213374U

As opposed to public consumption?

Yes. The state has no business telling you what you can and cannot smoke.

I am European. You are again proving you're just talking out of your ass. This is proof how? I am able to contact with aliens, and they tell me Bush is one jolly good fellow. Does this count? Of course, I'm sure you find Qazi Hussain Ahmed, president of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) "most reliable", but well... I'd take anything he says with a pinch of salt, if I were you. Not even he compares the US with North Korea, though. You're a pioneer in that regard.

Hassat? Is that you? No, seriously. Show me a single page that at least has a semblance of objectivity that supports the crap you're spouting. Also: I couldn't find a single reference to NK in the articles you posted. Also: You are still a long way from proving that "average" opinion is what you claim it is. You know, average? Also: Google is your friend, but don't overdo it.

I expect you to post links, or [else your arguments have no power to persuade]. )

According to your eminence only. One person that was, incidentally, elected twice to lead the country by the (however faulty) democratic system of the US.

Well, sorry. I haven't mastered the subtle art of doublethink quite yet. So you are not anti-american but you associate americanism with idiocy? Err... okay.

Would you find it sensible that police were only able to prevent a killing if they are in good terms with the aggressor? And more importantly, do you think Saudi Arabia would get involved in anything because of a human catastrophe? Really, you aren't making a very good job at concealing your anti-americanism. You get points for the laugh, though. Keep it coming.

So, it's fine to stop genocide in Somalia but toppling a genocidal, totalitarian government is a no-no? Interesting logic, indeed.

No, I'm not talking about the right to freedom. And for the record, I'm just seeing how much we can stretch this logic until it breaks; I'm not taking sides either way. I accept they have the same right to freedom as we do. However, do they really want it? Do they want it bad enough to stand up and fight for it against those that would take it from them? That's what I'm not so sure of. Freedom starts on the inside. You and I aren't out killing for it, but we probably would if it was in jeopardy.

It sure as hell beats mopping floors in a men-only monastery in the middle of flamin' nowhere! You see, I got it all worked out.

I can accept that. But then, why don't they rebel against that? Doesn't imposing it on them (or liberating them from those that would prevent it) somehow cheapen that achievement for them? Will they truly be able to appreciate it as if they had paid for it with their own sweat and blood? I mean, it's like solving a rubik's cube. If somebody does it for you, it's just not the same.

It sure as hell beats mopping floors...

If it lacks a fundamental component (whatever it is that's worthy of being implanted by means of force), doesn't that mean they are less advanced for not having developed and instituted it themselves?

That is not a stance I would support. If you are indeed willing to compare the degree of development of certain aspects of a culture, you must concede that democracy is usually superior to the alternatives, despite its many flaws. Otherwise, you must fall back to cultural relativism, in which the phrase "advanced culture" has no place.

I think I like sex better than having my skin punctured. Does that answer your question?

Getting tattoos is an unavoidable step in the quest to fulfill my childhood dream of becoming a pr0n star, so...

Are you referring to strategy games specifically? If so, I'd say it's quicker and easier to have the AI just cheat than actually develop an AI that can react to changing circumstances and come up with effective solutions to problems that aren't part of a set of predictions included in its original programming (as opposed to chess "AI"). Also, if a game did feature a true adaptive, learning-capable AI, I have no doubt it would be effectively unbeatable. And that's no fun either... In the end, you are playing against a clock. A complex one, but a clock still.

Does it? I don't think so, just look around. Maybe one day humankind will be advanced enough that laws can be passed to effectively govern war (I'm not even going to get into the moral implications of that), but then again, the same can be said for say, gravity itself. What do you mean "legally binding"? As you said, there's no formal court where the US can be taken to answer for their ignoring and bypassing the UN. That's as binding as me telling you I'll be mailing you $1M next friday. A law that can't be enforced is not a law, it's a joke. It all comes down to this: in international politics the strong do as they please, and the weak get the raw end of the deal. This is the way it always has been, even before there was such a thing as "international law". So, in the end, it is all just a farce to have the masses sleep at ease. "International law" is not only vague and inefficient (being dependent on what international lawyers happen to agree upon from time to time), it's not legitimate (veto power?) nor enforceable.

So you actually promote having an organism that decides when it's "okay" to have a war, and when it isn't? A set of "laws" that would turn wars into the legal equivalent of mass executions. So, who's going to decide, and on what criteria? It would be funny if it wasn't so absurd.

Yo Commie! Long time no see mate. ^_^

You are grasping at straws here. I already explained how Iraq's situation is different to that of either Australia or Canada, and how and why those countries are already covered by what I said. Keep nitpicking if you want, because there's not much else to do about that particular point. A war that lasted for less than a year (with major operations ending two months after the start) and what, maybe 100k dead? No, I don't think that's quite devastating when compared, for instance to Red October or the Thirty Years War. Even more so, when considering that the civil war that would probably have ensued is being artificially prevented. It didn't have much impact in the culture of the country either, nor have there been many of the uglier things associated with war such as ethnic cleansing. For a war that utterly destroyed the Iraqi state, I think it was rather neat and tidy, frankly. My bad. Reading Hades gets old real quick, so I wasn't following what he was saying. I was, however, answering a question you had posed. I don't see how that makes my comments irrelevant, as I was simply explaining my original statement after you questioned its validity. If you don't want to be caught flat-footed in discussions, don't leave yourself open like that, not even with Hades. If you are not interested in this discussion or think it's gone off on a tangent a bit too much just say so and we'll drop it right here.

Australia was a penal colony established by the British just one year prior to the French revolution and during a period of great unrest and change in Europe. They were for all intents and purposes British. I'm sure you can see how England's conflicts affected and influenced Australia as well. The same goes for Canada. Those two didn't acquire a distinct national identity until later, when "modern" society had already been developed, an aspect they inherited from their metropolis. I thought this was pretty obvious. Yes, Sweden and the rest of the nordic countries didn't suffer civil wars per se (that I know of), but they were close enough to the French revolution, the religious wars and power struggles of the 16-18th centuries to be permeated by their influence. I'm sure there's a point in being purposefully limited in your scope, but I can't see what it would be. Trying to understand how modern society came to be without taking into consideration the weight revolutions and other conflicts have had is like reading only a book's even pages. The thing is that western culture and history have been written in blood. We have peace now because our forebears paid dearly for it.

Either civil wars, revolutions, or devastating conflicts with the surrounding groups or cultures (as the present concept of "nation" is quite new, historically), yes. Change is never easy. And it often demands that a price is paid in blood.