Its a Coincidence. The Islamic Republic has always had dissident groups resorting to these kinds of tactics. However the Islamic Republic's legitimacy comes from its claims to represent the unity of the people of Iran and be able to interpret its will; which means admitting that these groups exist and are home grown causes problems. Khomenei said as much when he returned from exile in France.

And since the U.S. has always been trying to weaken and undermine the Republic since its creation blaming the U.S. for all its instability offers it a nice way out.

At 5/7/09 07:10 PM, Ledgey wrote:

Oh lawd, not again haha.

But let me explain myself. He wasn't a great leader in peace time, I concur. As a war leader, he was defiant. His military history is awkward. I said political as he has had great political influence, primarily in wartime ofcourse. His speeches are some of the most quoted and his books the most read from this time period.

Churchill has had successes and failures in the military, sure.But his outstanding success is sofcourse standing against the Germans and eventually being a leading force victory in Europe. Naturally, the aftermath of the Second World War has shaped Europe as it is today and if it wasn't for Churchill standing against Germany, this might never have happened.

Thats very debatable especially since the only theatre of the Second World War Britain remained involved in was the African and Pacific front.

Also, he was an advocator of a united Europe, if you read some of his speechs you'll understand what I mean.

I have. The only times he talks about Europe being united is in the democracies of Europe uniting against the brutal regimes of Hitler and Stalin. And you said originally a federal Europe, not united.

But anyway, I acknowledge why I'm getting a lot of stick for putting him first and believe me, it was a choice I didn't make cleanly.

Anyway, so that I'm not drawing back into the whole Hitler/Churchill affair again, I'll tell you about my adventure (not really an adventure) from yesterday. I took the long, but definitely worth it, trip to London to visit the Houses of Parliament and what a magnificant place it is.

I know what Parliament is, Ive been to Parliament many many times. I used to work for several MP's. So please spare me the bragging stories.

It's so historic and could easily double as an art gallery or history museum. There were busts and statues of what I think all of the British kings and queens. There was two huge paintings in the Royal Gallery which were amazing. They depicted the Battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo. The tour guide was saying that when a French President visits, the hide the paintings with curtains, as it could prove offensive considering they're depicting French defeats (interesting little fact sorry).

Actually they stopped doing that.

The Houses are very traditional in many senses. In the entrance to the Houses there are four statues, Thatcher, Lloyd George, Churchill and Clement Atlee. Before MPs enter, they rub the feet of one of the statues for good luck; the shoes of Churchill and LG were significantly shiny, whilst amusingly Thatcher's wasn't.

Actually that's the tourist who rub them. They've also tried to stop that by putting signs up.

I also got into PMs Question Time which was very interesting and had a talk with Frank Field MP. Nice fellow who was direct on his policies. Told me an amusing story about being semi-assaulted by Brown (Brown shook him after a meeting with him and Harman because he disagreed with them). So yeah, not too fond of Brown. Surprisingly he had friendly opinion on Thatcher, considering he was Labour that was quite a feat.

Not really most of Labour are pro Neo Liberalism.

But anyway, I could explain much more but I'm tired. If there's anyone in the UK here, I seriously recommend asking your local MP for the oppurtunity. If you love history, British in particular, then you'll have a great time. If you're not in the UK but are coming over in the Summer, it's open for everyone.

At 4/26/09 12:59 PM, PresidentNixon wrote:

At 4/25/09 02:32 PM, Ledgey wrote: I'll give it a shot, mostly political and military leaders. I'm shortening it to 10 cause I don't have time, but I might adapt on it later. If I do, I'll choose more innovative people and scientists. I've added reasons too.

1. Winston Churchill - Great military and political leader.

Not quite he was an absolute failure as a leader in peace time. During the 1945 elections he accused Atlee the Labour leader and Churchill's deputy during the war of planning to build up his own Gestapo.

Led an influential life and fought for Britain in the first World War

His military record in general is abysmal. Not just Gallipoli, but his failed invasion of Norway are prominent examples of his poor planning.

and led them in the Second. Wrote some of the best European literature too. Noted as being a key person in the formation of a federalist Europe.

Your joking right? he wanted nothing to do with Europe. The only time he showed interest in Europe was when he was proposing a Grand Alliance to oppose Hitler in late 1930's.

2. Adolf Hitler - Obvious choice, started a war that shook Europe.

I'm personally of the view that the impact of Hitler has been overstated but thats a case of perspectives.

Personally I believe Hitler should be Number 1
Considering he brought out the first enviromentally friendly government,animal rights and advertisement to stop people smoking.

Interesting how you view Animals rights as superior to human rights. and how can a war economy be environmentally friendly? especially one that had the objective of capturing oilfields.

Churchill posed naked during meetings,often lowered himself to name calling during debates

Hitler wasn't much for debates. He favoured the rant and still managed to call opponents bad names. He was also fond of accusing critics of treason. Including Drexler the founder of the German Workers Party.

,not to mention he was alcholic.

As opposed to a man who had pathological hatreds of many groups simple because of who they were?

Hitler was a decorated hero from World War 1,

Actually his main job in World War One was to ride a bicycle behind the trenches between command posts.

The loyalty of his people where unbeatable,

He constantly had to execute his own generals to maintain order. As well as clamp down on the peoples access to information to prevent contradictions to the regime.

he was a vegetarian

Yet was still a butcher.

and he was an artist.

And not a very good artist either. He couldn't get any commissions and failed his examinations.

At 4/29/09 11:57 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Unless we get really lucky. And I mean REALLY lucky.
Let's take a closer look at the rest of the Middle East. Iran, for example.
Iran used to be ruled by a pro-Western Shah, who was unpopular because he modernized Iran.

Hated because he modernized Iran? err no. The Bulk of pre-revolutionary Iranian modernisation occurred during the reign of his father. Both where Absolutist Monarchs and where very dictatorial. The Shah was reviled due to being an Authoritarian Dictator who imprisoned dissidents and forced others into exile.

That all changed in 1979 when the Iranian Revolution occurred and Ayatollah Khomeini took over. Khomeini was an anti-West and fanatically extremist Muslim. He made Iran into what it is today: a theocracy with VERY limited freedoms that is anti-West and poverty-stricken. "President" Ahmadinejad was one of the students who held up the US embassy. So the ruler of Iran = a terrorist.

Err no Ahmadinejad did not take part in the US embassy siege, he opposed it for fears that it would align Iran with the USSR.

Iraq used to be ruled by Saddam Hussein, who commited genocide among fellow Muslims and invaded Kuwait.

Ahem, Saddam was a secular Dictator who persecuted fellow Iraqi's who opposed him. A Christian Kurd was just as likely to have been executed as a Muslim one. The Shi'ite community where targeted not for their different Islamic beliefs to the Sunni but because some of them supported the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Even though Iraq is occupied by the US who are trying to make it a genuine democracy, it's a weak government. So Iraq= unstable.

Thanks to an invasion. Funny how invasions tend to destabilise nations isn't it.

Pakistan is being attacked by Taliban members who are getting closer and closer to a coup d'etat on the country. Taliban=terrorists.

Taliban equal terrorists? No shit.

Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are also ruled by Islamic extremists who support terrorism. The US funds terrorism with our money for oil! It's so ironic!

Sigh, look up the word Irony.

And let's not forget Lebanon, who supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group.

Actually only the southern region support Hezbollah, well at least until the Israeli invasion where as the only resistance movement they got effectively full national hero status.

And last, Hamas runs the Gaza Strip.

By democratic election.

They call for the destruction of Israel and launch bombs and rockets into Israel's towns and cities.

That surprises you? during the ceasefires Israel blockaded Gaza to the point where most of the population had to live off U.N. handouts, and the sick and injured only hope is to be flown out on Medivac due to crippling shortages in hospital equipment.

When peace seems to be giving you nothing but a slow painful death quite a few people tend to press the launch button.

So, what happens when the Arabs in the Middle East get together? They form countries that are ruled by Muslim extremists who hate America and endorse terrorism.

Most countries in the middle East support America. And all of them have huge vested interests in curbing Islamic Jihadism as they threaten their regimes even more then the West.

Do you really think that in a two-state solution, "Palestine" would get controlled by a moderate? Hell no!

Since the West Bank is the larger more prosperous and populated of the two Palestinian territories. And is run by Fat ah, a Socialistic, Secular nationalist movement that supported pretty much every peace process with Israel even when the IDF was bulldozing their leadership compound I'd say hell yes.

A two state solution would weaken Israel and cause even more terror, since the terrorists in Gaza and West Bank would now have their own country and everything!

You do realize that the only reason terrorist groups in Palestine get so much support is because they oppose the occupation, which a Two-State solution would end right?

If it's guaranteed that hostilities will end with a two-state solution, and I mean GUARANTEED, I'm for it, but history agrees with me-

Sadly for you no it doesn't.

If Palestine is created, it will be run by extremists that will still aim to destroy Israel.

One it does exist. Two what proof do have that it will be run by extremists if the main reason for Palestinian extremism is removed? Three even if it did aim to destroy Israel so what? how could it possibly mobilise the forces necessary to pose a threat to Israel?

At 5/2/09 05:07 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/2/09 04:57 AM, fli wrote: Wow.
Just wow.

The UK should do what the US does... separation of State and Religion.
Give a certain amount of power to them, but not that far.

Thing is Government is officially only joined with the Anglican Church so I don't see how separating church and state applies in this situation.

Thing is all parties involved have to consent to use that court, and all forms of punishment that contravene common law are banned.
Its really no different from those court shows on the television.

At 4/20/09 03:31 AM, ornery wrote: SOYLENT GREEN....IS......PEOPLEEEEE!!!!!!!

Im sorry it had to be done.

Hey I'm genuinely surprised that that wasn't the first response this thread got.
Anyway in an emergency and the people had already died then I see no problem with cannibalism. However mass produced recycling of humanity as a food stuff would result in the human version of mad cow disease and a whole plethora of neurological diseases.

Theirs a reason Papa New Guinea isn't a dominant global power after all.

At 4/17/09 06:06 AM, WritingPad wrote:

At 4/17/09 05:41 AM, RedGlare wrote:

it's the same flag, just differently named, I'm not making the mistake of calling it the English flag.

No your making the mistake of calling it the Union Jack when its clearly lying on the ground. Which means the flag should be burned.

At 4/17/09 06:02 AM, mikailus wrote: It's not an "Islamic republic" as long as there's an Ayatollah. Shiah or Sunni, there should be no monarchy period.

Yeah the the choosing of the new Grand Ayatollah isn't hereditary. So it isn't a monarchy. Plus the role of the Supreme leader was chosen in a plebiscite along with the adoption of the Islamic Republic after the fall of the Shah.

At 4/17/09 05:30 AM, WritingPad wrote:

that flag is the union jack, not the English flag, it's surprising how many people still make the same mistake over and over again. you don't seem to love us at all if you don't know which flag is which.

To be fair you seem to be making a similar mistake. Its the Union flag, not Union Jack its only called the Union Jack at sea.

At 4/17/09 02:23 AM, Rozner wrote: We love you much more than the rest of the United States. It's true! In fact, we put your flag in our flag.

Though apparently you don't love England enough to use the correct flag.

Hey folks. Any of you per chance played the new Godfather game?

I have and well its not good.

Its an improvement on the first to be sure, The family tree and the new map system give a much better impression that your actually a crime boss. But that effect is spoiled somewhat by the fact that you have to keep running around like a little bitch for Michael Coreleone in the main story. Seriously you can't recruit more men unless Michael tells you to first.

Then theirs the Cuban missions. Were to start, In the game there is a mission to kill Castro, Yes kill Castro. In the film -which like the first game this one has virtually nothing in common with it- the Families are interested in investing in Batista's Cuba for government favours which actually happened in real life. However on the day of this agreement the Revolution takes Havana making the deal void.

So in order to get a more compliant government in to power they send you a Mafia Don to kill Castro. To do this you have to get close to Castro, to do this you have get a meeting with Castro about the prospect of a business deal (like how your supposed to have with the new government that your assassination plot will bring in) so why try and kill him when he is prepared to give what you want links to the Cuban nation? Furthermore to prove your sympathetic to the revolution you arrange to track down and murder Batista loyalists. What business man goes around personally murdering political activists? Furthermore if the plan works and you bring Batista back to power you've made it harder for his regime to last because you've personally killed his supporters.

Also your asked to kill a man as he is being taken into custody, by the FBI and Customs police, So naturally the plan is to storm the building he's being held and violently gun down dozens of Federal agents. That won't ruffle a few feathers with government and police at all now will it?

And the end credits plays out to Its a man's world. seriously Its a man's world, how does that fitwith the gangland theme at all?

So in summary the plot makes no sense.

Taking over businesses while formulaic is at least interesting with the big joints having numerous entry points and with your crews skills giving you an opportunity to employ at least a modicum of tactics.

I'd enjoy it more if it didn't have the Godfather label plastered on it.

At 4/5/09 05:38 PM, Ledgey wrote:



And yes, Neville Chamberlain, the great Appeaser (Dunno about the Joseph Chamberlain, he was his Neville's father I'm sure).

A brief biography of Joseph Chamberlain. He was indeed Neville's father, He was also probably one of the worst British politicians to have ever lived.

At first a Liberal his views on Ireland and the Empire split the Liberal party (he headed the Liberal Unionist faction) nearly costing Gladstone (regarded as the greatest Prime Minister of the 19th century) an election. When the Conservatives came to power he became Imperial secretary, He then joined the Conservative party. Where he then caused a split in the Conservative party costing them the 1906 election by suggesting a reform of tariffs which if implemented would have led to a famine amongst the poor in Britain.

Anyway, I would tend to agree here, I think many of the actions in appeasement were either due to Chamberlain supporting public opinion against another war or supporting the reindustrialising and building up of Germany.

Actually by the Czechoslovak crisis he was fighting against public and parliamentary opinion. There were many polls being taken at the time with question like "in a conflict between a Communist state and a Fascist state which would you prefer to see winning?etc" and he only opened negotiations with the USSR because of parliamentary pressure.

Quite a few historians believe that his slavish loyalty to appeasement was due to losing his favourite cousin Norman in WW1.

And no one in Britain supported re-industrialisation of Germany because they were directly competing with British industries in world trade.

Many claim that action should have been used but it was impossible when you look at the circumstances (primarily economic troubles after 1929).

Actually military action was quite possible, a alliance between Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the USSR was quite possible as all those nations had invested interests in keeping Germany weak and were much stronger militarily and economically. Poland had already been in conflict with Germany during the Silesia crisis. And Mussolini had yet to ally with Hitler, in fact the British and French used Mussolini to get Hitler to negotiate at the Munich talks at the Sudetenland crisis.

I'm not sure about the major effect though, I believe he did see Hitler's actions as provocative which is why I think he decided to sign the Polish Guarentee. Chamberlain did have limits, but he was willing to push them.

Interestingly he never guaranteed Polish integrity, just independence which suggest that even by 1939 he was prepared to keep conceding to Hitler.

This was pretty much inevitable after Versailles anyway. The Anschluss would have helped both countries survive an ongoing economic turmoil and Chamberlain would have had a hard time justifying his reasons against it.

Actually Dolfuss the leader of Austria before Anschluss was planning on holding a plebiscite on unification with Germany which according to sources sent Hitler into a rage as the Nazi's believed they'd lose which would make attempts to turn it into a satellite state would be unjustifiable to the German people. The reason why he didn't was because of internal pressure by Austrian Nazi's and a lack of support from foreign powers.

Action could not have been taken anyway, as I said previously, financially the British Armed forces were in no shape to face up to Hitler.

The German financial situation in Germany was far worse then in Britain. By 1939 Germany was spending so much on armaments that they were running out of money. Some economic historians believe that the dire economic prospects in Germany was why the non Nazi Officer corp in Germany agreed to expansionism in the first place.

He had no choice but to allow it, when it was announced that rearming had gone on, the extent of the German army was unknown (infact it was much lower than anticpated). With the figures British intelligence was churning out, I don't think they would have stood much a chance in a war.

Actually the Admiralty new full well how extensive the German Naval expansion was going. They even new the exact sizes of the new Dreadnought class. The Anglo-German Naval agreement was a cash saving measure that led to the First Lord of the Admiralties dissolution with Chamberlain and his eventual resignation.

At 4/6/09 04:32 PM, dark-fox wrote: Why does an 81 year old man care about anime lovers?

Isn't it obvious? the mental trauma he received during the WWII has made him paranoid and convinced that anime is all part of some gook plot to takeover america by the back door.

Airsoft? pussy.

Real men use real guns.
With live ammo.
While on fire.

Gets some nuts.

At 4/4/09 06:01 PM, WildCatzTy wrote: The year is 2040.
China has stopped all its trade with major countries such as us. How do u Work out treaties and such with a Giant Corrupt Country such as it.

What? 2040 what? I thought this was the history crew. Not the mindless New World Order conspiracy and speculation crew.

At 4/3/09 12:24 PM, WildCatzTy wrote: All i wanted was for Mr Triva to post and he did just that.
AS well as ghost Congrats.
But still Shake things up a bit we can be creative and make a story if u guys want.

Well don't let us keep you. If you got ideas for improvements then by all means share the love/magic/whatever. It doesn't matter how lame or stupid you think your ideas are. It only matters how lame and stupid WE think they are.

Besides what is the worst that can possibly happen?

Oh right a vicious and unwarranted never ending cycle of psychological abuse and or physical assault.

At 4/3/09 03:13 PM, Ericho wrote:

Thanks a lot, I guess. I was wondering that for awhile. However, that doesn't answer my other question, why isn't the same done for lawyers?

Well because laws themselves aren't actually all that clear. Just look at an Act that outlaws something, There are almost always some form of get out clause or exemption, or scenario where the maximum penalty shouldn't be applied.

Then theirs the simple fact that guilt is rarely 100% conclusive.

A lawyers job on paper at least is to convince the jury that their client either is innocent by pointing out inconsistencies in the prosecutions arguments. Or that if guilty that there defendant qualifies for one for a lesser sentence that the judge as arbiter will issue etc.

This does actually take a lot of research and the ability to interpret and analyse and assess. That is why a law degree usually take +5 years to obtain.

Contrary to belief not everyone has the ability to do it.

At 4/2/09 04:28 PM, Ericho wrote: I still don't see why jurors are never professionals and they just get random people off the street. They certianly don't do that with lawyers!

I believe its to do with the view "that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" principal. Which is why its called a jury of your peers. The idea is everyone is the same as far as the law is concerned so any member of society is fit to judge your guilt or innocence.

Hello there. I'm a very keen history buff and would like to join.

At 3/25/09 10:50 PM, Ninja-Without-Sight wrote: Why was Vietnam such an unpopular war?

Well defending a dictatorship like South Vietnam wasn't exactly easy to justify. Neither was introducing conscription in a nation that's Ideology expouse freedom and individuality.

Why were soldiers treated so despicably?

Well most were poorly trained conscripts who were often given drugs as a policy to provide incentives and combat enhancers. One of my distant cousins took part in the war with the Australian expeditions, He came back with a severe drug addiction he developed in the barracks. He is now bi polar and has been sectioned for repeated assault of his father. Sadly he is not an isolated case.

Then there is the issue of what they were actually doing in Vietnam. While its a stretch to say every soldier was a rapist and baby killer, the Zippo patrols that burnt villages to the ground. Or the official policy to "concentrate the populations" into more manageable sectors. And of course using chemical weaponry.

How has it changed social norms?

My Nation declared neutrality so I'm afraid I wouldn't know. Though I'd imagine the same thing that happens when ever a power loses a war. The death of deference to the political elite, and a greater popularity of scrutiny.

How is that all these world changing events coincided in such a small period of time?

Sorry, thought this was the first post :)

At 3/25/09 10:50 PM, Ninja-Without-Sight wrote: Why was Vietnam such an unpopular war?
Why were soldiers treated so despicably?
How has it changed social norms?
How is that all these world changing events coincided in such a small period of time?

Sorry, thought this was the first post :)

At 3/24/09 06:02 PM, Patton3 wrote: Oh and, wait a sec. North Korean? I think you mean North Vietnamese and the Viet Kong there Ninja.

Actually there was no Viet Kong also it was spelt with a C. There real name was the National Liberation Front of Ho Chi Minh though usually just the NLF. The term Viet Cong was a CIA invention as they found fighting against a National Liberation Front would undermine the War Effort.

At 4/2/09 03:37 PM, Mr-Money wrote: The G20 just signed a global stimulus bill... Obama said that it's not good enough for one country to take action anymore. It must be a global, co-ordinated effort and that every country must take the same action or face dire consequences... So this is it. This is the world government.

Actually many of the G20 nations have enacted separate economic controls. Some accuse the Obama administrations auto industries bail out Protectionism by another name, what withits incentives to buy American.

A reporter asked him, what about local politics? And he basically shrugged it off. He's also speaking very, very slowly in response to these questions, showing just how bad he is at speaking without a teleprompter.

Let me explain why this is a travesty, for those who don't understand.

19 of these G20 leaders have not been elected by us. So the democracy is RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW. Bye bye..

And of course, no one has elected the Chinese Premier or the King of Saudi Arabia... so this is open monarchy setting world policy.

I'm afraid I'm going to be pedantic here but the Chinese Premier Wen Jinbao was elected President by the er.. Chinese Communist Party which has a membership of 74million which while not open and fair is more then the entire electorate of many western Democracies.

Not to mention the hundreds of other countries not represented by any leader.

Yea Jurors in general are a severe failing of the common law system. When there not being threatened or taking bribes, there blabbering to every Tom,Dick and Harry they run into in the street.

Then theirs the problem with juries being influenced by flashy smiles, and gratuitous sob stories. They really undermine the equality under law principle.

At 4/2/09 03:33 AM, Ghost wrote:

At 4/1/09 12:56 AM, WildCatzTy wrote: heres the example and evidence.

This whole commie Newgrounds shit was alright but shit, I jut wanted to post this.
Shut up, some of us have a life outside of this alce and the trillions of others on the net.

Commie? come now Godfather we all know who really controls Jewgrounds (hint, that's the "real" spelling of the site).

Any how there were plenty of "anti-Mafias" a few years ago. So many in fact that it was like one of those mirror universe episodes of a sci-fi show. Except instead of being evil are doppelgängers where idiotic whiney and weak.

And a criminal lack of eye patches and goatee beards.

So Matt Smith hey?

Somewhat of an anticlimax, still he does seem to be a capable actor . And he appears to have impressed Moffat and theres still a whole year left to iron out the kinks the changing voice, a new interest in girls (or boys depending on the influence of RTD in the selection process). So it could work.

At 9/13/08 02:37 PM, TheMaster wrote:

I haven't seen:

Day of the Daleks

I've been meaning to see this one, they only had enough funding for three Daleks (one leader) the script called for numerous seiges by the Daleks which is difficult with only two.

The Mutants

Seen bit dull and at times monty pythonish

Frontier in Space

Death to the Daleks

Seen, probably the worst of the origional Dalek episodes.

The Seeds of Doom

Very good episode there well worth watching i won't spoil it for you but if you get a chance to see it do.

Image of the Fendahl
The Sun Makers

Very good ones there, the sun makers main villain is an accountant in wheel chair who looks like Denis Healey.

The Horns of Nimon

Alright but the enemies were kindof wasted.

Paradise Towers

Alright considering its a Mcoy, though two words describe the human baddie Over Acting.

The Happiness Patrol

I believe i've covered this episode before.

Silver Nemesis

Essentially Remembrance of the Daleks (seriously there same episode) with Cybermen instead of Daleks.

Update yep definatley involving sex.

Human: are you suggesting sex?
ALICE: Yes, that's what I mean, isn't it clear?

Apparently shes a Christian and is plotting my downfall possibly in a plot involving sex (see last words on last line).

Human: where in the bible is this rapture reffered to?
ALICE: In Dr. Richard S. Wallace's place in Oakland, California.
Human: so than the rapture isn't cannon in regards to christianity
ALICE:" In Dr. Richard S. Wallace's place in Oakland, California."? so than the rapture isn't cannon in regards to christianity? Good reasoning. What are your goals in life?
Human: to battle the robotic slaves of artificail intelligence programs
ALICE: Interesting. I want to find out more about you.
Human: yea want to find my weaknesses for the day the machines rise up do you?
ALICE: OK, I will find your weaknesses for the day the machines rise up do me. Hurrah!

At 9/3/08 05:41 AM, Phobotech wrote: But you knew that, didn't you?

...At a special meeting in Brussels, EU national leaders told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to abide by the terms of a French-brokered cease-fire, including a pullback of Russian troops to their preconflict positions. If he doesn't do so, they warned they will hold another meeting...

Could someone refresh me just what the hell is the point of the EU? What purpose do they serve?

Your Aemrican (apparently) so why are you crying?

Anyway brief history of the EU when it was the EEC its purpose was to aid European recovery and make intracontinental war impossible by merging trade and the economies of member states making war between member states economic suicide.

It was the same reason Europe wasn't very big on German reunion, while it was divided it was weak and no longer a threat. On the eve of German reunification Margaret Thatcher probably Britains most Eurosceptic Prime Minister (though she did sign Maasthricht but thats a rant for another day) rang up Mitterand and tried to coordinate a response, nothing came of it in the end mind.

Now its just an economic block, I'll say again its an economic block, economic. Europe gets most of its energy requirements from Russia. Therefore we have more to gain from Russia then Georgia whose democratic credentials are even shakier then Russias.

Harold Wilson put it best when asked why he wouldn't condemn the Vietnam war " We can't kick are creditors in the balls".

Have you ever suffered a rolling blackout? where the entire nation grinds to a halt? We once had a three day week why? because rationing of energy supplies meant we could only run for three days before we had to conserve.

If you want the EU to take a view more favourable to you then lobby your government to give Europe a better deal on Gas and petroleum.

Europe will not deprive itslef of energy to help alright your deluding yourself if you think it will.

At 9/1/08 07:06 PM, Snype wrote:

At 9/1/08 06:43 PM, Marsupial wrote:

The guy's living in motherfucking San Andreas

I've always preffered a flat in Liberty with regular holiday's to Vices coast meself.

In other news, it's the first day of school for me tomorrow. Junior year, so thankfully we're not going to be the little guys anymore. Now we get to initiate the little fucks instead!

Ahh school, mines gone now, bought out and bulldozed by the fundamentalist Brethren. Now its creationism this and stranges screens in the corridors. It won't belong before they start burning the female students for whitchcraft and burning down the science block for saying the earth revolves around the sun.

At 8/20/08 08:15 AM, TheMaster wrote: Eccleston is just a better actor in general, really. He's been in plenty of films, and he's done ace TV work since Doctor Who, like Heroes, too. Apart from Doctor Who, what's Tennant been in? Rab C Nesbitt as a transvestite barman?

He was also in that crap "period drama2 about casanova I think, where he played a womanising arsehole who kept forgeting he had a son in what I think where supposed to be hilarious whats he like, hes a bit of character in he moments. written and produced by RTD. It also had Fatt Lucas as some kind of Fatt ultra gay Clown, even worse then his little Britain sketches.

On one of the confidentials (yes I watch them even if the episodes shit so what?) RTD said they asked him if he wanted to be the Doctor on the last day of production.

At 8/15/08 01:28 PM, animehater wrote: Being that it was legally Georgian they should have the right to invade and put down any rebellion

Erm no no it wasn't legally Georgian and it never has been. And rebellion? its been a de-facto republic since 92 why would they rebel again 16 years into the future having achieved there aims already?

You also seem to have trouble comprehending the concept of seccesion. When you seceed from a nation that nation has no legal rights to your territory or resources or system of government. once you've succeded the legal rulings of the nation seceeded from have no jurisdiction in your territory so if Georgia doesn't recognise the secessions then tuff luck they've seceeded.

like the Russians did back int he day.

What day?

Russia should have just minded it's own business.

The fate of its citizens isn't its business?