BruceVC

I don't think I am insulting ...I am more condescending apparently ?

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ? http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-raises-major-concerns-in-congress-and-beyond/2015/02/05/4b80fd92-abda-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-states-fear-dangerous-iranian-nuclear-deal-will-shake-up-region/2015/07/14/96d68ff3-7fce-4bf5-9170-6bcc9dfe46aa_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-blasts-iran-deal-as-dark-day-in-history/2015/07/14/feba23ae-0018-403f-82f3-3cd54e87a23b_story.html so, a number o' arab nations is concerned about an emboldened and enriched iran in the middle-east, and israel, the only dependable US ally in the middle-east (ever) is also concerned and angry. but hey, at least obama got guarantees that iran would not develop its nuclear capacity, right? no? so, we got what amounts to a capitulation to demands by tehran while playing hardball with Congress? huh? but hey, before the next election, oil prices is likely to drop and a new market will be opened up for a multitude o' american businesses. HA! Good Fun! Wow...those links are full of doom and gloom. But Gromnir maybe you are letting your dislike of Obama, or rather his policies , cloud your judgement on this development ? I noticed that very few of the American members on this forum seem supportive of this initiative. I predicted that as I know the general view of Obama on these forums and thats fine, we are all entitled to our views Now back to the links, yes of course Israel and the Sunni countries in the ME will be opposed to this. The latter are obviously concerned with the domination of any Shia power and I know Netanyahu's views. I don't know how accurate the first link is, I just know I watched several interviews with really qualified people who have been involved in these negotiations and they were all supportive of the terms and what Iran agreed to. We need to accept that the people involved in the talks weren't there just to rubber stamp anything Iran asked for because the intention is to ensure that the agreement does ensure that Iran isn't able to develop a nuclear weapon. So I believe they would have taken this seriously Also lets see the strategic picture in the ME. Iran is still very influencial in the region and there government does consist of hardliners and moderates. The West can understand what the Iranian moderates want and the reality is the sanctions have been very effective at getting Ayatollah Khamenei to at least consider the proposals because we know he dislikes the West. So this was the perfect time to reach an agreement. If the West has refused to negotiate what would that have done for the region...the moderates in Iran would become marginalized as the hardliners would have gained more popular support as they would have used the usual rhetoric " the West wants to destroy us ..down with the USA" and appealed to the pride of the average Iranian. Now you have a victory for the moderate Iranian view. This is a good thing Forget the links, whats your personal issue with this agreement ?

So you think the Arab Spring was an idea that the West created to influence what exactly ? Seriously. use startpage/duckduck or basicly anything that doesn´t get cencored by goodgle and you will be washed with articles on that matter, some as sold before it even started. Lol you really have bought into the loony Antizionist rhetoric wholesale, haven't you? No i don´t care about tribes A zionst is a tribe, it´s just a historic fact and the last 50 years proof this The current Iranian state exists only since 1979; it doesn't really make sense to judge it by the peaceful track record of the one it violently replaced. As for a dictator? Yep, they've got one. As for starting wars, well, for now they seem to prefer to sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to do their dirty-work for them. Iran has always stood by Hamas, that is nothing new, but considering that Hamas is originaly(!) a freedom orginisation that went military, (infact military in Iran is not cloriity like in the US) This is a religious,and heritage connection. So? Oh right. Hamas are "trerrorists" according to the US and Israeal, *shrug* i have read enough ti know to question these two. That's what you just can't understand, isn't it? Why the bulk of the Middle Eastern nations aren't worried about the fact that Israel (probably) has the bomb, but when Iran is (probably) getting it they consider themselves genuinely threatened. In order to understand why that is, I'm afraid you would have to challenge some of the preconceptions and propaganda narratives you seem to hold dear. Funny how YOU dare to say i suffer from propaganda while i´m very well aware of the current situation and far more educated in history there. Sorry man, you are an idiot. And it´s not the bulk, it´s Israel and noone else. Egypt has no problem? Oh right..pupet states dont count. Not that it matters it´s done, and if Iran wanted the bomb, they could have allready have it. Again...they never attacked someone in centuries for ****s sake. That should speak for itself, this hatred/isolation against one of the biggest, oldest and most peacfull civilization is idiotic -.- cirdanx there is no need to insult people like Ineth. You need to realize your views do sound quite bizarre to the average person. Stand by what you believe without getting defensive I asked you a question about what you believe would be the reason the West is behind the Arab Spring, I'm not going to look for answers on the Internet. I know the reasons it occurred and it has nothing to do with the West

No it is significant, especially if it is rare in your area ? Well spotted

So you think the Arab Spring was an idea that the West created to influence what exactly ?

Yes I believe in a hybrid system of government like the Scandinavian countries but the large corporations must be run by the private sector

Yeah, given the result of the referendum his actions have been odd to say the least. I'm also a bit cynical that the solution being pressed by the Troika will just result in a Greece unable to pay it's debt(can't draw water from a dry well after all) with state owned property being privatized and Greeks wallowing in real wage stagnation and 20%+ unemployment. The new "contract" is even more of a punishment to people who allready have taken cuts and cuts in the last 10 years. Besides that, this is 50 billions in privatization that is a huge problem. Greece is a port hub, most of their income comes from their ports and tourism. Take that away and there will never be a chance for a recovery. This just begs for a civili uprising in the long run..maybe to get rid of Syriza and then come along with a nice EU goverment and lift some of this? Possible. I would do it that way if i want to get rid of them. I don´t know, he allready has failed anyway. The privatization makes sense, these institutions will still function but they will be run profitably Its always better to let the private sector manage anything that needs to be profitable. Yes it may be seen as something the Greeks are " losing " but it will benefit them in the long term We have a major problem in South Africa where almost all our parastatals run at a loss every year and the government has to pay billions of rand's to keep the afloat So I wish they would get privatized *sigh* the privatization of their assets will not lead to a better economy. Mark my words Bruce, this will be only be interesting for the persons who own them. Which then won´t be the greece goverment, they are selling Greece Islands, property, which i would argue, is historicaly property of the greece people. This is a sell out. And i makes me honestly sad. The idea to let the private sector manage everything is idiotic and easily debunked. Conserding the last 20 years and what that "open" market has dones to us, i will always favour a state controled one, only in the sense that it is more controled (if you are a sovereing country which we arent, thanks EU). You really seem to have a problem with goverment corruption, but i wont´t judge, i can´t, but if you think it will be better when companies take over..than you are ****ing naive and should read some books about your nothern brothers History repeats itself, always. And even if you don´t want to hear it, you have an advantage now, beacuse thanks to be being part of the BRICS, you also have a access to their bank and thus funding. Something that would be not even there in the first place. The chance is here, but of course, it always depends on your politicans/and the voter. But i guess you have a different view Islands ? Are you sure....so they wont function as part of the economy because who would own them ? What is there purpose now I would ask But its not so bad....there is point having islands if your economy has collapsed ?

Considering that the translation is pretty spot on and suggest you are teacher, it´s a pretty good assumption AND was a question, but i guess you can´t answer the rest so you took the easy way out Yes i was right, you are arrogant. Thats ok No point in talking with you then. @ Gromnir and cirdanx My advice is avoid debating with each other ...trust me your personalities are so different neither of you will get each other @ cirdanx I am interested where you say you don't believe in patriotism..and I don't mean blind or extreme patriotism ? I am not getting your reason. Why wouldn't you support your country ?Unless its like some corrupt banana republic? I know you disagree with Austria joining the EU but what about the fact its your home, your culture and the place you live a good life in? What am I missing ? By the way you both live in amazing first world countries that you should feel proud of ....I love my country and believe in contributing and playing my part in the transformation of the economy but you have no idea some of the social challengers we face. I don't deny this but if you guys had our problems then I might understand you being jaded One thing first, i don´t want to hijack the witcher 3 thread with this ****...thats my last answer..direct me to a thread or make a new one Ok, jaded? Yes maybe, but as far as i know you could be one of the higher income people in your country, you certainly have time to be here almost all the time., you even seem to have better connection me Considering the statues of your country, you seem to be pretty well doing. But then, it´s all relative isn´t it? Why should i support my country? I will support it as long as i get something back. This is the idea of a social state, i give something and get something. It works if not corrputed. **** it even works now here despite corrupting spreading (thanks for lowering our laws EU thank you.) But here is the difference. I love my country. I love Austria, and i´m very glad i was born here. And as a history buff i love it even more. But i don´t have some fantasy that this gives me an advantage or better heritage, or that i´m superior to someone...blabla. **** all of that. This is all bull****. I´m not runing around with a flag proclaiming my freedom, my right to speech or any of that, THIS is the difference between Austria and Germany. We know we have it, we enjoy it, we don´t need to remember other that we are there or important. We are just chilled And that can be bad too. Point being..because you seem so..american..give me a weapn..i will defend my home, my friends..but i would never fight a war for politicans not even for austria. i´m not that stupid.and patrioism is stupid, you are fighting for nothing but some politicans. nothing more. in this age you are just fighting for ressources, this even disgusts me more. the typical joke "america goes only to war when its oil" is a joke right? a joke that was paid with so many lives...nope not with me. And i really really despise the american culture in clorifying their "war heroes" aka soliders but when it comes to care for them? They don´t give a ****. Thats hypocritical on a new level. Even the romans knew how to take care of them. *shrug* I rant now. Ignore me Last comment from me in this thread I do have a good job, I work in corporate and I'm a software consultant for a global American company so I get to travel regularly overseas. Things are going well for me as the software I sell and support is popular and I work predominantly in the financial sector for the banks so our customers have money I am being honest because I don't want you to think I am socially disadvantaged in anyway. But that doesnt mean I am not acutely aware of the social problems my country faces or that I am not committed to helping where I can Oh I meant to tell you, I have been fortunate enough to go skiing in Austria. We have been to Seefeld, Kitzbühel and Lech. We ended up going to Lech only as that offered the best skiing and snow . Great country by the way ...best holiday for us is a skiing holiday

I agree 100% with you there. Netanyahu wouldn´t sacrifice his own troops, he would try to trick the US into doing it. It´s not that difficult honstely. The gap between operating a power plant and being able to construct a bomb are huge. Not to mention they have been observed in the past and the new contract gives access to every sight, including secure military bases. I would be, and i am, more worried about Israle who clearly has nuclear bombs (illegaly) and no one does anything about it, despite their history of expansion with military means. Iran? Iran has not fought in an agressive war for hunderts of years, i´m not worried. You see this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I believe in the principle of a Democracy ....the Arab Spring was about the citizens of various countries wanting more representation and a better quality of life. Some countries made the transition, like Algeria and Tunisia, and some leaders refused to make any concessions like Libya and Syria I don't believe any country belongs to a family or one tribe...Assad should have made the political changes that was asked of him If you believe in the principle of democracy you have no right to intervene in the business of any other country that includes Syria. Yet for the last 50+ years the US have meddled in the affairs in the middle east, the result is, that everything is in ruins. Or NOT? Arab Spring, is considered Saudi/US driven. (it matters not). The result: Syria - "civil" war. Libya - destroyed and hell Yemen - hell in some parts WITH US support for Saudis bombing cities....scum Tunesia - got away with a blue eye but suffers from human traffic Iraq, Algeria, Jordan, even more problems. The rise of IS, so yeah. The Arab spring was a lot of things, but none stood for or made democracy. US intervention is the reason why IS exists in the first place. Well yes the Arab Spring didn't have the desired positive outcome many citizens expected but this is to be expected considering the reality of governments in those countries, the historical precedent in some places and ideological stance. Also the definition of a Democracy is different in the ME to where we live but the Arab Spring still had valid objectives and that doesn't make the idea wrong, citizens of any country have the right to have equal rights and representation..or at least access to economic opportunities You seem to be justifying dictatorships as the norm just because they existed for years or decades in some ME countries ? When have i justifyed a dictatorship? To me, consindering your comments on Syria, Russia, China, etc you don´t even know what a dictatorship is. You clearly don´t know. To bad we have no time machines, a month under Stalin would wake you up Syria is a semi-Repubic with a long lasting ruler house. The people were mostly happy about it. It was a really nice place. Of course, there are always people who are NOT happy with it. But by that logic, lets take a look at Saudi-Arabia.....the number one favourtie of the US next to Israel, famous for its beheadings (they even beat IS don´t they?) a strong monarchy, no democracy and a military state. Israel? They have the biggest open world prison in Gaza and continue to steal land and kill eveyone in the way. Now Syria, under the Assad house has been mostly peaceful in history, any chemical attacks have been debunked by the UN. SO? Where is the thread? Where is the dictator? Same with Iran. Iran has over hundreds of years never fought an aggressiv war, only reacted. (example Iran - Iraq). HUNDRETS OF YEARS. And anyone is really worried that THEY may build an A-bomb (which is a farce) while Israel, who only has war on it´s mind and practice it against neighbours and own citzens all the ****ing time gets a free ticked? Seriously? Has never one read a history book or what. Iran is no danger. I have realized something about our debates. You and I sometimes completely misunderstand each other or make assumptions And thats fine, lets just ask to get clarity. You are misunderstanding something, the people who wanted political changes in places like Syria or Libya had valid reasons. Its doesn't matter how severe the dictatorships were so there is no point saying " well they weren't like Stalin ". The point is the citizens and tribes of those countries wanted political change ..lets not question that There was unrest in Saudi Arabia but the Saudi royal family handled it completely differently. Instead of trying to crush the protests by using the military they dropped $100 million to address the protesters complaints http://persiangulffund.com/saudi-arabia-distributes-130-billion/ A very different way to deal with the Arab Spring so I have no patience or empathy with what happened in Libya and Syria because the situation could have been handled differently Also I travel to the ME for work and I have been to Saudi 4 times for projects. I don't agree with how they view certain SJ issues but they are an ally of the West and we need to respect that and not criticize too much. Change will come but we mustn't force it

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ?

Yeah, given the result of the referendum his actions have been odd to say the least. I'm also a bit cynical that the solution being pressed by the Troika will just result in a Greece unable to pay it's debt(can't draw water from a dry well after all) with state owned property being privatized and Greeks wallowing in real wage stagnation and 20%+ unemployment. The new "contract" is even more of a punishment to people who allready have taken cuts and cuts in the last 10 years. Besides that, this is 50 billions in privatization that is a huge problem. Greece is a port hub, most of their income comes from their ports and tourism. Take that away and there will never be a chance for a recovery. This just begs for a civili uprising in the long run..maybe to get rid of Syriza and then come along with a nice EU goverment and lift some of this? Possible. I would do it that way if i want to get rid of them. I don´t know, he allready has failed anyway. The privatization makes sense, these institutions will still function but they will be run profitably Its always better to let the private sector manage anything that needs to be profitable. Yes it may be seen as something the Greeks are " losing " but it will benefit them in the long term We have a major problem in South Africa where almost all our parastatals run at a loss every year and the government has to pay billions of rand's to keep the afloat So I wish they would get privatized

I have no idea how that relates to tipping. Legally we have to provide a safe place for a transgender student to use as a changing/restroom. It does not require a separate facility, but is more an issue of scheduling and access. We haven't had any cases at the middle school level, but at my wife's High School, they simply give the student access to one of the designated staff bathrooms as well as changing after everyone else has headed out. Hurlshot haven't you realized by now sometimes my posts don't make sense unless you ask...like now I am having a separate debate with someone else about how some countries cater for minorities and are very progressive. I remember you mentioning it and I was thinking how far ahead this type of consideration is. We want to get to this point

I agree 100% with you there. Netanyahu wouldn´t sacrifice his own troops, he would try to trick the US into doing it. It´s not that difficult honstely. The gap between operating a power plant and being able to construct a bomb are huge. Not to mention they have been observed in the past and the new contract gives access to every sight, including secure military bases. I would be, and i am, more worried about Israle who clearly has nuclear bombs (illegaly) and no one does anything about it, despite their history of expansion with military means. Iran? Iran has not fought in an agressive war for hunderts of years, i´m not worried. Volo we need to stop seeing this whole Iran issue in black and white,,,there are grey areas What would you prefer ? For the USA to bomb Iran ...maybe send ground troops Israel would need the USA to effectively attack Iran ...and thats not going to happen Never say never, there are always different sides. You can bet the military industry would love a war, thats billions of money for them. Netanjahu would love it, being the extremist he is and he clearly has a lot of leverage in the US, but thank god not as much as he thought, otherwise we might look at a different scenario. Still. This agreement stinks, it´s very hypocritical when it comes to the sanctions that were imposed on Iran in the first place. Assad is a brutal dictator who instead of making political changes that large numbers of his people wanted when the Arab Spring first swept through Syria he resorted to use his army and security forces to brutally crush the political dissension. I cannot understand why you would support him or think he has done nothing wrong ? I don't ever support any dictator who stays in power through military means He is only still in power due to the support from Iran I believe Netanyahu sees this in ideological terms...he only cares for the Jewish state. I can't expect him to see the big picture and frankly that's his issue. The USA and others see the benefits of negotiating with Iran and thats all that matters According to whom? The Assad dynasty has ruled over Syria for some time now...and Syria was a beautiful, ****ING beautiful place If he would have been that dictator that you say he is..how is he still in power? Even after years of war in his country? Don´t you see that this doesn´t make any ****ing sense? Logic my friend. If logic doesn´t match up with the view you get, look for more information. I´m not supporting anyone, but i support that any foreign nation has to stick their nose out of a regional problem (which again is a geo-war and the since the start the US has their dirty fingers in this country) Assad is as much as a dictator as anyone else in that sphere. This is just perfect Hussein/Gadaffi propaganda again isn´t it? THe funny thing is, after so much years of war, he even made a sloppy election, but you would say it was rigged anyway No, i´m very glad Assad is there. If it wouldn´t be for him Syria would be overrrun by ISIL, with havy (and open= support from the Saudis and Israel and the US. No thanks. In the end it doesn´t matter, see i don´t know Assad personaly, nor do you, but he has stayed with his people, got elected again DURING the war (this was even reported on our pro western media...and yes..shock they have elections!!!!!!!!) and has done more for his country than any Obama, btw Syrias history is very interesting. Read it up Assad is no evil. Unless you are sheep who believes the US version, in that case i would suggest you read up what the US does all the time to other countries You see this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I believe in the principle of a Democracy ....the Arab Spring was about the citizens of various countries wanting more representation and a better quality of life. Some countries made the transition, like Algeria and Tunisia, and some leaders refused to make any concessions like Libya and Syria I don't believe any country belongs to a family or one tribe...Assad should have made the political changes that was asked of him If you believe in the principle of democracy you have no right to intervene in the business of any other country that includes Syria. Yet for the last 50+ years the US have meddled in the affairs in the middle east, the result is, that everything is in ruins. Or NOT? Arab Spring, is considered Saudi/US driven. (it matters not). The result: Syria - "civil" war. Libya - destroyed and hell Yemen - hell in some parts WITH US support for Saudis bombing cities....scum Tunesia - got away with a blue eye but suffers from human traffic Iraq, Algeria, Jordan, even more problems. The rise of IS, so yeah. The Arab spring was a lot of things, but none stood for or made democracy. US intervention is the reason why IS exists in the first place. Well yes the Arab Spring didn't have the desired positive outcome many citizens expected but this is to be expected considering the reality of governments in those countries, the historical precedent in some places and ideological stance. Also the definition of a Democracy is different in the ME to where we live but the Arab Spring still had valid objectives and that doesn't make the idea wrong, citizens of any country have the right to have equal rights and representation..or at least access to economic opportunities You seem to be justifying dictatorships as the norm just because they existed for years or decades in some ME countries ?

Considering that the translation is pretty spot on and suggest you are teacher, it´s a pretty good assumption AND was a question, but i guess you can´t answer the rest so you took the easy way out Yes i was right, you are arrogant. Thats ok No point in talking with you then. @ Gromnir and cirdanx My advice is avoid debating with each other ...trust me your personalities are so different neither of you will get each other @ cirdanx I am interested where you say you don't believe in patriotism..and I don't mean blind or extreme patriotism ? I am not getting your reason. Why wouldn't you support your country ?Unless its like some corrupt banana republic? I know you disagree with Austria joining the EU but what about the fact its your home, your culture and the place you live a good life in? What am I missing ? By the way you both live in amazing first world countries that you should feel proud of ....I love my country and believe in contributing and playing my part in the transformation of the economy but you have no idea some of the social challengers we face. I don't deny this but if you guys had our problems then I might understand you being jaded

Hurlshot you mentioned you have transgender change rooms at your school so the kids don't feel embarrassed...did I understand you correctly ?

I agree 100% with you there. Netanyahu wouldn´t sacrifice his own troops, he would try to trick the US into doing it. It´s not that difficult honstely. The gap between operating a power plant and being able to construct a bomb are huge. Not to mention they have been observed in the past and the new contract gives access to every sight, including secure military bases. I would be, and i am, more worried about Israle who clearly has nuclear bombs (illegaly) and no one does anything about it, despite their history of expansion with military means. Iran? Iran has not fought in an agressive war for hunderts of years, i´m not worried. Yeah I agree. I have actually changed my mind about the best way to achieve stability in the ME. I use to believe that the best way to achieve this was through the traditional allies of the West, the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and UAE but they have proven ....disappointing. Iran needs to be incorporated back into the global community I know they support Assad and fund certain terrorist groups that have killed Western troops over the last 15 years but we need to see the big picture. Iran is not just a country of religious hardliners...there are moderates and those are the people we need to reach out to. Which the West has been doing obviously Suddenly compared to ISIS and its brutal ideology Assad doesn't seem that bad ...now the enemy is ISIS But we need to be aware that there are several factors that seek to destabilize the negotiations...like Israel and certain Republicans. So Obama must just stay the course Also I hope this is the last time people dispute the notion that sanctions don't work ...clearly they do. They just take time For who exactly is Assad a problem? Syra and it´s people are behind him or the war would have been lost. Turkey doesn´t like him, but Erdogan and Assad were friends until Erdogan backstabed him. Assad really blocked only the gas pipe the Saudis wanted to build (and the US backed) thus...war..that is a geopolitical war and nothing else. Assad is not the big evil in this world or some new Hitler Volo we need to stop seeing this whole Iran issue in black and white,,,there are grey areas What would you prefer ? For the USA to bomb Iran ...maybe send ground troops Israel would need the USA to effectively attack Iran ...and thats not going to happen Never say never, there are always different sides. You can bet the military industry would love a war, thats billions of money for them. Netanjahu would love it, being the extremist he is and he clearly has a lot of leverage in the US, but thank god not as much as he thought, otherwise we might look at a different scenario. Still. This agreement stinks, it´s very hypocritical when it comes to the sanctions that were imposed on Iran in the first place. Assad is a brutal dictator who instead of making political changes that large numbers of his people wanted when the Arab Spring first swept through Syria he resorted to use his army and security forces to brutally crush the political dissension. I cannot understand why you would support him or think he has done nothing wrong ? I don't ever support any dictator who stays in power through military means He is only still in power due to the support from Iran I believe Netanyahu sees this in ideological terms...he only cares for the Jewish state. I can't expect him to see the big picture and frankly that's his issue. The USA and others see the benefits of negotiating with Iran and thats all that matters According to whom? The Assad dynasty has ruled over Syria for some time now...and Syria was a beautiful, ****ING beautiful place If he would have been that dictator that you say he is..how is he still in power? Even after years of war in his country? Don´t you see that this doesn´t make any ****ing sense? Logic my friend. If logic doesn´t match up with the view you get, look for more information. I´m not supporting anyone, but i support that any foreign nation has to stick their nose out of a regional problem (which again is a geo-war and the since the start the US has their dirty fingers in this country) Assad is as much as a dictator as anyone else in that sphere. This is just perfect Hussein/Gadaffi propaganda again isn´t it? THe funny thing is, after so much years of war, he even made a sloppy election, but you would say it was rigged anyway No, i´m very glad Assad is there. If it wouldn´t be for him Syria would be overrrun by ISIL, with havy (and open= support from the Saudis and Israel and the US. No thanks. In the end it doesn´t matter, see i don´t know Assad personaly, nor do you, but he has stayed with his people, got elected again DURING the war (this was even reported on our pro western media...and yes..shock they have elections!!!!!!!!) and has done more for his country than any Obama, btw Syrias history is very interesting. Read it up Assad is no evil. Unless you are sheep who believes the US version, in that case i would suggest you read up what the US does all the time to other countries You see this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I believe in the principle of a Democracy ....the Arab Spring was about the citizens of various countries wanting more representation and a better quality of life. Some countries made the transition, like Algeria and Tunisia, and some leaders refused to make any concessions like Libya and Syria I don't believe any country belongs to a family or one tribe...Assad should have made the political changes that was asked of him

It will be all about hate in a few months...but who cares really...its a small forum on the internet..shrug? Yeah....you can already see the underlying animosity. Also what is the point of having a forum to discuss examples of bigotry ? Would it make you feel better to just vent ?

From 2012? Really, Bruce? As a consequence it's riddled with post facto/ hindsight inaccuracies and wishful thinking. eg, the article says that Greek debt burden is reduced by 100bn Euros from a debt: gdp ratio then of 160%, it was already up to ~180% with about a quarter of government income going towards paying interest even prior to Syriza and the present super crisis. 'Debt burden' is, of course, weasel wording, meaning that actual debt was not reduced by anywhere near that much- obviously, if it had then their 120% debt to GDP target would have been attained, instantly- just that interest charged on the loans was reduced. In contrast, the proper, needed* debt reduction package has to primarily reduce absolute debt, not 'obligations', because the absolute reduction automatically and intrinsically lowers interest payments as well, you owe less money to pay interest on. Interest reduction is fine in a marginal case, this is not one of those and wasn't in 2012. Not cutting the debt enough just results in what we've got, a slightly, nominally, reduced inability to pay off absolute debt, but an actual, still existing, inability to pay while the 'debt burden' cancelling interest reduction is more than entirely counterbalanced by the GDP dropping further, lowering ability to actually repay below the 2012 level. That's why despite their absolute debt being lower now than in 2012 their relative debt is considerably higher at ~180%. *which won't happen, hence why they need to go Yes it was created in 2012 but that doesn't change the various austerity steps each country needed to follow. I posted it so you can see the criteria You can also see how countries like Ireland and Spain have met certain austerity points which highlights that they can be achieved...in other words it takes political will The thing about Greece that really exasperated the Troika is that they didn't implement what were key deliverables effectively ...pension age reform and better tax collection. You must understand for the majority of European countries this is like a basic " economics 101 " ....how can you expect the various financial ministers to take the Greek efforts seriously when they couldn't do this So for me I am not supporting the Troika and Germany just because they represent some idea of Western culture. No its because what was expected of Greece was not unreasonable. As I mentioned we take this seriously in South Africa and I can see what happens in the Africa continent when these types of policies are not followed

Oh I found what that forum she belongs to stands for, its not about a dislike of men...but I can see it unintentionally getting there. See below "This subreddit is for exposing the hate and bigotry of the so-called "men's rights movement." We comb the internet for egregious examples of hate and post them here -- whether it's cissexism, homophobia, or misogyny, it's posted here. We are not against the concept of men's rights, we are against the "men's rights movement" --if it can even be called that " I can understand the reason but damn thats going to be one morbid forum considering the fact all they will raise is negative things ...so who will join this forum

Don't get me wrong I am not saying things may not go wrong with these negotiations with Iran....maybe they are lying and will still try to enrich Uranium and get a bomb. I am just saying this is the best available option under the circumstances But I need to explain my point further as you are asking some pertinent questions. So first question is " what is the objective the West wants for the ME " ? It wants stability end of the day and the USA wants to stop feeling it has to intervene in certain conflict areas, like having to go back to Iraq to deal with ISIS. If Iran got a nuclear weapon then the Sunnis states would feel they have to ...and then we would have a nuclear race in the ME. And to be honest no one wants that. So the USA has valid reasons to prevent Iran getting a nuclear bomb and its not just the concerns from Israel Israel is a friend of the West\USA but under Netanyahu they have made some unhelpful decisions. Iran would never use nuclear weapons against Israel as the retaliation from Israel would destroy there country...so there verbal attacks against Israel is just rhetoric. Iran is not suicidal And then finally if the USA did decide to launch a military attack agaisnt Iran it would have to be done in a proper and committed invasion like Iraq. I don't mean necessarily boots on the ground but it would be a major and protracted air campaign. And without ground troops or you will achieve is to destroy some sites. But think what the USA will lose ...Iran will then truly hate them and anti-American sentiment will just increase which will resonate through all spheres of Iranian influence in the ME . There is no appetite in the USA for this and its understandable So you asked "what is the USA deal " The USA is aware of its responsibilities in the ME but it wants to resolve the Iran crisis without using the military option ..and I support that

But thats the internet for you, if she can´t handle internet hate, then she has the wrong job. The internet is full with idiot´s, it always has been. If you are a "public" person on the internet you have to have the ability to deal with it or go. I don´t know about you, but after 15 years with an internet connection i can´t even give a second thought about some idiot wishing me death or wanting to kill me. I mean seriously. SJW was clearly not meant to be insult, these people named themself this way. As a critic said about this subject "it´s a very catchy name..who doesn´t want to be a warrior"? I don´t consider people "SJW". If they label themself or support them than it´s clear isn´t it? I don´t run around and claim that people are "SJW" thats stupid and to be honest i don´t care that much. I only care if they try to meddle in things that i care about. We are on the Obsidian forum and Pillars got that treatment. You know the headstones? Their argument was completely baselss. They don´t try to discuss things, they accuse, try to change, censor material that doesn´t go with their extreme view point. That is just crying about nothing and trying to force on people your viewpoint. Being an open mind (with faults..), that goes against my fundemental viewpoint that no matter what, you should always be able to express yourself without censorship. And yes, they too have the right to say "thats sexist etc" they have the right to say it, but not the right to change said content by their will. Also it helps when you actually have a point you can prove, which in the "SJW universe" is mostly not the case and they often get beaten down because their arguments have no basis. As a side note: It also really pisses me off because these scum people have managed to turn the word "feminism" into a bad word again, there are many great women out there really trying to make a point, writing books, holding speeches and trying to bring something along that comes close to equality (a long process), which i absolutly agree with, instead of some twitter ****, who just do this to spread hate, stress, violence, censorship and then cash in on their crowd funds when they have found enough idiots to support themselves. They are throwing back any movement for years, they are doing nothing for that, and i don´t believe for one second that the a normal woman stands behind this..i don´t personaly know one who would support this ****. /rant :D I prefer people not to say rude things to me but the reality is I am often involved in controversial debates so its common. And no it doesn't bother me unless its from someone I respect on these forums. I don't tell people I'm a feminist anymore because you right it has now got a bad association IMO...I just tell people I support gender equality. Besides I always felt weird saying to people I met in RL " I'm a feminist..some people think you are just saying it to pander to women and sometimes I had women who laughed at me because they thought I was just saying it to score points " Fighter I think this is a good time to explain something to you and apologize about something that you probably don't care about or didn't notice...but I want to explain anyway as its about the principle We had many disagreements on the GG thread and looking back that was actually more my fault and I'll explain why I always defend victims of bigotry like gay people and women as you know. But it never occurred to me that many white, male gamers were genuinely offended, angry and hurt by what happened when the GG debate started..like the Alexander article. I never thought that people could be offended by this as I saw this as such a none issue and I believed you guys were supporting GG because you were resistant to change. I was wrong and I should have extended you the same courtesy as I show other groups who are discriminated against.. I now realize most of you guys really feel you are being targeted and I can see how you may feel like that. Anyway this probably isn't relevant to you personally but I just wanted to raise the fact that I am aware of it and it has changed certain things I now support

They can kick Greece out, easily, they just have to vote against the bail out and the 85% target cannot be met. It's politically problematic for them to do so, but the adherence to politics over reality is to a large extent what has caused this problem in the first place, and is something that has to be tackled every bit as much as the economic reality if things are going to be fixed and not be repeated. The Euro is an economic entity based on political rather than financial considerations first and foremost, hence near everyone ignoring the rules and having a currency union before having anything approaching a proper fiscal union. Still, if they do it then good on them; ultimately Herr Schauble is correct and Greece would be better off outside the Euro, and it doesn't matter if I think his overall position is rich given that Germany killed 40 million people in a war of wanton aggression and genocide- then got their debts forgiven eight years later. That was the right thing to do and still is; now if he's convinced that kicking Greece is the right thing then ffs show some spine and do it. As below, it'll be a godsend for eurosceptics, but the situation already is that. Heh, 'set things right'. I'm not sure an EU Kommissar/ Gauleiter could be the answer even with the best will in the world, the relatively mild agreement is already seen as a neo colonial putsch by a large number of Greeks, put a formal stamp on that and there's a fair chance you'll have Euro Paul Bremmer cowering behind concrete barriers and need EU troops on the streets. Or have to go back to the 70s and having a bunch of Colonels backing Euro Bremmer- which would hardly endear the EU to anyone, let alone the sceptics who this whole situation has already been a godsend for. Sheesh, they've already got pro EU brits changing sides, have the Kommissar approach it'll be a landslide UK exit. Realistically there isn't any 'setting things right' anyway and we both know it, it's too far gone for that unless they go for proper debt relief instead of piling on more loans to pay back the old loans, and that is politically unfeasible. Pretty much everything related to this issue is a triumph of politics over reality. Which is, ultimately, one of the things I think we both agree on even if we differ on the reasons for that view. Now, sure, though the figures are somewhat different from the ones I've seen; I did say that the gap had widened rather than contracted with austerity. And it is pretty clear that Greece is not extraordinarily corrupt from those figures, there are plenty of countries in the EU worse than them on that front. I've already read the wikipedia article. I'm always sceptical of that sort of stuff because I know that we vote ourselves least corrupt in the world, every year, when we have a pretty horrible crony capitalist model where legislation is actively bought and sold, but people think we're not corrupt because a policeman won't ask you for a bung. Unless you're young and female or a prostitute or a drug dealer or whatever, been a spate of popos getting caught out pressuring sex, or stealing drugs to sell, or making sure their child doesn't get investigated properly for gang rape, or heh, [redacted] because the dude who may or may not have political relationships got name suppression though everyone knows what he's being investigated for. I also know there's a huge amount of cash-in-hand grey economy here as well as the selective enforcement of laws, but most people here think that, heh, that just doesn't count as corruption. Perception is key, whether it be outside or inside. That goes right back to the beginning of the whole argument- they cannot be productive because they cannot produce stuff cheaper than Germany because their currency is too high and they started from too low a base, so they lose their productive factories and the like, never to reopen because their currency and competitiveness is still tied inexorably to Germany. And what do you have left after the productive private sector has gone? Public sector and services like tourism, maybe some agriculture. That is what Greece has. You aren't going to replace the public sector with 'productivity' with the magic of austerity, you'll just, well, drive up unemployment and slaughter GDP further. So long as they're tied to the Euro they cannot be productive in the sense you'd like them to be. Of course they cannot keep funding it with borrowing either, that isn't fair on anyone, but gutting the public sector ultimately won't help either at this point unless it happens along with a default/ nuDrachma. Inflation <-> devaluation has a positive side though, unlike straitjacket austerity- which has lead to large scale deflation, an even greater sin than inflation. Printing money does pay back the debt and it makes you more competitive by lowering your currency, it makes you more competitive by lowering the price of your exports while increasing the cost of imports; you may see some of those factories reopening when they get competitive enough. OTOH austerity alone does nothing, it's pure donkey-chasing-carrot. I've been through why austerity is moronic, its doctrinaire ideological puritanism makes no concession to reality any more than the political considerations do. It says: drop corporate tax rates from 40 to 20%! You get growth and massive investment! Except, of course, nobody in Greece has any money to buy whatever is being made, you're bringing in anti consumption taxes like VAT (which disproportionately hits the poor as a side effect) it drives businesses out of business because you have fewer buyers, raised prices due to VAT etc, further exacerbating the problem rather than helping it, and that exacerbation ensures that you aren't going to get the investment the tax cut for businesses should theoretically mean because there are far better places to invest in whether you be a rich Greek whose wealth has barely been touched or Chinese or German. And, of course, ludicrously decoupled tax rates for business and private use encourages tax avoidance by tricks such as becoming a company then not paying yourself a wage, but a dividend from your wholly owned company- if you have the nous and money to do so, of course, won't work Ioseph Publikos if they even have a job; and if you do that you're probably investing the money in London property to get a 15% return. You then get a fire sale of assets for less than their true value to pay unsustainable loans that remain unsustainable, minimal actual investment, massive unemployment ensuring that 25% of the population makes no contribution to tax base or GDP and cannot buy Greek products driving Greek businesses under- whatever their tax rate is. Austerity is not synonymous with running a balanced budget, because so long as it has that debt level Greece simply cannot run a balanced budget. They already have the largest primary surplus as % of GDP in the Eurozone, and they're still accumulating debt even with that. Of course they're being humiliated, that is perhaps the basic political consideration of the whole thing, to make it clear what anyone else will get if they transgress. You generally interest me Zora, your posts are detailed and its clear you are a bright guy who spends time understanding world events and history. I am always drawn to intelligence and I admire this quality in you. Despite our constant disagreements about the West this doesn't change the fact I respect your views yet I know you think I'm a troll and I know you don't respect me...but that doesn't bother me at all. Imagine if I got offended every time someone called me a troll ..I would be offended all the time What I am about to say you will probably take as some veiled criticism but its not meant to be so please see it as my attempt to be constructive . At times all your insight and knowledge becomes undermined by your strange and unnecessary dislike of the West. I know you won't share the root causes of why you dislike the West and that's fine but your post highlights my point In summary you appear blind to the reasons Greece ended up in this situation, you do raise some debatable points like " why can't Germany extend Greece the same debt relief if should Germany in the 1960s " but that's a different debate But lets look at the actual austerity measures Greece was suppose to implement and failed. Its from this link http://www.bbc.com/news/10162176 " In the largest restructuring of government debt in history, lenders and banks wiped 105bn euros ($138bn, £88bn) off Greece's debt burden. But in order to receive the new bailout, the Papademos government committed Greece to far-reaching spending cuts, equal to 1.5% of its output. Greece has now been in recession for five years. The cuts proved deeply unpopular with the Greek people, leading to a wave of protests and crippling strikes. To make the economy more competitive Greece pledged to cut the minimum wage and make labour markets more flexible, weakening job security. The aim is to cut the Greek government's debt from 160% of GDP to a little over 120% of GDP by 2020. The more unpopular austerity measures include a new property tax and the suspension of 30,000 civil servants on partial pay. Many Greeks feel the credit terms are intolerable, condemning the country to years of painful cuts and job losses. The unemployment rate has risen to 22%. Greece remains frozen out of international credit markets because its sovereign debt has junk status " None of these austerity steps are unreasonable considering the reality Greece found itself in. I live in a continent where we expect this from many African countries as there economies are dysfunctional and there leaders lack good governance. So if people expect Africa to transform and follow certain policies I can expect the Greeks to do the same. And sadly in Africa many countries don't do anything to change there economic reality so we still have people who live and die in abject poverty, and have lived like that for decades, due to a lack of good leadership So I know exactly how bad it can get and I know exactly what Greece should have done. Greece can leave the EU and spend the next 10 years in a severe economic depression. They won't be the first to do this ..the EU will survive. Yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge how the root cause of this Greece crisis is there own doing And no ...why do you think the intention of Germany is to humiliate Greece?. Germany has gone to great lengths to try to keep Greece in the EU and be reasonable Just the fact you think this is about humiliation reinforced your bias that I mentioned

I tip the girls at Hooter 25%-30 % because they have to put up with so much nonsense that manifests itself in different levels from some guys and sometimes girls . I have several friends who work there and how they get treated is not something I would accept

That is a simple issue of realpolitik - everything else would be worse from our perspective. This is particularily true for Syria's regime who more or less is beset by rebels of various factions and almost all of them extremists no damn sight better. We, as "the West", just supported some of the rebels because Assad also has the support of Russia and annoying Putin is currently all the rage, which is at the end of the day just a really silly reason to do anything and doesn't help any. A few years ago we thought removing Gaddafi was a good idea. Look what that has wrought, both for Libya, the EU and the people drowning in the mediterranean sea. Iraq is a mess. Egypt peacefully removed a dictator to elect Mursi (what a laugh) only to end up under the rule of the military after even more chaos and more protests. Given all this, why would handing over Syria to religious extremists the revolutionaries be any better? It's this chaos that allowed ISIS to gain a foothold in the first place, and between them and Assad, oh, well, I don't know, I'd freaking take Assad any day. You raise some good points but I see it differently on some levels I support regime change if a leader is about to commit genocide or mass killings of his own citizens or the citizens of other countries . So for me the humanitarian precedent is what matters which is why I still support the removal of Gaddafi and would have supported the removal of Assad but the West respected the Veto of the UNSC and actually didn't help the Syrian rebels in the beginning of the civil war. Ironically its the fact that Assad wasn't removed right in the beginning of the Syrian war that has led to creation of ISIS as the war has dragged on for years. Also millions of Syrians have become refugees and other countries have had to absorb them in refugee camps so the situation is really grim And you right, we can never predict what the Free Syrian army would have done once they came to power if the West had helped them in the beginning of the civil war. But remember ISIS didn't exist in those days and the Syrian Army did seem to be moderates who wanted to align with the West..but that might just have been a facade ?

Blame her? No, why is should i "blame" her. If thats her view, fine, but that doesn´t mean that her view is right. Throughin a whole gender into one sack and treating them all the same way because of some bad experiences you had is not an intelligent, nor a sensible thing to do. That also negates the argument on how she was treated, which infact we both don´t know. Unless you mean the current reddit situation, which i think she deserved based on her actions, which were unexceptable. Why not? SJW gerneralizes all the time and so far, i have never seen a real discussion coming from them. It´s all hate, arrogance, self entitlement and cencorship. Thats not a basis to start to anything from unless your goal is to be radical. Naturally the response was the same. And nothing of this will lead anywhere, because more sensible voices will be ignored. The interesting thing here is, that they do much more harm to honest feminism and what that stands for than any man could ever do. Guys if she is really anti-men of course I don't think its right. I don't support any type of bigotry I'm just saying I can understand why under the circumstances. Fighter I am still surprised you seem shocked that she could be " anti-men " ..why? You do accept that there are men who are misogynists ? Why can't there be women who dislike me ....I'm sure most radical feminists dislike men? @ cirdanx Yes I agree, she handled the whole reddit issue terribly and she didn't deserve to be CEO But that doesn't mean she deserved to get insulted for being a women and Asian So the reality is the whole "SJW " is a term that is really a label that is meant to be an insult. So I support many SJ causes and have been called a "SJW " ...yet we have had many debates ? My point being there are millions of people who you would consider " SJW " and I can promise you they don't fit your view of "It´s all hate, arrogance, self entitlement and censorship " That's why I asked you all those questions about your past, I wanted to understand why you had a certain view about the West and was it based on some other prejudice...like maybe you were a Serb. And I have no issue with someone being "anti-Western " and I understand why many Serbs resent the West. I don't agree with it but it helps me to understand what motivates people But anyway I didnt want to assume you were "anti-Western " unless I knew ...so you should try to not assume things about SJW