Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Over the last 20 years I've found myself going from believing that there would be less and less animosity and fighting in the world, but recently have come to face the fact that this kind of mentality is alive now as it ever was. I hate to be a downer, but I think the next few years will be very scary and many new wars will arise all over the world.
With the Cold War the lines were drawn and sides were taken. I believe the enemy was somewhat predictive and played the game according to established rules. The current situation is less predictive and yes, it can be as scary as the Cold War.
Here it says that about four fifths of Aristotles works have been lost. Man could certainly have benefitted from reading what he had to say throughout the ages.
Uh, well I did. I don't know why exactly, but Venice has too much water, and the Florentines were well noted for their arts and politics. Sounded like a good choice to me. 🙂
Wait - you don't know why Venice had too much water? I guess "it's in the ocean" is too easy of an answer so I'll wait for your clarification. 🙂 And BTW, Venice was also noted for its politics, and its art wasn't too bad either. It also managed a good economy and had its own Adriatic empire in its day.
Ski you are going to have to accept the fact that the Iraqis are not going to do everything we want them to, and many times they are going to throw a bone to Iran in hopes of reconciliation since they live right next door to them. I'm sure many Iraqis are cynical about how long we are going to be there to protect them from Iran now that the Democrats are in power. If you put yourself in their shoes, you could probably see the temptation to stay on Iran's good side. Mind you I don't agree with it, but reality is reality. It is what it is.
True. We also should accept the fact that the Iraqi government won't do everything - maybe even the majority of things - that we want it to do. Heck - our own government doesn't even do this, so we can't really expect that a foreign nation with values that are so culturally different to make every decision that we think it should.
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question65319.htmlAlso on that site:
Four other slave states?Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri?remained in the Union.
I didn't know that Kentucky had not broken from the Union. I think that the re-admittance of various Southern states was probably contingent on them accepting certain policies. Since the Union was in control after a war that seemed at least in part to be based on Southern principles I can imagine that it was difficult for some states to accept defeat. Also they had to work within frameworks that were probably devastated during the war.
I think the legends of pirates have flourished in recent times even though they likely lived brutal lives. It would probably be interesting studying up on some in detail to see how they were able to comandeer their vessels and govern their crews in otherwise lawless microcosm “nations” on the sea.
I read through most of the article and I didn't see where it says the Kurds were involved. Obviously they're in Northern Iraq but perhaps it wasn't the Kurds who did this. Also, there might be more to the story than what was reported.
Stumpfoot, I think that as the British Empire lost its status there was another friendly power to assume its place in the world – the United States. If the U.S. had been at the level of Italy or some other nation, other countries would have had an easier time of regional domination. If the U.S. falls out as a superpower, where will the power shift? This should be an area of great concern. There are nations which were founded on enlightened ideals and which still follow them. Then there are nations which were founded on ideals open to totalitarianism. It's the latter that I'm weary of.Donnie, I agree that prolonged economic costs can help wear America down. This is one of the reasons why the War on Terror cannot continue ad infinitum with a constant large presence in Iraq. You mentioned "over extension" which is a good word for it. In the past America has influenced world politics through military force but even moreso by the holding its power out; how many billions do we give to foreign nations? This foreign aid comes in handy as a bargaining tool in helping to shape policies of other nations.In my opinion, economic powers tend to thrive and eventually become the most powerful long term; military powers can momentarily thrive but must turn to economics if they want prolonged power (look at the USSR); and military power is what protects economic powers from falling to attacks by other powers. Totalitarian regimes can not be successful in the long run because they don't really make for good economies (look to Chavez and his potentially ill-fated nationization of industries in Venezuela). However, they can rise to enough power to cause havoc to free nations (e.g. Germany in the 1930s).
That's a good article. I must first say that it was written by Orson Scott Card, the author of Ender's Game (a great sci fi book written many years ago). I think that the AI Jane forum was created by people who originally posted on the OSC forum.Anyway, the author gives a doomsday scenario of what could happen. I thought his take on the American military was really interesting and worth the read. I also liked how he made the distinction between past "conquests" and American foreign policy - the former taxed the conquered nation but the latter taxes itself to pay for the repair of the conquered nation. Donnie, as to some of your points - OSC would argue that the American economy has become specialized and so in this it becomes more vulnerable. This would be fundamental in the shattering of an entire economy if it couldn't recover.
I haven't read much about the trial but those stats you cite are interesting. I know that even in the early 20th Century, Christian concepts of virtue were taught in schools, so the Scopes Monkey Trial must have had some influence on paving the way which changed all that. I'd like to see a comparison of the public education system in American in the early 20th Century compared to modern times. I would like to see how content taught in schools has changed over time, how much money per pupil (adjusted for inflation) has changed over time, and student success rate has changed as well. I'm sure we'd see some rather telling statistics.
I sincerely hope that Israel doesn't try anything stupid like this. My take on Israel is perhaps a bit different from some others of you. It seems to me that the state of Israel is probably a result – at least to some degree – of the after effects of World War II. I believe that Britain played a prominent role in its establishment. While I don't side with terrorists who bomb Israelis, I find if problematic that Israel's fate seems to be intertwined with that of the United States. The problem is that the United States does not control the policies implemented by Israel, but we face the retaliation against it. Further fighting is not the answer. World War III is not upon us. We need to find any way to prevent war from breaking out as it is a war that we should not want to fight. Is war inevitable? Sometimes it seems like it as Islamofascists seem to want to stop at nothing. However, we should hope and pray that more moderate forces will prevail within the Islamic community. Liberalism in the United States and around the world actually aids Islamofascism, so we are already fighting a war on an ideological front from within.
I put in the copyright information for the castle picture and text. Text is copyright protected as well, but there is some fair use involved. There are loads of free images at Wikimedia Commons, although even there if you use some of them you have to include an attribution.
Watch “Around the Bend” and you'll see what I mean. I listened to him going from American South to British cockney back to American….I had trouble suspending belief when I had to figure out where this character was supposed to be from.
I agree. Michael Cain is a good example of what your talking about.
Ugh...maybe I should have said "beside Michael Cain" 🙂 . Actually I haven't seen him play any historical American figures, but in one movie where I saw him portray a modern-day American, his accent was the worst I had ever heard a Brit do. I took note of it because normally Brit actors can do American accents quite well.
I think with any religion, movement, or sect you have to allow for the “crazies” (for lack of a better word) – that is, people who are so extreme or mentally imbalanced that they can't be said to be representative in thought and deed as the larger group. I don't think that a person with mental problems can rightfully be said to represent the group – or even a sane person who acts with 100% more extremism than others in the group. The problem occurs when enough extreme actions by people begin to represent the thoughts or actions of the larger group that the individual actions cannot be clearly distinguished from the aims or desires of the larger group. I can say that the bombing of abortion clinics has been done far and few between so that it doesn't have any bearing on Christianity at large. I'm not sure the same can be true of Muslim terrorism since the 1970s - or at least this is precisely the question that is raised.
