Jump to content

Elerond

Members
  • Content Count

    2,616
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Elerond last won the day on March 26 2016

Elerond had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,288 Excellent

About Elerond

  • Rank
    One of the Obsidian Order

Profile Information

  • Location
    Finland
  • Interests
    reading, gaming, programming

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. And they even had pictures of Iraq's WMD's that they showed to UN, but at end we learned that those credible intelligence agencies had made mistake and Iraq didn't have any WMD as they were destroyed according to rulings by UN, but that haste to punish Iraq and Sadam for breaking said UN ruling still 16 years later has world wide effects and has caused death of hundreds of thousands people and it doesn't look like that its effects will disappear any time soon. Iran-USA dispute blatant breaches of law seem to be quite norm, considering that it was against international law to USA break its agreement with Iran and USA's current sanctions against Iran are against international law and as is USA's threats towards everyone who does business with Iran. But it also means that when USA who has aggressively broke international law and agreements in order to force its will over Iran, gives debatable proof that Iran has done something without verification from some other source, it would be quite wise to be somewhat sceptical towards that proof especially when you take in account that in past USA's proofs towards countries which they are in dispute with has been less than accurate, some would even say falsified.
  2. As irrefutable as proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
  3. UK consist of several states which have different levels of secularity. Like for example Northern Ireland and Wales don't have national church and Church of Scotland is independent of Church of England and its status as national church is not official.
  4. Brits could leave union as soon as they want without any entanglements, but they want entanglements which is why their leaving process is mess as they can't agree what kind entanglements they want.
  5. Venezuela has had questionable government over 50 years, which is why Chavez was able to gain so much support 20 years ago when he promised change. Chaves economic actions were bad, but trade sanctions against Venezuela after his revolution have also played big part on destruction of Venezuela's economy. Venezuela's elections may have been farce and their government may have questionable right to govern from standpoint of Venezuela's law, but revolutionary leaders have even less legitimate right to govern the country and other countries support revolution they by definition give support for illegitimate leader, which gives that original questionable leadership enemy to point out which they can say is trying to take power from Venezuelans and make them seem as the legitimate government in eyes of said Venezuelans. Which means that even if revolution is successful there would most likely be millions of Venezuelans who can't live in their own country, because said revolutionary leadership needs to uproot those who see them as illegitimate government or face constant civil unrest, which most likely will be violent. In other hand if other countries accept their questionable government, drop trade sanctions from time of Chaves and if they want to sanction for them for farcical elections go through UN process to give them sanction for such behaviour. But in times when we don't sanction countries like Saudi Arabia for murdering its own people and terrorizing its neighbours, I am not sure if there is any legitimacy to punish poor countries for behaviour which we accept from richer countries. But opening trade with Venezuela would make food and other necessities cheaper for ordinary Venezuelans which would lessen their need to seek better life from else where. Also by going route of trade and humanitarian help other countries would remove that outside enemy which Venezuela's questionable government uses to get people support them. Eventually government in Venezuela would change for more legitimate version, of course there is risk that more legitimate version will still not do what USA says they need to do, but sometimes you need to live with disappointment.
  6. It would probably work better in end if western countries would end all trade restrictions towards Venezuela and let them govern their country as they want. As current approach has not really achieved anything else than made things worse in Venezuela and pushed it to become dependant of Russia and China. Trying to force countries to change their governments usually just leads rise of hardline support of said government. Which may often be actual goal of these operations instead of actually trying to do anything to help. Because enemies especially small and manageable are often seen as good way to distract from domestic policy issues.
  7. Democrats don't really need strong candidate, they probably would do best with less know candidate for whom people don't have preconceived opinions and who does not have history of actions that can be attacked. Because democrats will vote democratic candidate unless they really hate that candidate, republicans will vote republican candidate even if they hate the candidate, and in case of independents less hated candidate will win.
  8. "2.5$ yearly trillion cost of his "medicare for all " " That is somewhat scaremongering 1. That estimates is based on current health insurance cost and government lead single payer insurance system will by its size, nature and dominance force prices down. 2. Most of the health care cost come from paying doctors, nurses and so on for their work and those people pay big sunk of that money back in their taxes (first by giving part of their salary and then constantly giving little more with most things that they buy, rent etc.). Also from macro economic standpoint health care is mostly inbred, meaning that money never leaves the country, but just circles inside of country's economic flow. 3. Government lead health care can invest in preventive care, which would lessen amount of emergency care, expensive medical procedures, unnecessary testing etc. Introduction medicare for all, or some other single payer system is not really question is it affordable, but is government willing to cut profits of health and medical care industries by taking control over the wallet.
  9. Economy don't actually get boosted when deficits increases, even though it can feel like it, but it is just illusionary, because that boost that you feel in economy will cause in dent in economy in future.
  10. EU's foundation was over 66 years ago, when European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1952. EU as we know it is result of decades of trade and other political dealings over that foundation. Like European Atomic Energy Community (1958), European Economic Community (1957), Terrorism, Radicalism, Extremism and Violence Internationally (TREVI) [1975], Franco-British alliance (1947) -> Western Union (WU) [1948] -> Western European Union (WEU) [1954], European Political Cooperation (1986), Schengen Treaty (1985) and European Communities (European Council and Commission 1965). In Maastricht Treaty in 1992 these things were combined behind singular entity which we know as EU.
  11. Do betting places even take bets for certain things? We dont want the UK to leave with no deal, it wont be good for anyone. Its funny but my family members who live in London and are all bankers normally demonstrate such prudence and restraint around global events, they never panic and arent prone to hyperbole. They voted no to leave but now they are confused and incredibly frustrated...I feel sorry for them because I do believe there is way forward that the UK parliament needs to implement. They should have another referendum with 3 choice and honestly let the people decide due to the gridlock and paralysis of the UK government around getting agreement and consensus. These 3 choices should be Leave with no deal Leave with Teresa Mays deal Dont leave After this vote then everyone needs to accept the outcome and finally deliver on it Advisory referendums are just bad form of political point collecting especially when only half of the voting population votes and result is close victory for one side of simplified question of complex issue. I don't believe that another close call referendum especially with three choices will make anything better, even though it could look solution for UK's parliament's dead lock state, but as that dead lock means that UK will leave without deal from EU, it isn't necessary thing where you need panic referendum. Currently question is if UK's parliament's non-hard-liners can come in agreement of do they want leave with existing trade deals, stay on EU or let hard-liners win with their deadlock strategy. In all the cases it is highly likely that people will not like their decision and/or its results.
  12. Do betting places even take bets for certain things?
  13. Yup. Add Euro 2020 to that and you'll have yourself one hell of a summer. Which Europe elections are in summer of 2020? Or are you talking about eurovision? There is only one Euro 2020 and it is the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship
  14. You should never trust your government, people should always keep track that government is doing what it was elected to do and if they don't then people should vote them out.
  15. Yeah that was general consensus and government failed multiple time to ensure that their changes follow our constitution
×
×
  • Create New...