Rostere

Oh, come on. You can't possibly argue that the UK should have a seat because the politicians are used to weighing in on international matters. These are not seats that are allocated on the basis of sympathy. Britain IS a powerful economy, but the permanent seats of the UNSC are only five, so if the UK is at place 6 or 7, that pretty much decides it. Especially if the country left out is Japan, which has more than double the size of the UK's economy. Imagine two British isles side by side, that is the size of the Japanese economy.

Good Lord, man. France over Britain? We shall revolt. It's long overdue time for the UNSC to be overhauled, but I don't think it's fair to say the UK's international role has diminished to the extent that we're without any use on it. If nothing else NATO and the UN still use a good number of our overseas territories, of which there are still more than a handful, to base supplies and men. If nothing else, that should give us a say, not to mention we're still one of the largest contributors of aid, troops and supplies to international efforts. I think it should be expanded to more than five seats, though. Perhaps on a regional basis with a rotating chair, rather than national. Perhaps a continental/sea zone system, with a chair for North America, Europe, Australasia, Central America and Caribbean etc. The regions could take turns in having a member chairing their region. Answer: No. The UK currently has a marginal role in international peacekeeping efforts. The costs of peacekeeping are split according to a formula, which is proportional to the size of the economy. The continental system already applies to the non-permanent members of the UNSC, and I would say that system works as intended. The permanent seats are supposed to be reserved for the five most powerful nations. Look, no offense, but the current UNSC only has five seats. Can you say to yourself with a straight face that the UK is one of the world's five most powerful countries?

No, you don't understand. Of course there are dictatorships with free markets. The point is that once things go awry in a dictatorship with free markets, the first reaction of the people is to overthrow the current dictator and replace him with something else. Since a free market is allowed, a dictator can no longer do damage control WHEN things go awry. When things go wrong in a democracy, you simply elect a new leader. You need way, way worse conditions for a revolution to happen in a democracy compared to a dictatorship. So dictatorship and protectionism are not intrinsically related, it's only that dictatorships with closed markets tend to be able to hold on to power for a longer time. I'll take North Korea as an example. When things go wrong there, that is, when harvests are bad (pretty much the only "unknown" variable in that economy) the current leader can direct any part of the country's budget (*ahem* foreign aid *ahem*) to alleviate the people's pains. When such a thing happens in a free market dictatorship, there's nothing much a dictator can do other than hole up and hope he will weather the storm. Freedom of information is much harder to prevent in an open economy, if it's legal to trade everything then all the foreign trade goods will have to be checked for illegal information. If you don't allow free trade, you won't have to deal with these nuisances. Just look at Pakistan and compare it with the Soviet Union. Pakistan is pretty much one of the most unstable countries on earth, with coups and political assassinations. Just count the number of coups and revolutions that have happened there since 1950 and compare it to the Soviet Union, Cuba or North Korea. The Soviet Union, with it's closed economy, was perfectly stable until the system reformed itself from the inside. Russia is not a good example, since it's nominally a democracy. And excuse me, North Korea does NOT participate in the open Internet . And neither does China, although I hear it's pretty easy to access illegal content there. The UNSC was formed in the aftermath of WWII, of course they don't. The current Japanese constitution, drafted under American patriarchal guidance, bans Japan from having a military or engaging in any proactive military activities. Combine that with the fact that Japan has an aging population and low birthrates, it's not exactly in a great position. Its only real advantage is the fact that it's basically a tributary state of the US. That said, Japan is a country where submission and servility are valued and "alpha" type behavior is something which goes against social norms. Even if Japan did have a permanent seat on the UNSC their politicians and diplomats are highly unlikely to make a vigorous argument for anything. Japan has an excessively tactful culture. Directness/bluntness are uncouth nearly to the point of taboo outside of familiar personal relations. That said, the simple fact of the matter is that the Senkaku islands are twice as far from China as they are from Japan (and Taiwan, they're roughly equidistant between those two.) China's government has no choice but to be belligerent for the sake of economic growth, it's constantly teetering on the brink of riots or revolution. When economic growth stops, the communist party is done for. There are regularly demonstrations and mass uprisings numbering in the tens of thousands throughout the country which aren't publicized thanks to the government control of the media and the entirely unbiased choices of the state-run news service. And, obviously, the idea that any Korea has any claim to the islands and associated waters is just ludicrous to the point of hilarity. They might as well claim Kamchatka and Alaska as their sovereign territory. Well, duh, of course the Japanese were not invited to be a UNSC member after WW2. My point is that those events happened a long time ago, there's nothing keeping Japan from being a UNSC member today. You're right about the aging population thing. But I think that's being a bit picky with the details. Seriously, look at the current permanent UNSC members: I think nobody questions the positions of the US and China. But then we have the UK, France and Russia. The GDP of Japan is two times greater than that of the UK, and almost three times greater than that of Russia. I understand that the UK and Russia (then the Soviet Union) were very important in the mid-20th century, however that time is long gone now. The UNSC should be altered to reflect the current state of global politics. Currently, it's very unfair and arbitrary, and contrary to which countries actually hold power. If I could propose permanent members of the UNSC they would be China, the US, Japan, Germany and France (maybe I would replace France with Brazil if you ask me 5 years from now). You've got to take into account the current state of nations and also how the future looks, and the current permanent UNSC members really does not reflect that, it only reflects who won WW2. Based on your post, I think you understand the latter point yourself.

May already have happened, he just wasn't successful. The protests in Tiananmen did have some fairly high profile supporters who ended up in permanent house arrest, which could easily have happened to Gorby. Given the general apathy in western democracies for actually voting (80% turnout to just over 60% here, in the relatively short time I've been voting) I'm not sure that some sort of controlled candidate selection doesn't actually increase voter enthusiasm. Iran certainly seemed to be quite enthusiastic in their recent elections despite all the candidates including the reformist one being, effectively, hand picked and vetted by the clerical establishment. For China it will likely be a search for ways to let people let off steam without rocking the boat, to mix a metaphor. The sort of assertiveness they're showing here, landing on the moon, that sort of thing; plus some limited reforms that preserve the status quo but reduce the apparency of the restrictions and toleration of some safe non conformist candidates as a safety valve. The big problem with promoting western style democracy at the moment is that you end up with (in our case) a guy who was elected by only 1 in 4 eligible voters as your Dear Leader, and that doesn't sound great. That isn't tyranny of the majority or even tyranny of the plurality- if 'no vote' were a party they'd be largest by around 10% of the voter base. I wonder how things would look like if people were actually bound by law to vote?

I would say not. It's very common that a dictatorship becomes another dictatorship, but it's very rare that a democracy becomes a dictatorship. But we could easily check for yourselves here and here. Note that these lists doesn't include peaceful transitions to democracy, such as colonies breaking free. I made a compilation of statistics of the 1950s with basis in the Wikipedia articles: Dictatorship -> Democracy: I Democracy -> Dictatorship: II (which were Iran 1953, and Guatemala 1954 - I would even argue these don't count since they weren't "natural" or triggered internally but orchestrated by the CIA) Doubtful: II (In one of which the end state was a democracy) Dictatorship -> Dictatorship: IIIIIII Democracy -> Democracy: I So without the CIA, there would not be any democracies replaced by dictatorships in the 50s. Like I said, there are also colonies breaking free during this time which means droves of new democracies.

Yes, I think the Chinese leadership is trying to deflect blame from systemic problems. China has the trappings of a democracy in the same sense as the USSR had before it collapsed, you are allowed to vote for anyone on your list, but the ruling party decides who gets to be on the list. It's a one-party state but there is a power struggle within the ruling party and some degree of meritocracy, instead of a blatant leader cult and loyalty-based hierarchy such as in North Korea. I think we're only waiting for the Chinese Gorbachev to happen. I can definitely see "hollow" democracies, for example any "democracy" where everyone except women are allowed to vote, everyone except slaves, everyone except natives in occupied territory, and so on. Democracy can also be hollowed out if a "winner takes it all" principle creates a de facto dictatorship of the majority - if you only get to vote for one leader with unrestrained powers instead of a parliament, and that person is elected by 51% of the votes. You could also say that a democracy where you vote for only one representative means you've got low voter "resolution", where direct democracy is the highest resolution. Of course different problems come with that, but I think we can safely say that it's possible to construct systems where everyone is allowed to vote freely, yet they are not really "democratic" in a meaningful sense.

Well. As I see it, free markets is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. Large free markets will tend to break up smaller closed markets. I think this is inevitable considering economical forces. You could say the same about free speech: in an increasingly connected world, it will be increasingly hard to shut people off from the global free exchange of ideas. A small closed society will tend to get easier and easier access to this exchange. Now after this I'm more making an assumption, but let's assume that on paper a dictatorship could be just as successful as a democracy, with one important caveat: when things go awry, there is a revolution after which follows a new regime. When things go awry in a democracy, you elect new leaders but the system stays the same. So even if we assume that there are no inherent benefits with a democracy (I think there are, but I'll assume there aren't any, in favour of the opposite side of this argument), democracies will become increasingly common because of simple probability: it's more likely that a revolution replaces a dictatorship with a democracy than, well, a democracy electing a dictator, or a revolution happening in a democracy. Democracies are simply more stable. I think it's a really clear long-term trend, look at how much of the world's GDP is controlled by democratic governments today, compared with historical data. If we further allow proto-democratic governments into the equation the picture becomes even clearer. You will see when China's boom ends, angry people will be out on the street, and chances are they will demand democracy.

The thing is that historically, there have been nations, the Ottoman Empire for example, which has allowed different legislature for different population groups. People were allowed to resolve their internal matters with their own law, to some degree. Historically there are in fact many such examples. So when we talk about asking people to respect the laws we have in our countries, we are not necessarily talking about something 100% obvious. This has nothing to do with racism, but with culture and traditions in different parts of the world.

I think that Japanese power and influence is diminished by the fact that they don't have a permanent seat on the UNSC. You don't hear their opinion on international matters very often, even though they are one of the world's dominant economic powers. When you combine the current circumstances in Asia, China would be poised to be a regional leader, benefactor and Asia's foremost representative in international disputes. It's surprising that they don't attempt (harder) to settle territorial disputes in the region, and establish themselves as honest peace-brokers. They have enough potential for power as it is, and it would be better for them to have friendly neighbours. Whenever China becomes a real democracy, or really more democratic in any way, they are going to have enough trouble as it is keeping their own country together (compare USSR and Russia). I think that Germany's role in the EU is a pretty good example of how a regional power can have a positive role in the development of their local neighbourhood.

Speaking of different regions declaring independence, I think Catalonian independence would be much more interesting. There we have a region whose population and language has been oppressed historically, but still the region is the richest in Spain, and one of the more modern ones in Europe. An independent Catalonia would enter the list of countries with high standard of living very high up. On the other hand, the rest of Spain would also become a more miserable place should Catalonia break loose.

It would be a boon for the budget, but London's status as a financial hub has to do with it being the capital and largest city of the UK, which historically has been a world power. From a global perspective, British influence has been steadily shrinking since somewhere in the early 20th century. Suddenly being relegated from being the capital of the UK to being the capital of well... The UK sans Scotland would only further serve to diminish the importance of the city. But really, to be honest you could also argue that Scotland is too small to matter anyway.

Yeah, it's definitely a possibility he's getting paid. But what could he possibly contribute in a talk if he does not share some of their views?

You're right, the UK has a marginal role in the EU. However for me personally it's an important one since we are generally on the same side on economic questions. The UK having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is already a bit of a stretch, if Scotland were to declare independence it would be even more strange. You could as well have the Vatican on there. I really do not understand why the Scots want to do this though, out of any sense of self-preservation they should stick as close as they can to England and London, which is where the money is. They must really be betting on the oil card, that's pretty much the only way I can see them going through with this. It would be very interesting to see what would happen to London and England as well if this happens, it would probably hurt London's status as a global city quite a bit.

President. Not presidents. My apologies, as a non-native English speaker what I write occasionally does not come across as intended. The point however was that a person of such importance (hence the emphasis) could be such a looney. When I wrote "presidents" I think the point was to adress the general case and not point out anyone in particular, asking more something like "How did such a person become President?" rather than "How could George W. Bush become President?".

Reporting once again from the bizarro universe of American-Israeli relations: right-wing Israeli lobby organizations denounce George W. Bush as he is set to make a speech to MJBI at a fundraiser meant to raise money to convert Jews to Christianity. Now why the heck would they care about converting Jews before other people? Well, apparently, in the Book of Revelation in the Bible we are told that before the Second Coming of Christ, among other things, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, half will be killed, and the remainder will convert to Christianity. So in their opinion, they are helping to fulfil this prophecy. For me it's really beyond the bizarre that American PRESIDENTS are vested in these types of looney organizations.

Israel can't afford NOT to watch its friends, IMO. Given the constant activity of the antisraeli lobbies. But he was part of what was roughly an industrial espionage group. Besides I don't think there are any important "anti-Israeli" lobbies to speak of, if you know of one, maybe you can tell me about it, because I'm interested in the matter.

I like the look of the trolls. Looks like proper trolls to me, maybe they could be just a wee bit bigger though?

My relatives, going back to the 19th century, are almost all thinly spread out in different parts of Sweden, with one person being a Baltic German: he was born in Riga but worked in Saint Petersburg, and later moved to Sweden. His ancestors in turn were from somewhere in Prussia and/or the Baltics (which were a part of Russia at the time). Of course I can't be 100% sure about his ethnicity, but he had a German first name and surname and was buried at a Protestant graveyard. A lot of my ancestors have been engineers, or have worked in some creative field such as architecture, interior design or specialist carpentry.

I liked that you could just wander around and suddenly encounter dangerous creatures in BG1. That gave the world a sense of imminent danger, you were always on your toes. If you ever think "whatever, anything inside this house is scaled to my level, which means I can easily beat it to a pulp" there's not really a feeling of danger or exploration. It's just monotonously ticking off dungeons from your to-do list. Then again, it could be abused like the case with the basilisks who are essentially just XP piñatas once you know how to deal with them.

I absolutely love the sound of this disposition system. I couldn't have made up a better system myself.

I liked the spell effects. But sure, they can make them a bit more simplistic.

Latest news: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/16/israel-blocks-witness-in-us-anti-terrorism-case/3613927/ The US (more specifically, American victims of terror) wonders how the heck terrorists get so much money through the Bank of China without any assets getting seized. An Israeli security official (who had been in talks with the Chinese) was called to testify, but was not allowed by Israeli leadership, because quote: "The disclosure of [his] information would harm Israel's national security, compromise Israel's ability to protect those within its borders, and interfere with international cooperative efforts to prevent terrorism.". Meanwhile the resultless struggle among the victims to strike at the financing of the terrorists vainly goes on...

Me will crush. CRUSH YOU TO GOO!

OH YESSSSSSS! I'M GETTING SUCH GOOD VIBES FROM THIS! :D

Dude, these wet Normanistic fantasies rejected by historians long ago. It's too long to read, but there proofs, this is serious scienice: https://eportfolio.pace.edu/artefact/file/download.php?file=38870&view=33724 Also this map represent Scandinavian geografical knowledge about Kievan Rus. Do you understand? There is Jotunheim, Rim of the world, White spot on the Map, Here be a Dragons, they known nothing about this land. But by Normanistic theries this is just can't be, but this is reality. Also historic calculation's of Rus people populace in this period take ~ 1 000 000 in Eastern Europe in X century, meanwhile populace in Sweden reach ~ 500 000 only in XIV century. But by wet Normanistic theories it's deserted Scandinavia produce crowded migration waves one per another during Migration Period and Dark ages. I'd like to inquire as to the exact dating and origin of this map. If it dates to the 9th century or the 11th century would make all the difference in the world, considering that was the time when this region of the world was first mapped. Second, with all the superstition during the era I would not put too much meaning into finding "Jötunheimr" on the map. Göticism does indeed allege massive migration waves, but I have asserted nothing of the kind. The Scandinavian peoples at the time managed to terrorize and at times control people from vastly more populated regions, such as the British Isles, the coast of France, et.c. so I would have no doubts they could do the same in Eastern Europe. Second, the area where they had some degree of control, "Gardariki" by no means accounts for all of Eastern Europe. When all the old sagas and runestones mention Scandinavian rulers in Gardariki with Scandinavian names, raids on the different populations of the East and so on, I find it must be extremely difficult to believe that Scandinavians never lived in that area (if that's what you're trying to say?). Let's split this up into several statements so that we can ascertain what exactly it is that you do not agree with: The "Rhos"/"Ros" were a group of people from Sweden who are the source of the Finnish and Estonian name for Sweden (These were obviously also the Scandinavians which had the most contact with Finnic peoples living to the east of Sweden). 9th century historical accounts of "Rhos" themselves describing where they come from tell that they are of Swedish origin 10th century Persian accounts tell of the Rhos raiding the Slavic population In Byzantine sources, "Rhosian" and Slavic are two different languages, and from the few words we know of "Rhosian", it looks much like a Northern Germanic language Sweden is littered with runestones giving accounts of Swedes getting rich from trade and raiding in the east People in Scandinavian sagas and historical accounts frequently move to live with relatives in Gardariki when they are threatened at home The rulers of cities in Gardariki are mentioned with typical Scandinavian names in Scandinavian accounts (in contrast to foreigners) The first written Slavic historical accounts mentions both that the "Rus" are Varangians, that they have exacted tribute from Slavic peoples, and that they have been at one point invited to rule (which is really not more strange than the Swedes inviting Bernadotte to be king much later on) Now of course all old accounts might not be 100% true because old historical accounts are often exaggerations, simplifications and generalizations, but all of these really point in one direction. If they were all false and invented, it would amount to the largest and most intricate historical fraud ever known. From irrefutable evidence we know that: The Norwegian, Danish and Swedish languages are very closely related Norwegians, Swedes and Danes are closely related genetically (even though there are some differences - see my posts above) Barring the Finno-Ugric peoples, beside the communities which spoke Northern Germanic languages, no other ethnic groups lived in Scandinavia about the year 1000 Did a Celtic people live in Denmark before the "viking" era? That's certainly very much possible, but they have not left any traces in today's language or Y-DNA. Really, I don't think that's a very controversial theory, but other than potential cultural influences they can't have left much trace.