of the world were atheist?" Many atheists blame religion for wars. Or "Would the world be a better place if all the nations of the world were Muslim, or Jew or hindu...".
Do you believe that is the real problem? Religion is what makes us kill each other? Or is it just the fight for resources, for political influence, for power?|||First of all ALL wars are fought for control of valuable resources (real or perceived value). Religion is often used as a tool for the people who want to control resources to galvanize their population, but make no mistake, religion is a tool, just like nationalism, racism, fear, and other galvanization tools.
Most of Europe was Christian during the Middle Ages, but they all fought for 100s of years. Religion played very little in WWI and WWII. Those wars were mostly nationalistic in nature.
War will only be eliminated when we start thinking of ourselves as a global population, which religion is a minor obstacle compared to bigger more base forces like racism.
|||No way.|||lol it would be better if no one was lmao|||No...organized religion is a bane on our civility
|||Humans have been fighting since the beginning of time. Religion won't change that. It might make you a better person though|||Then Christianity would be a holy form of
.
Communism
.
To believe as the state says or go to prison
.|||Religion is and has been the root for all wars. I'm afraid this will never change until it's over. Yes they would be better to believe in Jesus and then all the nonsense and fighting could stop.|||No, they would still fight about who was the "One True Religion."
Roman Catholics and Mormons are both Christians, but they both think the other are going straight to hell when they die.|||Religion is bad. It would be better if they were all athiests.|||I think all of those factors affect wars. Religion, politics, power, etc. Religion has caused a lot of wars but I suppose what religion is to blame? Every religion started a war (as far as I know). Just lately certain religions have started them or kept them going. I think the world would be better if we had religion. It brings a sense of hope I suppose to some people (whether it is real or not). Some religions just want peace... others are a join or die mentallity. For those athiests wasting their time trying to get rid of religion (or at least it seems like it)...No one cares boys! Go back in your little whole and have fun with yourself :)|||i do believe this world would be a better place if everyone was a Christian. If everyone really looked to God for guidance and put all there trust and faith in him we would all be better off. i am not saying it should be a law that you be Christian. God gives everyone a choice of whether or not to accept him. but, i know that the more people that would accept him, the better off this world will be.|||Actually it would be better if everyone was a non-theistic Buddhist. They are the most non-violent people ever. |||No. As you point out the Christian nations have found reasons in the past to fight among themselves. Religion could however also still be a catalyst for war because Christian factions could divide nations based on their particular beliefs. There are of course other very fundamental reasons for war but recognizing those reasons does not discount religion as a basis. |||Your question is a paradox.
Christian factions have, and perhaps will, fought against each other as well as against other religions for almost the entirety of history.
Democracies have yet to declare war against each other.
However, without what is commonly perceived as "Christian Values" (and I mean in the best sense of the word, not the insult) which apply to the peaceful side of other religions as well, Democracy can not survive.
Think about it.
Edit: No, Great Britain is not a democracy. They are a Constitutional Monarchy. Not the same.
One other thing...the Falklands war is not a war...it was never declared on either side.|||I think religion is just another way for them to discriminate. Its easy propaganda for the people in order to gain power. Look at WWII, Hilter used the Jews to create world domination. |||First of all, I've been on this site, arguing Politics and R%26amp;S for over 2 years and I have never said what you say you see people saying. I also cannot recall seeing it said.
What I have said is that our nation has been a leader in human rights and foreign aid and I attribute this largely to our Judeo-Christian ethics.
But since you asked, I think the world would definitely be a better place if Christ were running it. No question about it. Human proxy, however, is not the same thing, and I am not a dominionist, by any stretch.
Atheists killed more humans in the 20th century than Christians in history ever have.
Hindus and Buddhists let their poor and sick die while they get run over by cattle.
Muslims rule in the most oppressive 21st century nations.
The Jews are basically about survival.
Our US Constitution, as written, does not need improving upon. No human is going to do it any better.|||Absolutely not. |||I believe that religion often plays a role in wars, as do greed and the need for resources. After all, the Crusades and the Thirty Years War were certainly fueled largely by religious zeal, though the love of plunder certainly had a hand in what took place in those wars.|||What the problem is is that people fight religious wars because of the doctrinal differences... Honestly, I am of the opinion (from many years of studying on my own) that the reason that we are in "religious" wars so much is because it's really a sibling rivaly of sorts... if you look at who is warring against each other it's the Christians vs. the Jews vs. the Muslims... and one could argue that all three faiths stem from the same place.... Abraham, who fathered Ishmael (which is considered to be the father of the Arab nations and an ancestor to Muhammad, the writer of the Koran) and Isaac (who is considered the father of the Jewish faith).... and then Christianity that came thousands of years later... So you can see that the war between the three stems from a sort of rivalry that has sense escalated.
Religion and religious peoples do not cause war in and of themselves... what causes war is ignorance, pride, greed, selfishness, arogance, etc.... the belief that I (in general) am always right and you (in general) are always wrong... Not to mention there are plenty of "religious" people out there that instead of following the scriptures (whether in the Bible, Koran or the Torah) they cherry pick out God's word to justify their sins and cause grief on each other... They claim to know what God is saying, but if they were really doing God's will then they would have absolute victory and not this quagmire, 100 years war crap....
BTW: I do not believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims serve the same God... Nor do I believe that Mormons or Catholics (and even some Protestant demonations) are true Christians (my step father was supposed to become a Catholic preist but did not because he did not feel like his questions were answered about the faith and his family is devout French Catholics.) I believe this because there are too many doctrinal differences that do not represent the words of Christ... and Christians by definition are to be Christ like...|||So if the world all of a sudden becomes Christian, do non-Christians automatically become second-class citizens? I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be offended because I am not Christian. I am a law abiding, highly educated, and productive member of my community. Yet I would be considered a peon because I share different religious views? Is my freedom of religion worthless in the eyes of a Christian?|||I am against any form of organized religion. I believe my relationship with my maker(whomever that may be) is very personal and private. I am not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Considering that most of the world's wars haver been religious, and that more lives are lost because of religion, I think it would be best if we all kept that part of ourselves to ourselves.|||No! The world would be a better place if we were more tolerant and if the true Christians actually lived by The Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule rather than just preach them. For example, "Love thy neighbor," "Thou shall not kill," Do unto others as you want done to you," or "Judge not less ye be judged yourself."|||I don't think it would make much difference at all. There are conflicts and wars that are religion-based but there are just as many that come from other causes. If the world was all one religion, there would still be plenty of conflicts, as you said about resources, power, etc. It's always been part of human nature to be in conflict with others. This is the human condition, at least up to this point. There could be a time in the future when there is less war, but something besides a single religion would bring that about (I have no idea what that would be - I'm pretty pessimistic on this question).
Also, I think having one worldwide religion is an unnatural state. It's also part of human nature to have a diversity of beliefs. What you believe in is very individual, even quirky and hard to explain. I can't imagine a scenario in which every country would be one religion, and that' s not a world I'd like to live in.|||It will be some day.
If all the worlds nations were to stop importing what objects might you not be able to obtain?
Give examples of products that you can obtain only through import into the united states.|||Things you MIGHT not be able to obtain if trade stopped? Shorter list to say the things that you'd still get. There would be a shortage of nearly everything. Civilization would collapse.
Things absolutely couldn't ever get because none is sourced in the US?
Specific brands (eg, Sony, Fujitsu)
Specific commodities (eg, palm oil, emeralds, pepper, tequila, chocolate)
Things absolutely couldn't ever get because none is sourced in the US?
Specific brands (eg, Sony, Fujitsu)
Specific commodities (eg, palm oil, emeralds, pepper, tequila, chocolate)
Why can't all the African nations in the Sub Sahara and southern Africa be one and unite than separate?
The separation didn't work in Africa and most of their ethnic group's culture is gone. Why not be one?
Then Africa will have a better future now.|||Actually, Africans have retained their native cultures even while some have incorporated some European languages and customs into their own practices.
It was the Europeans who created countries as they pleased, putting together different ethnic groups and tribes that used to govern themselves independently and separating people who consider themselves as one into many different countries. Many of the conflicts in Africa today are rooted in how the countries are formed, which people are in it, and the conflicts the different ethnic groups and tribes have in each country along with other things. So these problems will only escalate if Africa is made into one country. Also, what would you propose the national language be? Africa is very diverse in languages, ethnicities and cultures. There would be a lack of unity if Africa became a country and it would be impractical. The continent is so large and contains so many different people that each tribe, ethnic group and language group would want one of their own in power, not someone who doesn't speak their language, doesn't share their religion, doesn't share their culture or values or even their best interests in mind.|||A variety of reasons including, but not limited to : Ethnic group differences ("Tribalism"), cultural difference, desire to remain independent. etc.|||Their a Africa Union that unties all of Africa. It's model after the European Union.
Then Africa will have a better future now.|||Actually, Africans have retained their native cultures even while some have incorporated some European languages and customs into their own practices.
It was the Europeans who created countries as they pleased, putting together different ethnic groups and tribes that used to govern themselves independently and separating people who consider themselves as one into many different countries. Many of the conflicts in Africa today are rooted in how the countries are formed, which people are in it, and the conflicts the different ethnic groups and tribes have in each country along with other things. So these problems will only escalate if Africa is made into one country. Also, what would you propose the national language be? Africa is very diverse in languages, ethnicities and cultures. There would be a lack of unity if Africa became a country and it would be impractical. The continent is so large and contains so many different people that each tribe, ethnic group and language group would want one of their own in power, not someone who doesn't speak their language, doesn't share their religion, doesn't share their culture or values or even their best interests in mind.|||A variety of reasons including, but not limited to : Ethnic group differences ("Tribalism"), cultural difference, desire to remain independent. etc.|||Their a Africa Union that unties all of Africa. It's model after the European Union.
What is the single issue that all nations from the beginning until now are facing?
The US broke free of it but but she is now slowly moving back to it. It has to do with people and governments. Big hint.|||CLASS STRUGGLE: Rich vs Poor, Aristocracy vs Peasants, Powerful vs Powerless, whatever the analogy...throughout world history, the struggle of the have's and the have-not's is the only constant.|||the conflict between the individual and the collective.
Or finding enough clean water for everyone. That's always been an issue too.|||What goes around, comes around|||Simple:
It is impossible to govern that which is illogical.|||The belief that rights belong to the government instead of the people.|||Kayos
Or finding enough clean water for everyone. That's always been an issue too.|||What goes around, comes around|||Simple:
It is impossible to govern that which is illogical.|||The belief that rights belong to the government instead of the people.|||Kayos
What do you people think about the United Nations wanting to tax all Americans?
Isn't the UN just a draw on all your tax dollars? They basically do nada. But what the give heck. The only recent thing I've seen? Was a front yard sign that said: "INPEACH BUSH; END THE WAR,""I'M all for that!|||I am sorry to tell you this but impeaching Bush would not end the war. Even if by some chance a far left liberal gets into office, the war is still going to continue. It doesn't matter what we do; get our troops out or keep them there, people are always going to hate America. As far as the UN is concerned, I think that it has proven itself to be completely incompetent and incapable of following through on anything.|||What on earth are you talking about? Where did you hear that the UN wants to tax US citizens? Please list your sources.|||New World Order.|||Don't believe everything Lou Dobbs says.|||The Republicans impose the most taxes. They're spending our tax dollars on private jets and mansions.|||What if we don't pay? Is the UN going to declare a war on us? Go for it.|||The UN is a propaganda machine.
They do nothing.
They have no power.
They get no respect.
They die for nothing.
So yes,
they are a drain on our tax dollars like many, many other things,|||Um, I'm not sure what you mean by the UN wanting to tax all Americans. American tax dollars go into the UN I'm sure, but that would be our way of paying for diplomats, not paying the UN itself.|||huh? The UN can not tax anyone as it is multinational in scope and has little true authority besides international consensus. It is fnded by all the nations that are part of it, though developed nations do foot more of the bill.|||Our UN dues, when we deign to actually pay them, are a tiny fraction of the budget.|||So naive! Impeaching Bush would not end the war. The UN should be relocated to France. Let them pay for appeasement central.|||What the hell, try to make sense. "but what the give heck"??
then you talk about a yard sign. You must be a hippy weed smoker.|||I thought we were already being taxed! you mean someone's gonna' pinch me and wake me up, and it's all gonna' be a dream?|||I'm not sure that they do want to tax us, but even if they did...
A big reason that the UN appears to you to "do nada" is that the current administration doesn't really co-operate with them.
The UN had nothing to do with the sign that you saw.
These are not the droids you're looking for....|||Why do so many people on here not speak english but try to ask questions like they do? What is: "But what the give heck." supposed to mean? And what does impeach Bush signs in front yards have to do with the UN and taxes? I'm beginning to think the spam robots have figured out how to spam Answers, except that there is never a link to anything... but there are so many random questions with broken sentences that make no sense and seem unrelated to the question.
As for the UN, well our tax dollars do already go to that evil organization so that they can run around the planet raping 8 year old girls and assisting in mass abortions in third world countries, etc. etc.
http://www.rightwinged.com/2006/05/un_ra鈥?/a>|||but if we pull out of the UN, who will we go to in times of trouble? when we need the "international community" to "draw our allies in" and "put pressure" on an enemy.
most Americans think real hard-core warfare is getting the UN to draft another resolution.
zzzzz oh I'm sorry what were you saying? something about stop building a nuke?|||America needs to withdraw the amount of money and benefits we currently provide the U.N. anyway. We should give equal to what the other "big" nations give, and see how quickly the U.N. shows us their true colors. They pacify many of the American ideas in order to keep us as the big piggy bank.|||What left handed bomb thrower did you hear that from?|||What drain on taxes are you talking about?
The US owes over a billion in dues now and hasnt done much support since the Clinton adminstration. Sure kick them out of New York and back into their Sweden buildings. The huge loss of revenue to New York isnt going to hurt the UN any.
They do nothing.
They have no power.
They get no respect.
They die for nothing.
So yes,
they are a drain on our tax dollars like many, many other things,|||Um, I'm not sure what you mean by the UN wanting to tax all Americans. American tax dollars go into the UN I'm sure, but that would be our way of paying for diplomats, not paying the UN itself.|||huh? The UN can not tax anyone as it is multinational in scope and has little true authority besides international consensus. It is fnded by all the nations that are part of it, though developed nations do foot more of the bill.|||Our UN dues, when we deign to actually pay them, are a tiny fraction of the budget.|||So naive! Impeaching Bush would not end the war. The UN should be relocated to France. Let them pay for appeasement central.|||What the hell, try to make sense. "but what the give heck"??
then you talk about a yard sign. You must be a hippy weed smoker.|||I thought we were already being taxed! you mean someone's gonna' pinch me and wake me up, and it's all gonna' be a dream?|||I'm not sure that they do want to tax us, but even if they did...
A big reason that the UN appears to you to "do nada" is that the current administration doesn't really co-operate with them.
The UN had nothing to do with the sign that you saw.
These are not the droids you're looking for....|||Why do so many people on here not speak english but try to ask questions like they do? What is: "But what the give heck." supposed to mean? And what does impeach Bush signs in front yards have to do with the UN and taxes? I'm beginning to think the spam robots have figured out how to spam Answers, except that there is never a link to anything... but there are so many random questions with broken sentences that make no sense and seem unrelated to the question.
As for the UN, well our tax dollars do already go to that evil organization so that they can run around the planet raping 8 year old girls and assisting in mass abortions in third world countries, etc. etc.
http://www.rightwinged.com/2006/05/un_ra鈥?/a>|||but if we pull out of the UN, who will we go to in times of trouble? when we need the "international community" to "draw our allies in" and "put pressure" on an enemy.
most Americans think real hard-core warfare is getting the UN to draft another resolution.
zzzzz oh I'm sorry what were you saying? something about stop building a nuke?|||America needs to withdraw the amount of money and benefits we currently provide the U.N. anyway. We should give equal to what the other "big" nations give, and see how quickly the U.N. shows us their true colors. They pacify many of the American ideas in order to keep us as the big piggy bank.|||What left handed bomb thrower did you hear that from?|||What drain on taxes are you talking about?
The US owes over a billion in dues now and hasnt done much support since the Clinton adminstration. Sure kick them out of New York and back into their Sweden buildings. The huge loss of revenue to New York isnt going to hurt the UN any.
How is human destiny shaped by the ability of the United Nations to make all decisions?
The United Nations doesn't have the ability to "make all decisions", and won't in the future. |||Human destiny is shaped by numerous factors which are not immediately visible to an individual. There are many decisions which are made by a variety of people which effect us greatly but we never realise that they have been the ones responsible for a particular action. IF, in the future the United Nations becomes a truly global governing body with the power to enforce it's decisions instead of an organisation which is basically powerless due to the ever potent ideology of nationalism (well certainly in the last century).
True or False, Americans have the least educated and most conservative of all industrialized nations?
I don't think you can really call us an industrialized nation anymore.. we are a consumerist nation as of late. our GDP is at an all time low and the bulk of our supply is imported..
IMO the question is either outdated or flawed.|||America isn't an industrialized country any longer, we're a consumer based country now. True though we we're more conservative and industrialized at one time, but now we're more liberal service based consumers.
The fact that we've changed is also the reason the country is dying, and the reason for the push to rebuild our industry.
Education isn't education any longer, it's indoctrination. So it's not so much the people's fault as it is the governments interference into education.|||It HAS to be true:
Americans elected Nixon the Crook, Ronald Retard and George Borat Bush to 24 yrs in office!
And Crook and Retard won by huge margins.
And two years after Pres Cheney drove the US down into its worst econ crisis since the Hoover's Depression, they voted in right wing extremists in the House.
No WONDER working Americans are in such dire straits:
Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Econ: The 2000s were the “Decade of Zero”: Zero gains for home prices %26amp; equity, workers’ median income, employment, %26amp; stockmarket. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinio…
From 2001 to 2009, for the first time since WW2, the average American’s net worth fell, and by a huge 13%. The 1990s had the largest increase, 44%. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/02/…
Tea Party profile: 88% white, 77% voted for McCain/Palin, 72% like Palin, 55% are women. They are less educated but more political than the average American. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele…|||I think we have both a higher illiteracy rate but a higher chance of returning to school at any time for any reason.
I think we are the most conservative (which I tend to read as more stolid, sorry) but also the most optimistic about the future.|||It doesn't matter how educated or conservative that slaves, robots, and puppets are. It only matters that they are slaves, robots, and puppets.|||The most Conservative but not the least educated have you talked to any over the pond much like talking to security in a museum|||True and proud of it. But I do agree with trader will. If you are trying to criticise somebody's education level you need to take extra care when displaying your own.|||Yes, by far. America is 20-50 years behind most other modern nations.|||I can see we both have issues with public education.
Maybe everyone shouldn't win a trophy, get a part in a play, or make the team.|||No, China is the most conservative.|||Almost certainly true.|||When you question somebody's intelligence try to form a proper sentence.|||That is probably true.|||We are the largest economy in the world, by a long shot.|||True|||I'd go with True.|||true
IMO the question is either outdated or flawed.|||America isn't an industrialized country any longer, we're a consumer based country now. True though we we're more conservative and industrialized at one time, but now we're more liberal service based consumers.
The fact that we've changed is also the reason the country is dying, and the reason for the push to rebuild our industry.
Education isn't education any longer, it's indoctrination. So it's not so much the people's fault as it is the governments interference into education.|||It HAS to be true:
Americans elected Nixon the Crook, Ronald Retard and George Borat Bush to 24 yrs in office!
And Crook and Retard won by huge margins.
And two years after Pres Cheney drove the US down into its worst econ crisis since the Hoover's Depression, they voted in right wing extremists in the House.
No WONDER working Americans are in such dire straits:
Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Econ: The 2000s were the “Decade of Zero”: Zero gains for home prices %26amp; equity, workers’ median income, employment, %26amp; stockmarket. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinio…
From 2001 to 2009, for the first time since WW2, the average American’s net worth fell, and by a huge 13%. The 1990s had the largest increase, 44%. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/02/…
Tea Party profile: 88% white, 77% voted for McCain/Palin, 72% like Palin, 55% are women. They are less educated but more political than the average American. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele…|||I think we have both a higher illiteracy rate but a higher chance of returning to school at any time for any reason.
I think we are the most conservative (which I tend to read as more stolid, sorry) but also the most optimistic about the future.|||It doesn't matter how educated or conservative that slaves, robots, and puppets are. It only matters that they are slaves, robots, and puppets.|||The most Conservative but not the least educated have you talked to any over the pond much like talking to security in a museum|||True and proud of it. But I do agree with trader will. If you are trying to criticise somebody's education level you need to take extra care when displaying your own.|||Yes, by far. America is 20-50 years behind most other modern nations.|||I can see we both have issues with public education.
Maybe everyone shouldn't win a trophy, get a part in a play, or make the team.|||No, China is the most conservative.|||Almost certainly true.|||When you question somebody's intelligence try to form a proper sentence.|||That is probably true.|||We are the largest economy in the world, by a long shot.|||True|||I'd go with True.|||true
How can there be a witness to all nations and peoples if the population is out running the witness?
Will Jehovah provide the answer?|||T.V. is a big factor there with christian ministries reaching the far corners|||THE 2 WITNESSES WILL COME TO PREACH during tribulation. The saved will rapture before that.|||You need to think spiritually. Anything is possible with Jesus
Why does Haiti have all the problems and the other Caribbean nations don't?
Earthquake or not. Haiti should have followed the example of Jamaica or the Dominican Republic. No. They had to adopt African and/or French arrogance. There is something wrong in Haiti. Something is wrong with those people!|||Well it was you who said it! The other Caribbean countries mostly have a British tradition. That says it all really.|||So, if they speak english then all their problems will disappear? That simple, huh?
I dunno if Haitians have ever had much to be arrogant about being the poorest nation in the western hemisphere.
Here's a bit of Haitian history that might answer your rant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_鈥?/a>
Not good karma for those who kick people when they're down.|||Haiti signed a pact with the devil to overthrow their government, when they got what they asked for, they cursed themselves for life.
I dunno if Haitians have ever had much to be arrogant about being the poorest nation in the western hemisphere.
Here's a bit of Haitian history that might answer your rant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_鈥?/a>
Not good karma for those who kick people when they're down.|||Haiti signed a pact with the devil to overthrow their government, when they got what they asked for, they cursed themselves for life.
India has beaten all test nations when touring them but what is that it is missing to be ranked World No.1?
I'v been closely watching Indian cricket for the past 20 years and its without doubt that the Indian team of the last 4-5 years is the best for me as it has beaten every nation while touring them.But we are yet to attain No.1 rankiing in test cricket. What needs to be done from the administration to the player level to achieve this .|||Bowlers, Bowlers, Bowlers. India doesn't have good bowlers that can consistenly bowl long overs in TEST, apart from Kumble and Harbhajan. They lack pace and swing. They need someone like Dale Steyn. They have Sreesanth with pace but not that much swing, and they have Pathan with swing but that much pace. Indian team is in same dilemna that Proteas were in before they found Steyn. I can't wait for a test sereis between South Africa and Australia real cracker. Steyn, Nel, Ntini,Pollock VS. Lee, Johnson, S.Clark, Bracken.|||no one lieks you thats why~!|||they need to play somuch test matches with weak teams and race 141 points of Austrailia..|||That day isn't far away from us. Just wait, have patience|||Be consistent. Beat Australia consistently not once in some dozen plus outings.|||Very soon|||well indian cricket team should have more variety of bowlers and the batsmen shloud also be patient, and as far as i remember the same think is going on with the cuurent no.1 aussies since the last 4-5years, they have a variety of pacers and spinners but india has no good and strong subsitution + they are not able to adapt to fast pitches like those in australia|||India are awesome, but they aren't better than Australia! No team will get to number one while the Aussies are this dominant. Don't you think you're a bit biased though?|||India have also lost to every team (except Bangladesh) this decade.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/reco…
This Decade:
P W D L WIN%
Australia 87 66 11 10 75.8
India 78 30 26 22 38.4
INDIA ARE HALF THE TEAM AUSTRALIA ARE.
Any Indian fan who says India are anywhere close to toppling Australia are deluding themselves.|||the main that is lacking in India is a match winning bowler for Both the one days and tests on the other hand there a lot of match winning batsmen like dhoni, yuvi. the bowling power of India is too low and picking ganguly for the one day team is just a waste of wicket and waste of balls he had a very poor strike-rate and average in the series against India he should retire. India lack a match winning bowler|||others are far better|||http://content-www.cricinfo.com/rankings…
LOL India best in the world? Thats hilarious, they r tied for 4th with Sir lanka|||It will take 24 decades for India to beat Australia to steal the the #1 place!! India's performance is nothing compared to Australia! So you should not expect India to be #1|||Just winning a single test match or levelling a series will not make India World No.1.Its winning the series.India still haven't won a test series in Australia and southafrica(have won only 1 test in southafrica so far).Current Australian team has a 14-0 TEST win record.Also the ranking is based on point system.And Australia(141) have a huge point difference with second placed team England(111).India has just 107 points and is in fourth position.|||Its a case of so near yet so far
but i feel it'll come one day..we are too good a team to be bereft of the top spot.....We'll do it soon....Really soon|||they have to be more consistence
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/reco…
This Decade:
P W D L WIN%
Australia 87 66 11 10 75.8
India 78 30 26 22 38.4
INDIA ARE HALF THE TEAM AUSTRALIA ARE.
Any Indian fan who says India are anywhere close to toppling Australia are deluding themselves.|||the main that is lacking in India is a match winning bowler for Both the one days and tests on the other hand there a lot of match winning batsmen like dhoni, yuvi. the bowling power of India is too low and picking ganguly for the one day team is just a waste of wicket and waste of balls he had a very poor strike-rate and average in the series against India he should retire. India lack a match winning bowler|||others are far better|||http://content-www.cricinfo.com/rankings…
LOL India best in the world? Thats hilarious, they r tied for 4th with Sir lanka|||It will take 24 decades for India to beat Australia to steal the the #1 place!! India's performance is nothing compared to Australia! So you should not expect India to be #1|||Just winning a single test match or levelling a series will not make India World No.1.Its winning the series.India still haven't won a test series in Australia and southafrica(have won only 1 test in southafrica so far).Current Australian team has a 14-0 TEST win record.Also the ranking is based on point system.And Australia(141) have a huge point difference with second placed team England(111).India has just 107 points and is in fourth position.|||Its a case of so near yet so far
but i feel it'll come one day..we are too good a team to be bereft of the top spot.....We'll do it soon....Really soon|||they have to be more consistence
If coming to know Christ is all predestination, then why are we commanded to preach to all the nations?
There are so any verses that imply predestination, yet Christ commands us to preach the gospel to everyone. Also why is there a celebration in Heaven when someone gets saved, because if that person were predestined then s/he would be saved eventually?|||The gospel is to be preached to every creature (Mark 16:15). God has ordained the means of bringing His elect (predestined) to glory as well as the end.
God has not told us just who the elect (predestined) are and how they will be brought to repentance. He has decreed that we are to evangelize to everyone, in every way possible way (within the bounds He sets in His Word). Charles Spurgeon once said “if all the elect had a white stripe on their backs I would quit preaching and begin lifting shirt tails” (or something to that effect). God has not put a visible mark on the elect, so we are to treat all men as if they are among the elect, and are to share the Gospel far and wide. We need to share it with a sense of urgency.
Romans 10:14–15: “But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news.’”
As God has not told us just who the elect (predestined) are, the gospel is to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all men, that all men are responsible to believe the gospel, and that God promises salvation to all who come in faith to Christ to receive it.|||"Predestination" is not as the calvinist defines it. Calvinism is wrong, and arminianism is wrong. The truth is that Biblical predestination is that God knows by foreknowledge who will believe, and their lives are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus (read Romans 8 for details).
Put away all the vast volumes of "writings" from all these calvinist and arminian guys, and instead, open the Bible, and read John 3:16 :)|||we dont know who is predestined, and what part our witnessing will play, our mission never changes, go and preach the gospel|||There is a degree of predestination... but only in those that are CALLED. These are the born ministers, preachers and mentors of the congregation of Christ.
God pursues these people. But he desires a relationship with everyone. Thus the rejoicing... and the command to preach.|||"One plants, another waters, but God gives the increase"
We do not know who will come to know Jesus as Savior. We are given the great commission for several reasons...to obey, to develop our own faith, to see God work and therefore evidenced, all of which strengthens our own walk with God.
You are right that God does not "need" us for this...this is for us, not Him...and all that will come to know Him will come to know Him however He chooses to do that.
As for celebration? You have a birthday every year...you're never really "surprised", but that doesn't stop the celebration so your loved ones demonstrate their love and joy for you! It's a glorious thing when someone comes to know the Lord...something to celebrate for sure, and no one in Heaven is jaded, so that love and joy flows, along with the glory to God for His grace and mercy extended to a race so undeserving.
God bless!|||Jesus becoming Savior was predestined. no verse about a person getting saved talks about it being predestined for them to. .. that would take "free choice" out of it.
but being conformed to Christ after you get saved is predestined. because every truely born again believer wants to be like Jesus.|||Keep in mind that God sees time differently than we do, we do have free will however He knows how our lives will turn out and He knows if we will accept the sacrifice that Christ made or not. I do not believe that He has chosen some for saving and forsakes the rest.
We are actually privileged to be able to take part in God's plan to save people - He doesn't need us for anything however He uses us to tell people of the Good News of the Gospel and to share our testimonies in some cases as an example of how He can save even wretches like us.
I think the Angels rejoice because of the Sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for us - by us coming to Him, Jesus is reaping the reward for His sacrifice and that makes the angels rejoice.
Chuck Smith from Calvary Chapel wrote a good comparison of Calvinism vs Agrarianism and the Word of God. It gives a light presentation of all three with scripture references. It can be found at:
http://www.calvarychapeltoppenish.com/Ca…
God has not told us just who the elect (predestined) are and how they will be brought to repentance. He has decreed that we are to evangelize to everyone, in every way possible way (within the bounds He sets in His Word). Charles Spurgeon once said “if all the elect had a white stripe on their backs I would quit preaching and begin lifting shirt tails” (or something to that effect). God has not put a visible mark on the elect, so we are to treat all men as if they are among the elect, and are to share the Gospel far and wide. We need to share it with a sense of urgency.
Romans 10:14–15: “But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news.’”
As God has not told us just who the elect (predestined) are, the gospel is to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all men, that all men are responsible to believe the gospel, and that God promises salvation to all who come in faith to Christ to receive it.|||"Predestination" is not as the calvinist defines it. Calvinism is wrong, and arminianism is wrong. The truth is that Biblical predestination is that God knows by foreknowledge who will believe, and their lives are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus (read Romans 8 for details).
Put away all the vast volumes of "writings" from all these calvinist and arminian guys, and instead, open the Bible, and read John 3:16 :)|||we dont know who is predestined, and what part our witnessing will play, our mission never changes, go and preach the gospel|||There is a degree of predestination... but only in those that are CALLED. These are the born ministers, preachers and mentors of the congregation of Christ.
God pursues these people. But he desires a relationship with everyone. Thus the rejoicing... and the command to preach.|||"One plants, another waters, but God gives the increase"
We do not know who will come to know Jesus as Savior. We are given the great commission for several reasons...to obey, to develop our own faith, to see God work and therefore evidenced, all of which strengthens our own walk with God.
You are right that God does not "need" us for this...this is for us, not Him...and all that will come to know Him will come to know Him however He chooses to do that.
As for celebration? You have a birthday every year...you're never really "surprised", but that doesn't stop the celebration so your loved ones demonstrate their love and joy for you! It's a glorious thing when someone comes to know the Lord...something to celebrate for sure, and no one in Heaven is jaded, so that love and joy flows, along with the glory to God for His grace and mercy extended to a race so undeserving.
God bless!|||Jesus becoming Savior was predestined. no verse about a person getting saved talks about it being predestined for them to. .. that would take "free choice" out of it.
but being conformed to Christ after you get saved is predestined. because every truely born again believer wants to be like Jesus.|||Keep in mind that God sees time differently than we do, we do have free will however He knows how our lives will turn out and He knows if we will accept the sacrifice that Christ made or not. I do not believe that He has chosen some for saving and forsakes the rest.
We are actually privileged to be able to take part in God's plan to save people - He doesn't need us for anything however He uses us to tell people of the Good News of the Gospel and to share our testimonies in some cases as an example of how He can save even wretches like us.
I think the Angels rejoice because of the Sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for us - by us coming to Him, Jesus is reaping the reward for His sacrifice and that makes the angels rejoice.
Chuck Smith from Calvary Chapel wrote a good comparison of Calvinism vs Agrarianism and the Word of God. It gives a light presentation of all three with scripture references. It can be found at:
http://www.calvarychapeltoppenish.com/Ca…
How will the western word continue to support itself if all the jobs go to the emerging nations?
I think its great for countries like China, Brazil and India but what will happen to Europe and the rest of the western world|||The short answer is it won't, without a means to support ourselves these nations will eventually collapse and probably be claimed by whoever moves fast enough and gets there first. America will probably be left in China's control based solely on the fact that it is them we owe the most money to. (though I would prefer Japan) The rest, I don't really know.|||By eating steaks made out of feces.
Is present day America one of the most evil nations of all time?
Tax payer dollars used to help out millionaires and billionaieres, wars that are started for profits, 1/5 of the nation with no access to health care and will go bankrupt if something goes wrong
In a Capitalist sense, is America one of the most evil countries to ever exist?|||yes..
but what do you expect when our govt has been hijacked .. thru rigged electoins..
our own cia assasinates our presidents..
the bush administration is a criminal enterprise.. not a valid elected govt.
secure your right to vote.. get rid of electronic voting machines.. or .. nothing will change.|||No|||None of what you said is presented as the clear truth, just your opinion.|||No|||You're just embarrassing yourself by showing your lack of knowledge about history. Get off the computer and get to the library. You have no idea what suffering and evil is. Slavery, mass executions, widespread disease and famine; this is the legacy the US inherited from past world powers and improved upon.
Of course there are still a lot of problems, but don't be foolish.|||No.
To quote Kennedy, "America may have its problems but we never had to build a wall to keep people from leaving."
If it were so bad here you would see more people vote with their feet. I guess actually you do, but they come here instead of leave.|||You betcha we are eivil!
They do not call us "SATAN" for nothing!|||yes, our government is a mauling military marauder and the people are sheep in the dark.|||NO...are you an Obamite?
In a Capitalist sense, is America one of the most evil countries to ever exist?|||yes..
but what do you expect when our govt has been hijacked .. thru rigged electoins..
our own cia assasinates our presidents..
the bush administration is a criminal enterprise.. not a valid elected govt.
secure your right to vote.. get rid of electronic voting machines.. or .. nothing will change.|||No|||None of what you said is presented as the clear truth, just your opinion.|||No|||You're just embarrassing yourself by showing your lack of knowledge about history. Get off the computer and get to the library. You have no idea what suffering and evil is. Slavery, mass executions, widespread disease and famine; this is the legacy the US inherited from past world powers and improved upon.
Of course there are still a lot of problems, but don't be foolish.|||No.
To quote Kennedy, "America may have its problems but we never had to build a wall to keep people from leaving."
If it were so bad here you would see more people vote with their feet. I guess actually you do, but they come here instead of leave.|||You betcha we are eivil!
They do not call us "SATAN" for nothing!|||yes, our government is a mauling military marauder and the people are sheep in the dark.|||NO...are you an Obamite?
Why have all terrorist groups and the leaders of nations that sponsor terrorism support obama for president?
He has a real cheering section over there.|||ITS IN HIS BOOK 'THE AUDACITY OF HOPE' I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION.|||THANKS
|||Great Question! Let watch the dems squirm.|||He does.. he's the personal choice of Hamas. I think they know he's more Liberal, therefore more of a push-over when it comes to Foreign Policy; they MUST know he doesn't have a lot of experience politically and they like his middle name -which is common one for Muslims.|||They are scared to death of him and here's a couple of good reasons why:
Senator Obama traveled in 2005 to the former Soviet Union with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) to investigate the dangers posed by unsecured weapons. The two senators introduced legislation that was signed into law in January 2007 to help other nations detect and stop the transfer of weapons of mass destruction. The legislation also established the next generation of cooperative threat reduction efforts to destroy conventional weapons that could fall into the wrong hands. Senator Obama worked with Senator Lugar to ensure that funding was appropriated for the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative.
Senator Obama also joined with Senator Hagel (R-NE) to introduce a broad bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology. One provision, which was signed into law as part of the FY08 omnibus appropriations bill, requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.|||because like carter, clinton they know obamamama is weak on defense. as he said I'LL cut military spending. same as carter and clinton.
the turd does not know when to quit!|||Because he is what they want for America! They want to take over our country and make it the 58th State of Islam.|||I have never legitimately heard that terrorist groups, or the leaders of nations who sponsor terrorism support Obama. I have only heard it here on yahoo, by people who only want to take him down, make him look bad and basically don't like him.
I have heard however that he is greatly respected by leaders of western Europe and other leaders of the free world.
You people on yahoo who dislike Obama do nothing but make up lies about him, say nasty things about his wife and say the tackiest, most digusting things I've ever seen, either because you are afraid of him, are racist and yahoo gives you a venting board to smear him in any way you can.|||Because Liberalism, communism, Socialism, terrorism all go hand in hand .|||Well, that is a sweeping generalization... The truth is most enemies of this country usually come out and endorse whomever is trying to take the Presidency from the incumbent party... Castro does it every election. Now since Bush can not run for reelection, our enemies will say they support what ever the opposite party is. In this case the Dems, as the Reps have been in office for the last 8 years.... This is not a new phenomenon...|||Very easy, they had study all his speeches, listened the controversy of his religious background, his association with Preacher Wright, his change of ideas and view points from one day to the other and these groups have drawn their own conclusions and decided that America will be an easy target,
is that a good reason for you?|||He is one with them. Didn't you read his book?|||Prove it.|||I give - why are they?
Stop spreading rumors - you know this is not true!|||Some kind of link, list, source...something, would be helpful on this one. It would be a head scratcher, though if it were true. Bush has done more to glorify and advance al Qaeda than any other President. He even put color coded terror alerts in the airports to let the terrorists know when it's safe for them to fly. You'd think they'd back McCain.|||Please, oh please; provide some kind of link, evidence, articles, anything that shows your question is anything more than the ranting of an ignoramus.
Report Abuse
|||Great Question! Let watch the dems squirm.|||He does.. he's the personal choice of Hamas. I think they know he's more Liberal, therefore more of a push-over when it comes to Foreign Policy; they MUST know he doesn't have a lot of experience politically and they like his middle name -which is common one for Muslims.|||They are scared to death of him and here's a couple of good reasons why:
Senator Obama traveled in 2005 to the former Soviet Union with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) to investigate the dangers posed by unsecured weapons. The two senators introduced legislation that was signed into law in January 2007 to help other nations detect and stop the transfer of weapons of mass destruction. The legislation also established the next generation of cooperative threat reduction efforts to destroy conventional weapons that could fall into the wrong hands. Senator Obama worked with Senator Lugar to ensure that funding was appropriated for the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative.
Senator Obama also joined with Senator Hagel (R-NE) to introduce a broad bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology. One provision, which was signed into law as part of the FY08 omnibus appropriations bill, requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.|||because like carter, clinton they know obamamama is weak on defense. as he said I'LL cut military spending. same as carter and clinton.
the turd does not know when to quit!|||Because he is what they want for America! They want to take over our country and make it the 58th State of Islam.|||I have never legitimately heard that terrorist groups, or the leaders of nations who sponsor terrorism support Obama. I have only heard it here on yahoo, by people who only want to take him down, make him look bad and basically don't like him.
I have heard however that he is greatly respected by leaders of western Europe and other leaders of the free world.
You people on yahoo who dislike Obama do nothing but make up lies about him, say nasty things about his wife and say the tackiest, most digusting things I've ever seen, either because you are afraid of him, are racist and yahoo gives you a venting board to smear him in any way you can.|||Because Liberalism, communism, Socialism, terrorism all go hand in hand .|||Well, that is a sweeping generalization... The truth is most enemies of this country usually come out and endorse whomever is trying to take the Presidency from the incumbent party... Castro does it every election. Now since Bush can not run for reelection, our enemies will say they support what ever the opposite party is. In this case the Dems, as the Reps have been in office for the last 8 years.... This is not a new phenomenon...|||Very easy, they had study all his speeches, listened the controversy of his religious background, his association with Preacher Wright, his change of ideas and view points from one day to the other and these groups have drawn their own conclusions and decided that America will be an easy target,
is that a good reason for you?|||He is one with them. Didn't you read his book?|||Prove it.|||I give - why are they?
Stop spreading rumors - you know this is not true!|||Some kind of link, list, source...something, would be helpful on this one. It would be a head scratcher, though if it were true. Bush has done more to glorify and advance al Qaeda than any other President. He even put color coded terror alerts in the airports to let the terrorists know when it's safe for them to fly. You'd think they'd back McCain.|||Please, oh please; provide some kind of link, evidence, articles, anything that shows your question is anything more than the ranting of an ignoramus.
How long can the Euro succeed if it has to bail out its member nations all the time?
Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain need help. Now there is talk of Ireland too. England, Germany and France can only do so much.|||Those countries needed bail outs due to especulation coming from Standard and Poors, etc...That`s way they are falling..England is not an eurozone country!
germany and france are getting lots of profits from those countries when 'lending money'... they have to pay high taxes..
plus the so called european integration was just an appealing expression germany and france found to manipulate and dominate europe again.|||You know England aren't in the Euro, right? We're refusing to financially participate in the second bailout of Greece because the Euro isn't our responsibility. We did however, contribute eight billion euros to help Ireland because they are one of our major trading partners.
In answer to your question, I don't think the Euro will succeed. Who thought putting such diverse countries as Germany and Portugal together in a common currency was going to work? In my opinion, countries need to be able to devalue their currency when they need to and to control their own interest rates.
Edit: In answer to the person who is talking about Hitler, when I said diverse, I meant economically and culturally. Zimbabwe and Burma are both nations ruled by dictators, that doesn't mean they're prime candidates to establish a common currency.|||Is the Euro, like King George during WW1, the sole voice of humanity or is the voice of humanity a competency (responsibility) and King George therefore wasn't humanity making the book writing MPs (and interests) that instructed the Generals planned fraudsters?
Or
What would you give to defend lawyer comprehension?
Edit
Andy does know that when news of Hitler's death arrived in Portugal the establishment there flew their (Portuguese) national flags outside public buildings at half ******* mast doesn't he?|||Hmm... You seem to be still looking at all this as if there were some innocence... that's the plot behind the euro. You see, all the countries that joined the EU Had to agree not to let their national debt fall below a certain percentage, this is easy enough for the big countries with industry and large trade but the little guys have no option but to privatize their public utilities gas, water, education, hospitals etc... it's a money grab scheme, and BOY does it work! Look at all the smaller countries and tell me I'm wrong...|||So suppose the rest of Europe balks at the idea of additional bailouts of some of these financially troubled nations. How, by itself, does that threaten the choice to use the euro in all those countries? The other countries could refuse any more assistance, but that fact alone doesn't change a damn thing about the currency, does it?|||The progressives couldn't stand not having their EU and Euro.
Wasn't Europe much better pre EU and Euro??
I recall saying give in 10 years, way back in '94.|||How long can the Dollar succeed if it has to bail out its member states all the time? Like California, that has been broke for years!|||Not much longer.
America won't last much longer if we continue to finance their bailouts with BORROWED money.|||It can't.
germany and france are getting lots of profits from those countries when 'lending money'... they have to pay high taxes..
plus the so called european integration was just an appealing expression germany and france found to manipulate and dominate europe again.|||You know England aren't in the Euro, right? We're refusing to financially participate in the second bailout of Greece because the Euro isn't our responsibility. We did however, contribute eight billion euros to help Ireland because they are one of our major trading partners.
In answer to your question, I don't think the Euro will succeed. Who thought putting such diverse countries as Germany and Portugal together in a common currency was going to work? In my opinion, countries need to be able to devalue their currency when they need to and to control their own interest rates.
Edit: In answer to the person who is talking about Hitler, when I said diverse, I meant economically and culturally. Zimbabwe and Burma are both nations ruled by dictators, that doesn't mean they're prime candidates to establish a common currency.|||Is the Euro, like King George during WW1, the sole voice of humanity or is the voice of humanity a competency (responsibility) and King George therefore wasn't humanity making the book writing MPs (and interests) that instructed the Generals planned fraudsters?
Or
What would you give to defend lawyer comprehension?
Edit
Andy does know that when news of Hitler's death arrived in Portugal the establishment there flew their (Portuguese) national flags outside public buildings at half ******* mast doesn't he?|||Hmm... You seem to be still looking at all this as if there were some innocence... that's the plot behind the euro. You see, all the countries that joined the EU Had to agree not to let their national debt fall below a certain percentage, this is easy enough for the big countries with industry and large trade but the little guys have no option but to privatize their public utilities gas, water, education, hospitals etc... it's a money grab scheme, and BOY does it work! Look at all the smaller countries and tell me I'm wrong...|||So suppose the rest of Europe balks at the idea of additional bailouts of some of these financially troubled nations. How, by itself, does that threaten the choice to use the euro in all those countries? The other countries could refuse any more assistance, but that fact alone doesn't change a damn thing about the currency, does it?|||The progressives couldn't stand not having their EU and Euro.
Wasn't Europe much better pre EU and Euro??
I recall saying give in 10 years, way back in '94.|||How long can the Dollar succeed if it has to bail out its member states all the time? Like California, that has been broke for years!|||Not much longer.
America won't last much longer if we continue to finance their bailouts with BORROWED money.|||It can't.
Why are there 19 different nations in Latin America that were all ruled by one nation, Spain?
And all speak Spanish, all are majority Catholic, all follow the American presidential system...|||Spain was the first to colonize the New World. Their colonies included all of Central America minus Belize (%26amp; some other place which escapes me), most of South America, minus Brazil and the 3 Guianas, and many Caribbean Islands.
Spain was a big supporter of the Pope and of Catholicism.
During the Napoleonic Wars, Spain came under the control of France. Without a centralized government, colonial revolts achieved independence for eventually all of the nations in Central and South America, and later the Caribbean. These nations formed republics for the most part, and as the USA emerged as a global power, came under American influence.|||Look at it from the other end of history. At one time Spain 'ruled' much of South America, then in the early 1800s there were breakaway movements, just as the USA broke away from Britain. Various nations emerged, and in fact the current borders were not entirely settled until the 1940s. Brazil (geographically by far the biggest nation in South America) is a very large exception - it was colonised by Portugal, thus speaks Portuguese. The name Latin America refers to the fact of speaking Latin-based languages. Roman Catholicism was the religion in Spain and Portugal.|||there is One Nation and their national Language is English
Guyana
British Caribbean colonies
Main articles: History of the British West Indies and History of the Caribbean
In order of settlement or founding:
Saint Kitts - The island was settled by Sir Thomas Warner in 1623.the Treaty of Paris (1783) gave the island to Britain. It became independent as Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983.
Barbados - The island was claimed for the British Empire in 1625, and later settled in 1627 It became an independent nation in 1966.
Nevis - The island was permanently settled in 1628. It became independent as Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983.
Providencia Island - part of an archipelago off the coast of Nicaragua, this island was settled in 1630 by English Puritans. The colony was conquered by the Spanish and became extinct in 1641. The island today is Providencia Island which is administered by Colombia. Providence Island was a sister colony to the more well known Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Antigua - The island was settled in 1632. It became independent as Antigua and Barbuda in 1981
Barbuda - The island was settled about 1632. It became independent as Antigua and Barbuda in 1981.
Montserrat - The island was settled in 1632. It was occupied by the French in 1664-68 and 1782-84. It remains a British territory.
Bahamas - The islands were settled from 1647. They became independent in 1973.
Anguilla - The island was settled in 1650. Its government was united with St. Christopher from 1882 until 1967, when it declared its separation. It was brought back under British administration in 1969. It remains a British territory.
Jamaica - The island was conquered from Spain in 1655. It became independent in 1962.
British Virgin Islands - The islands were settled from 1666. They remain a British territory.
Cayman Islands - The islands were acquired from Spain in 1670. It remains a British territory.
Turks and Caicos Islands - The islands were first permanently settled in the 1750s. They remain a British territory.
Dominica - The island was captured from the French in 1761. The French occupied it again from 1778 to 1783. Dominica became independent in 1978.
Trinidad and Tobago - The island of Tobago was captured in 1762. The island of Trinidad was captured from the Spanish in 1797. The two governments were joined in 1888. They became independent in 1962.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - Saint Vincent was colonized in 1762. France captured it in 1779 but returned it to Britain in 1783. The islands were formerly part of the British colony of the British Windward Islands from 1871 to 1958. The nation gained full independence in 1979.
Grenada - The island was conquered from France in 1762. The French reoccupied it from 1779 to 1783. It became independent in 1974.
Saint Lucia - The island was captured from the French in 1778, but returned to them in 1783. In 1796 and in 1803 it was captured again, to be permanently annexed by Britain in 1814. Saint Lucia became independent in 1979.
British Central and South American colonies
Belize - English adventurers starting in 1638, used Belize as a source for logwood, a tree used to make a wool dye. The area was claimed by Spain but they had not settled it or been able to control the natives. The Spanish destroyed the British colony in 1717, 1730, 1754 and 1779. The Spanish attacked a final time in 1798, but were defeated. The colony was known as 'British Honduras' until 1973, whereupon its name changed to 'Belize'. Although Guatemalan claims to Belize delayed independence, full independence was granted in 1981.
Mosquito Coast (Nicaragua's Caribbean Coast) - This area was first settled in 1630. It was briefly assigned to Honduras in 1859 along with the Bay Islands north of the country, then ceded to Nicaragua in 1860 and the area was disputed until a treaty in 1965 divided the Mosquito coast for each country.[citation needed]
British Guiana - The English began colonies in the Guiana area in the early 17th century. British Guiana in 1831. It became independent as Guyana in 1966.
Falkland Islands - The first British base of 1765 . The Islands have been under British control since the Argentine administration was expelled in 1833, save for a brief Argentine occupation during the Falklands War in 1982.
so Much for the Monroe Dictatorship
added Information these are all Spanish all 9 only
Argentina
Bolivia
Colombia
Chile
Ecuador
Paraguay
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
Other countries and their national/official language:
Brazil - Portuguese
Guyana - English
French Guyana - French
Suriname - Dutch|||Just as the British established 13 colonies in North America (not including the colony of Canada or those in the Caribbean), Spain established four different colonies in mainland America. Spain's administration of its colonies in the Americas was divided into the Viceroyalty of New Spain 1535 (capital, M茅xico City), and the Viceroyalty of Peru 1542 (capital, Lima). In the 18th century the additional Viceroyalty of New Granada 1717 (capital, Bogot谩), and Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata 1776 (capital, Buenos Aires) were established from portions of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Chile was ruled separately; the Andes Mountains and the Atacama Desert were rather formidable barriers.
New Spain included Mexico (including TX and territory lost to the U.S. in 1848), Florida, and most of Central America. In 1540, Spain established the Captaincy General of Guatemala, which extended from southern Mexico to Costa Rica, and thus encompassed most of what is currently known as Central America, with the exception of British Honduras (present-day Belize). After the dissolution of Spanish authority, the former Captaincy General remained intact as part of the short-lived First Mexican Empire. Central America then emerged as a distinct political entity upon the independence of the Federal Republic of Central America a representative democracy with its capital at Guatemala City. This union consisted of the present day nations of Guatemala (which included the former state of Los Altos), El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica (which included a region which is now part of Panama, and the Guanacaste Province which was once part of Nicaragua), and Soconusco, a portion of the modern Mexican state of Chiapas. The Republic lasted from 1823 to 1838, when it began to disintegrate due to civil wars.
Created in 1542, the Viceroyalty of Peru (in Spanish, Virreinato del Per煤) was a Spanish colonial administrative district that originally contained most of Spanish-ruled South America, governed from the capital of Lima. However, the Spanish did not resist the Portuguese expansion of Brazil across the meridian. The Treaty of Tordesillas was rendered meaningless between 1580 and 1640 while Spain controlled Portugal. The creation of Viceroyalties of New Granada and Rio de la Plata (at the expense of Peru's territory) reduced the importance of Lima and shifted the lucrative Andean trade to Buenos Aires, while the fall of the mining and textile production accelerated the progressive decay of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Eventually, the viceroyalty would dissolve, as with much of the Spanish empire, when challenged by national independence movements at the beginning of the nineteenth century. These movements led to the formation of the modern-day republics of Peru, Chile, Colombia, Panam谩, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina in the territories that at one point or another had constituted the Viceroyalty of Peru.
Most of Panama was originally part of the Viceroyalty of Peru, then the Viceroyalty of New Granada, and then Colombia. American President Teddy Roosevelt forced Colombia to grant Panama independence in 1903 so he could dig a canal there.|||Each colony in Central and South America was under a different civil administration with separate governors appointed by the Crown, not unlike the 13 American colonies in North America. However, as each of the colonies gained their independence they maintained their separate Identity and became a separate country instead of consolidating under a confederation like the American colonies at the end of the Revolutionary War.|||Spain was not always one kingdom and even Portugal was apart of the Spanish kingdom once
its all because of politics and nothing to do with the language being spoken though it can help
Spain was a big supporter of the Pope and of Catholicism.
During the Napoleonic Wars, Spain came under the control of France. Without a centralized government, colonial revolts achieved independence for eventually all of the nations in Central and South America, and later the Caribbean. These nations formed republics for the most part, and as the USA emerged as a global power, came under American influence.|||Look at it from the other end of history. At one time Spain 'ruled' much of South America, then in the early 1800s there were breakaway movements, just as the USA broke away from Britain. Various nations emerged, and in fact the current borders were not entirely settled until the 1940s. Brazil (geographically by far the biggest nation in South America) is a very large exception - it was colonised by Portugal, thus speaks Portuguese. The name Latin America refers to the fact of speaking Latin-based languages. Roman Catholicism was the religion in Spain and Portugal.|||there is One Nation and their national Language is English
Guyana
British Caribbean colonies
Main articles: History of the British West Indies and History of the Caribbean
In order of settlement or founding:
Saint Kitts - The island was settled by Sir Thomas Warner in 1623.the Treaty of Paris (1783) gave the island to Britain. It became independent as Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983.
Barbados - The island was claimed for the British Empire in 1625, and later settled in 1627 It became an independent nation in 1966.
Nevis - The island was permanently settled in 1628. It became independent as Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983.
Providencia Island - part of an archipelago off the coast of Nicaragua, this island was settled in 1630 by English Puritans. The colony was conquered by the Spanish and became extinct in 1641. The island today is Providencia Island which is administered by Colombia. Providence Island was a sister colony to the more well known Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Antigua - The island was settled in 1632. It became independent as Antigua and Barbuda in 1981
Barbuda - The island was settled about 1632. It became independent as Antigua and Barbuda in 1981.
Montserrat - The island was settled in 1632. It was occupied by the French in 1664-68 and 1782-84. It remains a British territory.
Bahamas - The islands were settled from 1647. They became independent in 1973.
Anguilla - The island was settled in 1650. Its government was united with St. Christopher from 1882 until 1967, when it declared its separation. It was brought back under British administration in 1969. It remains a British territory.
Jamaica - The island was conquered from Spain in 1655. It became independent in 1962.
British Virgin Islands - The islands were settled from 1666. They remain a British territory.
Cayman Islands - The islands were acquired from Spain in 1670. It remains a British territory.
Turks and Caicos Islands - The islands were first permanently settled in the 1750s. They remain a British territory.
Dominica - The island was captured from the French in 1761. The French occupied it again from 1778 to 1783. Dominica became independent in 1978.
Trinidad and Tobago - The island of Tobago was captured in 1762. The island of Trinidad was captured from the Spanish in 1797. The two governments were joined in 1888. They became independent in 1962.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - Saint Vincent was colonized in 1762. France captured it in 1779 but returned it to Britain in 1783. The islands were formerly part of the British colony of the British Windward Islands from 1871 to 1958. The nation gained full independence in 1979.
Grenada - The island was conquered from France in 1762. The French reoccupied it from 1779 to 1783. It became independent in 1974.
Saint Lucia - The island was captured from the French in 1778, but returned to them in 1783. In 1796 and in 1803 it was captured again, to be permanently annexed by Britain in 1814. Saint Lucia became independent in 1979.
British Central and South American colonies
Belize - English adventurers starting in 1638, used Belize as a source for logwood, a tree used to make a wool dye. The area was claimed by Spain but they had not settled it or been able to control the natives. The Spanish destroyed the British colony in 1717, 1730, 1754 and 1779. The Spanish attacked a final time in 1798, but were defeated. The colony was known as 'British Honduras' until 1973, whereupon its name changed to 'Belize'. Although Guatemalan claims to Belize delayed independence, full independence was granted in 1981.
Mosquito Coast (Nicaragua's Caribbean Coast) - This area was first settled in 1630. It was briefly assigned to Honduras in 1859 along with the Bay Islands north of the country, then ceded to Nicaragua in 1860 and the area was disputed until a treaty in 1965 divided the Mosquito coast for each country.[citation needed]
British Guiana - The English began colonies in the Guiana area in the early 17th century. British Guiana in 1831. It became independent as Guyana in 1966.
Falkland Islands - The first British base of 1765 . The Islands have been under British control since the Argentine administration was expelled in 1833, save for a brief Argentine occupation during the Falklands War in 1982.
so Much for the Monroe Dictatorship
added Information these are all Spanish all 9 only
Argentina
Bolivia
Colombia
Chile
Ecuador
Paraguay
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
Other countries and their national/official language:
Brazil - Portuguese
Guyana - English
French Guyana - French
Suriname - Dutch|||Just as the British established 13 colonies in North America (not including the colony of Canada or those in the Caribbean), Spain established four different colonies in mainland America. Spain's administration of its colonies in the Americas was divided into the Viceroyalty of New Spain 1535 (capital, M茅xico City), and the Viceroyalty of Peru 1542 (capital, Lima). In the 18th century the additional Viceroyalty of New Granada 1717 (capital, Bogot谩), and Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata 1776 (capital, Buenos Aires) were established from portions of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Chile was ruled separately; the Andes Mountains and the Atacama Desert were rather formidable barriers.
New Spain included Mexico (including TX and territory lost to the U.S. in 1848), Florida, and most of Central America. In 1540, Spain established the Captaincy General of Guatemala, which extended from southern Mexico to Costa Rica, and thus encompassed most of what is currently known as Central America, with the exception of British Honduras (present-day Belize). After the dissolution of Spanish authority, the former Captaincy General remained intact as part of the short-lived First Mexican Empire. Central America then emerged as a distinct political entity upon the independence of the Federal Republic of Central America a representative democracy with its capital at Guatemala City. This union consisted of the present day nations of Guatemala (which included the former state of Los Altos), El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica (which included a region which is now part of Panama, and the Guanacaste Province which was once part of Nicaragua), and Soconusco, a portion of the modern Mexican state of Chiapas. The Republic lasted from 1823 to 1838, when it began to disintegrate due to civil wars.
Created in 1542, the Viceroyalty of Peru (in Spanish, Virreinato del Per煤) was a Spanish colonial administrative district that originally contained most of Spanish-ruled South America, governed from the capital of Lima. However, the Spanish did not resist the Portuguese expansion of Brazil across the meridian. The Treaty of Tordesillas was rendered meaningless between 1580 and 1640 while Spain controlled Portugal. The creation of Viceroyalties of New Granada and Rio de la Plata (at the expense of Peru's territory) reduced the importance of Lima and shifted the lucrative Andean trade to Buenos Aires, while the fall of the mining and textile production accelerated the progressive decay of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Eventually, the viceroyalty would dissolve, as with much of the Spanish empire, when challenged by national independence movements at the beginning of the nineteenth century. These movements led to the formation of the modern-day republics of Peru, Chile, Colombia, Panam谩, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina in the territories that at one point or another had constituted the Viceroyalty of Peru.
Most of Panama was originally part of the Viceroyalty of Peru, then the Viceroyalty of New Granada, and then Colombia. American President Teddy Roosevelt forced Colombia to grant Panama independence in 1903 so he could dig a canal there.|||Each colony in Central and South America was under a different civil administration with separate governors appointed by the Crown, not unlike the 13 American colonies in North America. However, as each of the colonies gained their independence they maintained their separate Identity and became a separate country instead of consolidating under a confederation like the American colonies at the end of the Revolutionary War.|||Spain was not always one kingdom and even Portugal was apart of the Spanish kingdom once
its all because of politics and nothing to do with the language being spoken though it can help
If all nations followed the Kyoto Treaty, what are the costs, and what are the expected benefits?
I am not looking for what you think the benefits are, But what the actual treaty says the benefits are (how much will the temperature decline). And, how much do they (the framers of the treaty) think it will cost?|||The problem is they didn't really do a cost-benefit analysis.
They also didn't include China %26amp; India, the fastest growers.
The US, which is the biggest producer, refuses to sign on.
We need to persuade India %26amp; China to use clean coal.
This will cost them more, to produce their electricity.|||From what I've read, they admit that if everyone followed this horrible treaty there would be almost no change in the climate.
As for the economies of those countries who follow it to the letter, they would go from prosperous to non-prosperous in very short order.
That might explain why none of those who've agreed to it are able to follow the stringent rules and those who refuse to follow it are better off altogether.
They also didn't include China %26amp; India, the fastest growers.
The US, which is the biggest producer, refuses to sign on.
We need to persuade India %26amp; China to use clean coal.
This will cost them more, to produce their electricity.|||From what I've read, they admit that if everyone followed this horrible treaty there would be almost no change in the climate.
As for the economies of those countries who follow it to the letter, they would go from prosperous to non-prosperous in very short order.
That might explain why none of those who've agreed to it are able to follow the stringent rules and those who refuse to follow it are better off altogether.
Why is there not there factories ect run by the richer nations in all the 3rd worls countries?
As this is how china has established them selves and got out of poverty.|||A company's choice to locate it's business in a Less Developed Nation is influenced by more than low wages. Other considerations include infrastructure (ability to manufacture and move your goods, communicate), security, and occasionally issues such as policy and corruption. There are some Less Developed Nations that have low wages, but also have very poor infrastructure or security, or charge too much in taxes, or outright ban foreigners, so it's not worth the trade off for low wages.|||There are. Just look at the labels on most items of clothing. It will say "Made in..." and list one of several dozen different countries.
Many third world countries have factories from western corporations where products are made or assembled.
Many third world countries have factories from western corporations where products are made or assembled.
How do you contract people to work in films if the actors are all from different nations?
How does it work? Not only that I'm going through a number of countries to make the film so how does the contract laws work? What happens when everyone goes back to there home country ect?|||Contact the Screen Actors Guild. www.sag.org|||When a film company brings someone from another country to the US to film they are on a work visa. After the shoot they go home and collect checks. Each film company has provivions in place for foreign actors.
All other nations' Secret Police turn against the citizenry. Is it possible America's may do the same?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul…|||It's already happening you are being watched, monitored, traced %26amp; tracked with every piece of available technology. Big brother is already here. But it isn't just the secret police, it's the police full stop.|||New World Order|||Where Have U Been For the Last 20 Years??|||Welcome to the new world order
If Christian USA is not the world's most popular nation, why do ALL nations follow OUR politics &entertainment?
Everyone knows Obama's name over any other leader; everyone knew Michael Jackson over any other performer; everyone watched Titanic over any other movie. Does this not prove that among all nations, a Christian majority one is the most beloved?|||A better example is this and you may wish to ask this question -- why is it that when Haiti suffers, America does more to support it than all other countries combined times 10? Please ask this question. We gave 100 m while others hardly gave 5. We sent 10, 000 troops while Russia and China did squat. Do they not have the troop levels? Does Saudi Arabia not have the money? They have not contributed 1 cent. We are the world;'s best nation and if anyone fails to agree with this they are either ungrateful or jealous.|||It's all about money.
People followed American politics because the world was terrified another conservative imbicile would get into office and throw America's considerable weight about again - we watched it like you'd watch an active volcano.
People watch American movies because Hollywood makes the most movies and American studios won't buy many foreign films because they are protectionist of the American film industry. Also, many Americans don't want to watch films that don't involve their country - so the film studios don't buy them and we don't get to see them.
The same is true of the music industry, but I disagree that MJ is recognised over any performer. I bet if Sir Paul McCartney died there'd be just as much sadness.
Very few people in Britain at least watch a majority of American shows - apart from a select few shows American TV is thought to be very bad.
You as a nation have a lot to be roud of, why bother making stuff up?
Edit: I can't win really, either I agree with the crazy man or I offend American nationalists. Ah well.|||1. Although the USA was founded on Christian doctrines and beliefs, it is not a Christian nation.
2. The USA is involved with almost every nation on the planet. We either trade with, sanction, or bomb everybody. Furthermore, almost everyone in the USA comes from another country, be it first generation or fifth.
Christianity is independent of the USA. If America were the most hated country, then is Christianity bad, as well? Of course, not.
Our politics and entertainment these days are far removed from Christianity.|||If white USA is not the world's most popular nation, why do ALL nations follow OUR politics %26amp;entertainment?
Everyone knows Obama's name over any other leader; everyone knew Michael Jackson over any other performer; everyone watched Titanic over any other movie. Does this not prove that among all nations, a white majority one is the most beloved?
If English-speaking USA is not the world's most popular nation, why do ALL nations follow OUR politics %26amp;entertainment?
Everyone knows Obama's name over any other leader; everyone knew Michael Jackson over any other performer; everyone watched Titanic over any other movie. Does this not prove that among all nations, an English-speaker majority one is the most beloved?|||Toward God heart and mind sought.
Upon meeting, appeared nothing but a thought.
It was something I wanted but God I had found,
Making shallow the deep and the upside a down.
Mirroring the image of God and His sons,
Worldly wealth fooled Attila and the Huns.
It was the denial of the nihil, History soon records.
Something praised for nothing fueled the barbarian lords.
Bending over backwards for God, onward they consumed,
Killing their own species so the cars could go vroom.
Neither moth nor dust would devour this child of gold,
As Time was ticked off witnessing the days of old
Entering through the exit and left using the right.
Darkness seeped into the back door of religious rite,
Impelling men to marriage and avarice to earning
Through fearful faith and no sound learning.
Perditious teachers and seditious preachers
Warp reality while Truth sits in the bleachers.
Watching a tribute to war in the Roman Sodom,
The prize fought for was only a swine's bottom.|||That's not necessarily true, the UK has had Shakespeare, Harry Potter, the Beatles, and they are also a Christian nation; in fact they were the ones who were in the Crusades so I don't think its true that because we are a popular nation yes that we are the only Christian standard to follow.|||Where is "Christian USA"? I've never heard of that country. I mean, it SOUNDS like you're talking about MY country, the United States of America, but my country has never been a christian nation. I have the words of the founding fathers on that, and they've never lied to me before. Can't say the same about YOU, Ann.|||christian? you just named off a bunch of **** that has nothing to do with christianity... plus, not everyone follows us. we're now blending with other cultures and countries' entertainment. slumdog millionaire, harry potter, mel gibson, sam worthington... sure mel gibson is christian but he wasn't an american when he started... so in the game of true or false... you've earned a FALSE!|||Most of our fore fathers were not Christian; it is a fallacious statement to call USA a Christian nations; it would be no different if Satanist started this country then 300 years later people claim it to be a Christian nation, completely absurd...|||Because you arseholes are up in everyone's faces with your army and mcdonalds and your nuclear weapons|||Everybody hates America, to the point that Obama ended up going on an apology tour to other nations.|||We have the most money, so we produce the coolest entertainment. But no one likes us anymore since we keep exploiting poor nations and invading peaceful countries ):|||I'll pass over the part where the US is NOT a Christian nation:
Honey, people follow Middle Eastern politics, too. That hardly makes them a model for nations to live by.
Peace|||Most Europeans look at American entertainment/comedy and American politics as the same thing.|||Don't you guys always complain about how Obama and Hollywood are so un-Christian?|||False assertion.Fails on several accounts.The first being we are a secular country.|||I think humanity must love watching a train wreck.|||No. All it proves is you're an idiot.|||Because you have lot's of nuclear bombs|||nice|||most of the world likes our culture not our politics|||cuz our tv is better than foreign tv..|||wtf? Are we being a little ethnocentric much?
People followed American politics because the world was terrified another conservative imbicile would get into office and throw America's considerable weight about again - we watched it like you'd watch an active volcano.
People watch American movies because Hollywood makes the most movies and American studios won't buy many foreign films because they are protectionist of the American film industry. Also, many Americans don't want to watch films that don't involve their country - so the film studios don't buy them and we don't get to see them.
The same is true of the music industry, but I disagree that MJ is recognised over any performer. I bet if Sir Paul McCartney died there'd be just as much sadness.
Very few people in Britain at least watch a majority of American shows - apart from a select few shows American TV is thought to be very bad.
You as a nation have a lot to be roud of, why bother making stuff up?
Edit: I can't win really, either I agree with the crazy man or I offend American nationalists. Ah well.|||1. Although the USA was founded on Christian doctrines and beliefs, it is not a Christian nation.
2. The USA is involved with almost every nation on the planet. We either trade with, sanction, or bomb everybody. Furthermore, almost everyone in the USA comes from another country, be it first generation or fifth.
Christianity is independent of the USA. If America were the most hated country, then is Christianity bad, as well? Of course, not.
Our politics and entertainment these days are far removed from Christianity.|||If white USA is not the world's most popular nation, why do ALL nations follow OUR politics %26amp;entertainment?
Everyone knows Obama's name over any other leader; everyone knew Michael Jackson over any other performer; everyone watched Titanic over any other movie. Does this not prove that among all nations, a white majority one is the most beloved?
If English-speaking USA is not the world's most popular nation, why do ALL nations follow OUR politics %26amp;entertainment?
Everyone knows Obama's name over any other leader; everyone knew Michael Jackson over any other performer; everyone watched Titanic over any other movie. Does this not prove that among all nations, an English-speaker majority one is the most beloved?|||Toward God heart and mind sought.
Upon meeting, appeared nothing but a thought.
It was something I wanted but God I had found,
Making shallow the deep and the upside a down.
Mirroring the image of God and His sons,
Worldly wealth fooled Attila and the Huns.
It was the denial of the nihil, History soon records.
Something praised for nothing fueled the barbarian lords.
Bending over backwards for God, onward they consumed,
Killing their own species so the cars could go vroom.
Neither moth nor dust would devour this child of gold,
As Time was ticked off witnessing the days of old
Entering through the exit and left using the right.
Darkness seeped into the back door of religious rite,
Impelling men to marriage and avarice to earning
Through fearful faith and no sound learning.
Perditious teachers and seditious preachers
Warp reality while Truth sits in the bleachers.
Watching a tribute to war in the Roman Sodom,
The prize fought for was only a swine's bottom.|||That's not necessarily true, the UK has had Shakespeare, Harry Potter, the Beatles, and they are also a Christian nation; in fact they were the ones who were in the Crusades so I don't think its true that because we are a popular nation yes that we are the only Christian standard to follow.|||Where is "Christian USA"? I've never heard of that country. I mean, it SOUNDS like you're talking about MY country, the United States of America, but my country has never been a christian nation. I have the words of the founding fathers on that, and they've never lied to me before. Can't say the same about YOU, Ann.|||christian? you just named off a bunch of **** that has nothing to do with christianity... plus, not everyone follows us. we're now blending with other cultures and countries' entertainment. slumdog millionaire, harry potter, mel gibson, sam worthington... sure mel gibson is christian but he wasn't an american when he started... so in the game of true or false... you've earned a FALSE!|||Most of our fore fathers were not Christian; it is a fallacious statement to call USA a Christian nations; it would be no different if Satanist started this country then 300 years later people claim it to be a Christian nation, completely absurd...|||Because you arseholes are up in everyone's faces with your army and mcdonalds and your nuclear weapons|||Everybody hates America, to the point that Obama ended up going on an apology tour to other nations.|||We have the most money, so we produce the coolest entertainment. But no one likes us anymore since we keep exploiting poor nations and invading peaceful countries ):|||I'll pass over the part where the US is NOT a Christian nation:
Honey, people follow Middle Eastern politics, too. That hardly makes them a model for nations to live by.
Peace|||Most Europeans look at American entertainment/comedy and American politics as the same thing.|||Don't you guys always complain about how Obama and Hollywood are so un-Christian?|||False assertion.Fails on several accounts.The first being we are a secular country.|||I think humanity must love watching a train wreck.|||No. All it proves is you're an idiot.|||Because you have lot's of nuclear bombs|||nice|||most of the world likes our culture not our politics|||cuz our tv is better than foreign tv..|||wtf? Are we being a little ethnocentric much?
Does Obama display a total lack of leadership by continuing to claim he inherited all of the nations problems?
A year into his term, he still refuses to assume any ownership of the problems facing our country. Hey, he wanted the job, someday he should step up, show some leadership, and own the problem(s).|||No,of course not. Every president has inherited the problems,they don't disappear when the previous president leaves office.
Of course he now "owns" the problems,but does he need to state the obvious?
What problems would you say he created? In your own opinion of course.|||Ronald Reagan was blaming Jimmy Carter for everything well into his second term.
Any intellectually honest person would have to recognize that the global financial catastrophe did not start on the day Obama was inaugurated. It was there, mostly due to G.W. Bush, on the day Obama took office.
True accountability would put it on Bush not Obama.
Bush was a Reagan wannabe who believed in Wild Wild West no regulation. So his SEC did not work. His Fed did not work. His FDIC did not work. It was all Wild Wild West.
The same man who put G.W. Bush into office (Antonin Scalia) just decided that Big Banks and Big Oil can give whatever they want to political campaigns and ads. Could the Pope please be so kind as to excomunicate Antonin Scalia for being a totally evil Gummba Thug? I doubt it. I think the Vatican has shares in Exxon and in Chase.
Bottom line -- Reagan was not justified in blaming Jimmy, a good man, a hapless man, but if ever a President had valid basis to blame the guy before him Obama has to blame G.W. Bush, a moron, a dry drunk on a Bible crutch, a silver spoon New England boy foisting himself off as a Texas coyboy, what a joke. I'm the only one that could see this right?
Short answer: No, your partisan attack is misplaced, go back to Glenn Beck do not collect $200. Obama can legitimately claim that G.W. Bush left him a lot of problems, and true accountability would not deny this obvious truth.|||No. The Bush administration was still blaming Clinton during their last year in power, yet conservatives still sing praises about their leadership. It would be hypocritical for conservatives to claim that "blaming Bush" is a sign of a total lack of leadership, especially after only one year in office.|||I agree. America needs a leader. We need a man or woman who can stand up and MAKE DECISIONS -- America needs a leader who will be financially responsible and scold our current politicians for their outrageous financial irresponsibility. We need a leader who believes in capitalism and the strength of the free markets to decide which companies fail and which succeed. We need a leader who will say that the recent $300 Million payoff to the Louisiana Senator is wrong and corrupt and that it WILL NOT OCCUR! Where is our leader?
America needs a leader who can be a role model. A person who doesn’t lie or manipulate everyday. A person who is not bribe-able. A person who is their own person, makes their own decisions and who is NOT part of a special interest machine that is trying to redistribute the wealth of America. Someone who is not controlled by the money of others. America needs a leader to stand tall and speak of values and principles and one that will hold Congress to these principles as they do their best everyday to uphold the Constitution.
America needs a financially responsible, common sense, small government proponent - a person of principles, unswayed by the corruption and money available to them. o_O|||Today is a sound bite, out of context world. You wouldn't do it if the shoe was on the other foot, and I know that because I can profile you just from your question alone.|||All I got to say is Obama can you make me tax exempt too?
I just can't give you an answer he just is a fake, just like most government elected officials..|||amen, just this am on the news he was talking about inheriting the problems that led to coakly losing in ma. now how was that bushes problem?|||“Independent” which is really “Decline to State” or “No Party”|||blame is root belief of a lib
Of course he now "owns" the problems,but does he need to state the obvious?
What problems would you say he created? In your own opinion of course.|||Ronald Reagan was blaming Jimmy Carter for everything well into his second term.
Any intellectually honest person would have to recognize that the global financial catastrophe did not start on the day Obama was inaugurated. It was there, mostly due to G.W. Bush, on the day Obama took office.
True accountability would put it on Bush not Obama.
Bush was a Reagan wannabe who believed in Wild Wild West no regulation. So his SEC did not work. His Fed did not work. His FDIC did not work. It was all Wild Wild West.
The same man who put G.W. Bush into office (Antonin Scalia) just decided that Big Banks and Big Oil can give whatever they want to political campaigns and ads. Could the Pope please be so kind as to excomunicate Antonin Scalia for being a totally evil Gummba Thug? I doubt it. I think the Vatican has shares in Exxon and in Chase.
Bottom line -- Reagan was not justified in blaming Jimmy, a good man, a hapless man, but if ever a President had valid basis to blame the guy before him Obama has to blame G.W. Bush, a moron, a dry drunk on a Bible crutch, a silver spoon New England boy foisting himself off as a Texas coyboy, what a joke. I'm the only one that could see this right?
Short answer: No, your partisan attack is misplaced, go back to Glenn Beck do not collect $200. Obama can legitimately claim that G.W. Bush left him a lot of problems, and true accountability would not deny this obvious truth.|||No. The Bush administration was still blaming Clinton during their last year in power, yet conservatives still sing praises about their leadership. It would be hypocritical for conservatives to claim that "blaming Bush" is a sign of a total lack of leadership, especially after only one year in office.|||I agree. America needs a leader. We need a man or woman who can stand up and MAKE DECISIONS -- America needs a leader who will be financially responsible and scold our current politicians for their outrageous financial irresponsibility. We need a leader who believes in capitalism and the strength of the free markets to decide which companies fail and which succeed. We need a leader who will say that the recent $300 Million payoff to the Louisiana Senator is wrong and corrupt and that it WILL NOT OCCUR! Where is our leader?
America needs a leader who can be a role model. A person who doesn’t lie or manipulate everyday. A person who is not bribe-able. A person who is their own person, makes their own decisions and who is NOT part of a special interest machine that is trying to redistribute the wealth of America. Someone who is not controlled by the money of others. America needs a leader to stand tall and speak of values and principles and one that will hold Congress to these principles as they do their best everyday to uphold the Constitution.
America needs a financially responsible, common sense, small government proponent - a person of principles, unswayed by the corruption and money available to them. o_O|||Today is a sound bite, out of context world. You wouldn't do it if the shoe was on the other foot, and I know that because I can profile you just from your question alone.|||All I got to say is Obama can you make me tax exempt too?
I just can't give you an answer he just is a fake, just like most government elected officials..|||amen, just this am on the news he was talking about inheriting the problems that led to coakly losing in ma. now how was that bushes problem?|||“Independent” which is really “Decline to State” or “No Party”|||blame is root belief of a lib
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)