Walsingham

1. That's just not born out by the facts. Most natural disasters don't seriously affect population. Exception with be meteorites, and the odd volcanic eruption.

I think that's just the minimum entry requirement. For alcoholism, or for the military? (On my 3rd gin&tonic) I sthere a difference?

I don't see how that's stupid. The cops get a call telling them about someone with a gun, and they mistake a lifesized model of someone holding a gun for someone with a gun.

1. Comparing who did what Granted we (US & UK) did topple Mossadeq. In fact I'd remind you that Britain is considered far more dubious by Iranians than the USA. But we are talking about NOW. I mean, statute of limitations, for heaven's sake. What's next? France placing sanctions on Great Britain for our dishonourable conduct at Agincourt? How about the seizure of embassy staff by revolutionary cadres in 1979 violating every principle of peaceful democracy. 2. Iran being singled out instead of Israel You conveniently forget that Pakistan also has nuclear weapons. Which I can understand since they are next door to Iran. More importantly there is a difference between who has a weapon and what they intend to do with it. Iran is an aggressive power locally whose support of terrorism in Iraq is killing thousands of people. Hell, they cheerfully consigned millions of their own men to death in the war with Iraq. Or I should say the ruling mullahs did. The people of course were and still are scarred by the experience. Which is kinda the point. Dictatorships are militarily aggressive by their nature. Particularly when they are divided at home. Further, Iran has the largest conventional military in the region. Including the basij you're looking at two million men. Factor in the geography (predeominantly mountainous), and there's really little plausible reason to aim for a nuclear deterrent. 3. You clearly follow mid-eastern politics. I hardly think you can be ignorant of the way policy statements are over-egged. You just said as much in your defence of Ahmedinejad (which was interesting nonetheless).

I agree it's important to point out to the naive that South Africans who are black suffered deliberate destruction of their social and cultural structures under apartheid. Education was specifically aimed at producing 'worker drones'. Minimal English, mathematics, and so on. Just enough to make servants you could order around without learning their language. The resistance movements ordered people to disrupt this 'Bantu' education with violence and non-attendance. This further weakened teh education of several generations. As a consequence many neighbourhoods in South Africa can be better regarded as post-apocalyptic. However, as Homer Simpson says, just because we understand doesn't mean we care.* A history of white oppression explains, but cannot morally excuse the current meltdown. Which I know is harsh, considering the extremity of the damage white rule did. However, until we begin to take responsibility for how things are - instead of blaming others - progress it quite simply impossible. The New South Africa is smart enough, moral enough, and rich enough to be making headway on these issues if only it would face the challenges. *Before anyone complains, it is LISA, crying: "You don't understand!" HOMER: "Lisa, honey, just because I don't CARE doesn't mean I don't understand..."

I've heard this one before and it has never seemed a reasonable argument to me. I would be more willing to believe that conspiracy people tend to attack Israel because it is easy and because it fits well into their already laid out line of atacking their own or any other relevant government. Edit: For direction. I agree it seems a wee bit harsh to accuse all conspiracists of being anti-semites. I mean, what about those subterranean lizard guys? Are the lizards Jewish? *briefly considers drawing a lizard with a monocle saying 'mazeltov' behind the Queen.*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7418885.stm The conference has ended with the Junta graciously accepting a plea for 5.5 bn UKP. I'm sorry

John Wyndham, The Midwich Cuckoos. More resonant than ever. One of those classics that deserves its chops.

If memory serves it's an old Israeli joke. They have it on T-shirts. "Don't worry America, Israel's behind you."

I quite liked France's entry, and am in fact listening to it again.

Something to keep in mind is the ethnic diversity of Iran. They need foreign bogie men to hold their country together.

Happy to oblige Not sure if it allows direct linking... I see.... *saves before re-entering mazelike statement* Aiiiieeee! A subjunctive spinning blade trap!

While your making the tea could someone please draw me a map of Brdavs last two statements? I'm struggling to find my way around them, like a fat man in a hallway designed for narrow dwarves. EDIT: I see in the Presidency thread that Yuusha has suggested America should use peaceful negotiation before force with Iran. 1) Full military restraint has been observed with Iran, including over numerous provocative 'mock' attacks by fast boats in the Gulf (Stratfor reported) 2) Iran's pasdaran continue to train, finance, and support insurgents in Iraq. 3) The USA has accepted and participated in numerous talks over the last 10 months with Iran. This suggests to me that it is Iran who is proceeding in bad faith, not the USA.

Mnyaaaah... what's up, Doc?

I think that's just the minimum entry requirement.

Please send photos. I need to make a small bronze statuette of you and worship you as my Lord. 'Lol' would be an insulting underestimate. *shock and awe* Anyway... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...oldiers%27.html And yes, I'd kind of like some facts to support the notion that we've been fanning sectarian violence. You know, besides our servicemen and women dying in peacekeeping roles in places like Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and Ireland. Never mind Iraq and Afghanistan, which would be laughably easy to 'win' if we were able to pick a side the way Iran has. There are no damn troops free to invade Iran. There haven't been for years. It's not an option. The only possible conclusion is that far from an Iranian invasion being a conspiracy by neocons, it's a conspiracy by 'peace' buffs and anti-americanists.

I'd like to be completely tasteless, and say that I genuinely thought for a second that this was about Kurt Cobain.

Does that mean you agree? I'm fairly sure someone must have collected stats on it. Maybe I'm just paranoid. Yeah it means I agree...that referee is either totally incompetent or a biased criminal. Glad it's not just me. I mean it was more than weird... Of course, no connection to the fact that Putin's regime keep trying to arrest Abramovich (owner of Chelsea).

GDM, I respect your appeal for more info, but isn't it bonkers to expect to draw a realistic conclusion after at most 30 minutes of review, when a jury will be on the case for weeks? A fried pointed this paradox out to me, btw.

Can't believe Russia and Greece were top two. I liked the Georgian entry, and not just because Georgia is about to get invaded by Russia.

Congratulations. You should have Fionavar actually change your nick to drtaks. "Hi, everybody!" "Hi, Dr Taks!"

So... you're saying that Iran are the good guys, despite their fanning the flames of sectarian violence in Iraq?

Does that mean you agree? I'm fairly sure someone must have collected stats on it. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

You never mentioned it was +5 vs. drunken neutral

That's insane! Do you have to buy your own guns and tanks and planes and ships and ammo and stuff too? Don't even joke about it.