Hamas leader is killed
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 03:19:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Hamas leader is killed
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Hamas leader is killed  (Read 12011 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 27, 2004, 06:38:59 AM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.


It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2004, 11:16:14 AM »

And there should DEFINITELY be a wall/fence along the entire length of the border. I'd stop letting the Palis in as workers, too - let them, in their new independent state, deal with their own problems, and not export them like, say, Mexico does.


Now I realise why we are 8 points apart in the libertarian/authoritarian scale...

Yep. Smiley  Note that I'm closer to the center than you are. Wink I also took the Political Quiz Show, and ended up at 25, a little bit right-of-center...

I don't think, after all the civilian Israeli noncombatants that the Palis *deliberately* killed (often by using Israel's desire for cheap labor) that the Palis have any *right* to enter Israel proper. It takes quite a twisted outlook to, as the Palis do, simultaneously call for the destruction of Israel and ALSO complain that Israel doesn't let them in to work...  Huh

And given how effective the wall/fence has been in preventing Pali suicide bombers, damn straight the Israelis need it! Cool

Sometimes itīs better to be apart from the centre... Or what the creators of the quiz regard as "the centre".

Israel has killed many civilians too. In fact, itīs a country thatīs violated more UN resolutions in the last decades than, say, Iraq... Iīm against the wall, but I realise why many people support it. But you seem to endorse a wall dividing Mexico from the US, and I donīt see the point there.

in regards to the wall issue, they put up a fence around one area, I forget where and it stopped suicide bombers entirely.
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 27, 2004, 11:43:28 AM »

And there should DEFINITELY be a wall/fence along the entire length of the border. I'd stop letting the Palis in as workers, too - let them, in their new independent state, deal with their own problems, and not export them like, say, Mexico does.


Now I realise why we are 8 points apart in the libertarian/authoritarian scale...

Yep. Smiley  Note that I'm closer to the center than you are. Wink I also took the Political Quiz Show, and ended up at 25, a little bit right-of-center...

I don't think, after all the civilian Israeli noncombatants that the Palis *deliberately* killed (often by using Israel's desire for cheap labor) that the Palis have any *right* to enter Israel proper. It takes quite a twisted outlook to, as the Palis do, simultaneously call for the destruction of Israel and ALSO complain that Israel doesn't let them in to work...  Huh

And given how effective the wall/fence has been in preventing Pali suicide bombers, damn straight the Israelis need it! Cool

Sometimes itīs better to be apart from the centre... Or what the creators of the quiz regard as "the centre".

Israel has killed many civilians too. In fact, itīs a country thatīs violated more UN resolutions in the last decades than, say, Iraq... Iīm against the wall, but I realise why many people support it. But you seem to endorse a wall dividing Mexico from the US, and I donīt see the point there.

in regards to the wall issue, they put up a fence around one area, I forget where and it stopped suicide bombers entirely.
exectly
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2004, 01:44:22 PM »

was it in Gaza the fence stopped suicide bombers entirely dunn? I am not as good on this area as you are.
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2004, 03:51:45 PM »

was it in Gaza the fence stopped suicide bombers entirely dunn? I am not as good on this area as you are.

yes
but the palestians try missels from above, tunnels from bwloe and coming through the sea. 99% we succeed in stoping them
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2004, 04:42:52 PM »

was it in Gaza the fence stopped suicide bombers entirely dunn? I am not as good on this area as you are.

yes
but the palestians try missels from above, tunnels from bwloe and coming through the sea. 99% we succeed in stoping them

Yeah, I remember reading in a Swedish paper that 98% of sucide bombers actually fail, some b/c they're caught, but I think something like 4 out of 5 kill no one but themselves...did give a whole new perspective on it...
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2004, 06:23:06 PM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.


It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 27, 2004, 06:42:42 PM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.


It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.


I'd say genocide would something a little more radical than a few bombs...but did the genocide between Muslims and Christians solve the conflict then?

Spain suffered greatly from their intolerance, as did France later on. In fact, I think these are great examples of how these measured are bad. The success of the US is largely due to the freedom and generousity you've displayed towards other people.

Logged
YoMartin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 299
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 27, 2004, 08:58:19 PM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.


It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.


I think the only reason why christian countries have more freedom than islamic ones, is because nobody nowadays takes the bible seriously. Or at least -almost- nobody thinks a countryīs legislation should emanate from the bible. But the intolerant content is similar...

I would say all monotheist religions are in principle (thereīs only one real god, one way to live your life, one way to paradise, and all the rest are false) against pluralism. So is marxism and any ideology that claims to posses the "authentic" truth. This is the kind of mindset that must change to avoid the repetition of previous genocides (P.S.: mankind is not doomed to repeat the same things over and over, and there are plenty of this examples too). As Axl Rose says, you canīt trust peace when everybody is fighting for their promised landing... Smiley
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 28, 2004, 12:54:02 AM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.


It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.


I'd say genocide would something a little more radical than a few bombs...but did the genocide between Muslims and Christians solve the conflict then?

Spain suffered greatly from their intolerance, as did France later on. In fact, I think these are great examples of how these measured are bad. The success of the US is largely due to the freedom and generousity you've displayed towards other people.


Yeah, those genocides did 'work' in the sense that they represented success as conquerors for the Islamic forces in the Balkans and Spain, and later success in driving them out in those same areas.  The point is you have to fight and be ruthless to keep out the invasion of an aggressive, dangerous culture.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 28, 2004, 05:44:11 PM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.


It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.


I'd say genocide would something a little more radical than a few bombs...but did the genocide between Muslims and Christians solve the conflict then?

Spain suffered greatly from their intolerance, as did France later on. In fact, I think these are great examples of how these measured are bad. The success of the US is largely due to the freedom and generousity you've displayed towards other people.


Yeah, those genocides did 'work' in the sense that they represented success as conquerors for the Islamic forces in the Balkans and Spain, and later success in driving them out in those same areas.  The point is you have to fight and be ruthless to keep out the invasion of an aggressive, dangerous culture.

Look at where the Muslims are today. They're resented, uneducated, fanatic and if it weren't for their oil they would be so lost it's almost unimaginable...if it weren't for the existence of sub-saharan Africa, of course... Sad

But you get my point. And Catholic Southern Europe, including Spain and Italy, the most intolerant, have been less successful than Nothern EUropean countries. The fact remains, that tolerant countries are generally more successfull than less tolerant ones.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 28, 2004, 06:49:12 PM »

There's very little connection between tolerance and ruthlessness.  It is highly beneficial to be tolerant, free, Liberal and capitalistic internally, but one at the same time must be ruthless with one's enemies outside.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 28, 2004, 07:16:42 PM »

There's very little connection between tolerance and ruthlessness.  It is highly beneficial to be tolerant, free, Liberal and capitalistic internally, but one at the same time must be ruthless with one's enemies outside.


Yes, there is. Ruthlessness towards foreigners carry over to 'subversive elements' internally. And then it all goes down the drain eventually. Besides, such an outlook requires one to be pretty narrow-minded and nationalist, which is never good for freedom in the long run.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: March 28, 2004, 07:27:35 PM »

There's very little connection between tolerance and ruthlessness.  It is highly beneficial to be tolerant, free, Liberal and capitalistic internally, but one at the same time must be ruthless with one's enemies outside.


Yes, there is. Ruthlessness towards foreigners carry over to 'subversive elements' internally. And then it all goes down the drain eventually. Besides, such an outlook requires one to be pretty narrow-minded and nationalist, which is never good for freedom in the long run.

I don't think ruthlessness requires narrow-mindedness or nationalism (at least of the jingoistic variety).  I know individually I'm neither of those things - heck I don't even prefer to live in the US.  Its just that I see international relations as sometimes reaching a 'kill or be killed' level of intensity, and that's when resolve and ruthlessness are required.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 28, 2004, 07:36:44 PM »

There's very little connection between tolerance and ruthlessness.  It is highly beneficial to be tolerant, free, Liberal and capitalistic internally, but one at the same time must be ruthless with one's enemies outside.


Yes, there is. Ruthlessness towards foreigners carry over to 'subversive elements' internally. And then it all goes down the drain eventually. Besides, such an outlook requires one to be pretty narrow-minded and nationalist, which is never good for freedom in the long run.

I don't think ruthlessness requires narrow-mindedness or nationalism (at least of the jingoistic variety).  I know individually I'm neither of those things - heck I don't even prefer to live in the US.  Its just that I see international relations as sometimes reaching a 'kill or be killed' level of intensity, and that's when resolve and ruthlessness are required.

If you make a difference between hos to treat your own people (the liberal way) and foreigners, the ruthless way, your breeding nationalism of a nasty kind, since you're stripping 'the others' of rights you're giving to your own.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 29, 2004, 11:48:34 PM »


Sometimes itīs better to be apart from the centre... Or what the creators of the quiz regard as "the centre".

Israel has killed many civilians too. In fact, itīs a country thatīs violated more UN resolutions in the last decades than, say, Iraq... Iīm against the wall, but I realise why many people support it. But you seem to endorse a wall dividing Mexico from the US, and I donīt see the point there.

Nah, it's better in the center. Tongue

Innocent civvies? Or people actively assisting in terrorist activities? Think about that one. And as for the UN Resolutions, well that's because *deep breath* the UN is dominated by a bunch of bigoted, anti-democratic s whose appetite for hypocrisy knows no bounds! Where are the UN resolutions condemning the Iraqi massacres of the Kurds, or the Shona massacres of the Ndebele in Zimbabwe, or ANYTHING Idi Amin ever did in Uganda, or any of the other multitudinous slaughters and repression that SO make Third World life exciting? Where were they when Hispanic Guatemalans massacred 150,000+ Mayans in the 1970's and 1980's? Where were they when Bhutan ethnically cleansed Nepalese in the 1990's? Where have they been in regards to Burma/Myanmar all these years?

I'll tell you: they were busy condemning Israel for killing one person.

As for the Mexico issue...there is NO real border control on the U.S.-Mexican border, only a porous sponge. And I don't think that's a good thing...but that's a topic for another day. Go read Samuel Huntington's latest article in Foreign Policy for a look at this issue...
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 30, 2004, 04:12:01 AM »


Sometimes itīs better to be apart from the centre... Or what the creators of the quiz regard as "the centre".

Israel has killed many civilians too. In fact, itīs a country thatīs violated more UN resolutions in the last decades than, say, Iraq... Iīm against the wall, but I realise why many people support it. But you seem to endorse a wall dividing Mexico from the US, and I donīt see the point there.

Nah, it's better in the center. Tongue

Innocent civvies? Or people actively assisting in terrorist activities? Think about that one. And as for the UN Resolutions, well that's because *deep breath* the UN is dominated by a bunch of bigoted, anti-democratic s whose appetite for hypocrisy knows no bounds! Where are the UN resolutions condemning the Iraqi massacres of the Kurds, or the Shona massacres of the Ndebele in Zimbabwe, or ANYTHING Idi Amin ever did in Uganda, or any of the other multitudinous slaughters and repression that SO make Third World life exciting? Where were they when Hispanic Guatemalans massacred 150,000+ Mayans in the 1970's and 1980's? Where were they when Bhutan ethnically cleansed Nepalese in the 1990's? Where have they been in regards to Burma/Myanmar all these years?

I'll tell you: they were busy condemning Israel for killing one person.

As for the Mexico issue...there is NO real border control on the U.S.-Mexican border, only a porous sponge. And I don't think that's a good thing...but that's a topic for another day. Go read Samuel Huntington's latest article in Foreign Policy for a look at this issue...
Amen
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 12 queries.