JadedWolf

I'll just leave this quote here: "ISIS's seizure of Mosul is a major threat to Middle East stability, not just Iraq. It highlights the risk that Sunni Islamist extremists with past ties to al Qaeda will create an extremist enclave in both Iraq and Syria,” he said. “This could make any hope of a serious moderate rebel force emerging in Syria impossible. It could create an extremist sanctuary that could threaten Jordan and the other Arab Gulf states, make the conflict between Sunni and Shiite even worse, and push the Iraqi regime closer to Iran in self defense." Cordesman added that the situation may force the US and its allies to prop up Maliki, despite what he described as the PM's "total unfitness to rule" and conduct which actually helped ISIS gain support in Iraq. "Maliki has been steadily more authoritarian, corrupt, and repressive. He has made the Iraqi security force his political tool, deprived it of effective leaders, used security funds for his own profit, and brought his supporters and relatives into the command chain,” he said. “His ruthless repression of legitimate Sunni opposition and pressure on the Kurds, and lies and broken promises to Sunni tribal leaders have lost the support of Iraq's Sunnis and Kurds and empowered ISIS." https://news.vice.com/article/iraq-vows-to-beat-back-isis-after-militants-seize-saddam-husseins-hometown-of-tikrit The problem seems to be once again, like in so many troubles countries in this region, that the people propped up by our politicians are incompetent, corrupt and of questionable morals.

To be honest, when I think "reptile", "attractive" isn't the first thing that pops into my mind. That being said...

Huh? Italy are no divers.

For a country like my own, the Netherlands, leaving the E.U. would be like cutting off your own leg. We're a trading nation in the heart of Europe, it would be absolutely stupid. Yeah you are correct Jadedmeister, leaving the EU will spell economic doom for the Netherlands as all your important exports like clogs, Old Amsterdam Cheese and weed will be impacted. Why, you....

I'd argue the Spaniards have been pretty dominant over the past 6 years. While they have won, they didn't look unbeatable last World Cup. And right now their best players have aged even more. I wouldn't put my money on Spain this year. Well, obviously, the smart money is on Brazil, seeing that it's a home tournament and they certainly have the talent. I'm keen to see how far Belgium will go. They've got a great little team. They won't win it, but I suspect they might get far. And of course there is Germany. They impressed last world cup, and a lot of their talent was still young then. Should only do better as their talent matured.

Yes, that's what he said. And to be honest, that's something you oughto respect. At least he's not a fair weather fan.

Off-topic: we just won the world cup... ... of darts. Woop.

Is the pretty boy going to play? I heard he was hurt. You mean the injury caused by a witchdoctor from Ghana? :D http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/world-cup-2014-cristiano-ronaldo-injury-caused-by-ghanas-most-influential-witch-doctor-named-the-devil-of-wednesday-9491252.html I don't really believe in witchdoctors, so I wouldn't count myself lucky just yet were I the USA team. And it is a good thing too, as much as I dislike the guy, he oughto be part of the World Cup.

You'll break your resolve, you know you will. What else will you do during the matches? Take up knitting? :D

Yeah, I will be cheering for them too. Unfortunately, they drew the Group of Death™. Hmm, I would consider group B the real Group of Death, but yes, I don't expect the USA to go through with that group. Then again, they might surprise. If they do keep Portugal from qualifying for the next round, I'll raise my glass to them. Ronaldo is a great player, but he's incredibly annoying to watch with his mannerisms.

Because there are plenty of forums out there that cater exclusively to the noble sport of association football, so if anyone would feel the need to banter about football that'd be the place to go. And because this board is frequented by a quite a few inhabitants of barbarous countries where they know nothing about the noble sport of association football. Like the above posters. I do actually enjoy watching hockey though. In fact, the world championships are happening right now, in my country. I reckon we have a good chance of winning it. http://www.rabobankhockeyworldcup2014.com/

There's more flavours than pro and anti. You can absolutely despise the loathsome monster the E.U. has become and still not want to throw away every good thing about it. Mind you though, I think it probably would be a good thing if the UK left the E.U. They've never been very enthusiastic about any of it, and since they're not part of the Euro it would hurt a lot less for them. The only thing I am wondering is what the Scots would think about that, since they tend to have a very different political outlook to the English. For a country like my own, the Netherlands, leaving the E.U. would be like cutting off your own leg. We're a trading nation in the heart of Europe, it would be absolutely stupid.

Truer words have never been spoken. I agree with the sentiment, but I am not sure what the solution would be. Forcing it upon people who don't want it doesn't really seem like a good solution either.

I feel the same. "Want You Gone" is sort of... okayish, but not great.

Dialect guesses: 1. Australian 2. South African 3. Canadian Top three guesses for native language: 1. English 2. Dutch 3. Canadian The funny thing is that I've barely had any exposure to any of the dialects the quiz suggests. But my English is a hodgepodge, that's what you get when you learn the English language as a second language while exposed to a mixture of American and British television and education in British English with fellow pupils who all preferred to speak American English. I try to keep to British English as much as possible but with so much exposure to American English it's damn impossible not to be influenced by it. ... Also, what language is Canadian? Is that what Inuit speak?

Bear in mind that a lot of people couldn't actually be bothered to even vote, and among those many are the sort of people who vote for the populist anti-Euro parties. These are the sort of people who grumble about everything related to the E.U. and then when the time to vote for the European Parliament comes they can't even be bothered to vote for their party. You can certainly wonder about these people's political engagement, but it doesn't mean they are happy with the E.U. These people do vote in local elections, and then they can vote on parties that end up in a parliament that actually means a damn.

Oh no, not this discussion again... Toot toot. All aboard the guilt trip train!

Meshugger, I think you better sit down for a bit. I have something I need to tell you, and it's not good news. It's about Voltaire...

That's an odd conclusion, since it's basically the opposite in my books. The weaker countries get a lot of money in subsidies or money to save them from bankrupcy. On the other hand they barely add money to the EU since they're "poor"... by which it means the citizens aren't poor, but the government is due to low taxes, high tax-evasion and rampant corruption. The strong Euro doesn't really help much for all countries in the EU for export, but as if you say export is mainly tourism, that wont be quite as affected. And it's not exactly the EU's own fault, since the strong Euro is more due to the Dollar's decline (because the economy in the US is taking a beating thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan and the exploding bubble of banks) than good EU finances. Actually, it does help someone. The "strong" Euro is still weaker than if for example Germany would have a currency of its own. One of the arguments often used in Germany to stay in the Euro is that if Germany had its own currency again it would skyrocket and end up massively hurting their export, which they rely on heavily. By the way, it is easy to blame Greece and other poor countries for having collected far more debt than they could handle, but on the other hand with the money they borrowed they bought a lot of things from the northern countries in the E.U., and no one ever complained about. No one said "Stop, Greece, you can't keep buying from us, it will get you into trouble!" In simple terms, Greece was an addict, and we were its enablers. It's easy to take the black and white view on this, like people who think that all the money going to Greece is due to some misplaced altruism. In fact, it's to save our own skin. We save the Greek banks because if we don't the French banks to which these banks are indebted might collapse, which may cause the German banks to which they are indebted to collapse also, etc. etc. The whole system is linked in such a way that there really isn't any alternative. I can certainly fault the governments of Europe for allowing us to get in this mess, but a lot of the criticism of how they are handling it is quite honestly based on very simplistic thinking of people who can't see the greater picture. ]If you want to know how things are in Greece for actual normal people, take a look at something like this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-09/greece-to-restore-electricity-to-poor-disconnected-households.html I'm just saying, sure, there is money going to Greece but it's not going to partying Greek people who live leisurely off your tax money.

I guess that proves bunnies are smarter than horses.

I just noticed I wrote "then" when I meant "than". I'm going to grammar hell.

Okay, let me play devil's advocate here. I will admit that I may not see all the nuances in this cartoon, so perhaps for someone with a more South African perspective there is more offensive stuff in this cartoon then I can see. But would you say this cartoon is worse than say, the Danish cartoon that caused a lot of outrage among muslims? The one that very few people in the west thought needed an apology, and that was defended on the grounds that even if we didn't agree with the message itself, most of us felt that the cartoon maker was free to publish in the name of free speech? I don't see the clowns cartoon to be any more or less offensive. Stereotypes and exaggerations are exactly what these kinds of cartoons thrive on. If a cartoonist wants to draw a Turk they give him a fez and a mustache, if they want to draw a Dutch girl she's going to wear wooden shoes, a silly hat and possibly smoke a joint. And you can certainly imagine that these kinds of stereotypical images will cause offense to some people. So the question is where to draw the line. If we accept that these kinds of cartoon will always cause offense, do we start to make exceptions? Do we say, well, we can make fun of everyone - but not of these guys, that would be too much? And personally, I am wondering how much of ANC's rage is actually directed at the perceived racism, and how much about the fact that they don't like what the cartoon actually said about what they were doing.

You hear that a lot. It almost sounds like it would be logical. "Well, they call themselves socialists, so they must be, innit?" Hitler was decidedly anti-Marxist and had no interest in getting the means of production in the hands of the proletariat. The reason his party was called the National-Socialist party was that there were many Germans who were supporters of the S.D.P., the social democrat party. Hitler figured they would have more chance of getting these German votes if they called themselves socialist, with the little twist of putting "national" in front of it. And certainly, the nazi regime did have some overlap with socialism economically, but at the heart it was a completely different ideology. It was more related to fascism, with a focus on racial theory and minority exclusion, and it had very little to do with social equality and worker's rights.