quote:

Originally posted by Charles_M.:

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Light:
That's priceless coming from someone who calls people traitors at the drop of a hat

Thanks Chester.

That wasn't a compliment

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock:

Hmm, funny, cos you also said: "I recognise that it does not matter what we do or don't makes us a target!"

Bit of a contradiction here.

[/QUOTE]
Where is the contradiction?

Invading Iraq increased the chances of us being attacked.

We were in the cross hairs of the terrorists before we attacked Iraq.

i.e. even before we attacked Iraq they were planning to atack us.

There is no contradiction, do you understand?

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Light:

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_M.:

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Light:
That's priceless coming from someone who calls people traitors at the drop of a hat

Thanks Chester.

That wasn't a compliment

I know.

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock: Also, Bio, I don't think its fair to place much, or any, blame on the British electorate for voting Bliar back in.

I have a different view of democracy.

I think it is our duty to sack the belligerent, corrupt or incompetent.

the CRUCIAL thing to do would be to convey the message to howard that "if you make the same mistakes - you will be out TOO".

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states that an observer affects the outcome.

we just need to get that message across.

Not caring about foregn policy is what gives our leaders carte blanche to do what they will.

we need to mark that card.

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

quote:

Originally posted by shuggie: We live in different worlds, regardless of your jamming sessions in JA, you can want whatever the reality is somewhat different.

Just because your reality is mutual distrust - doesn't mean its the way it will always be.

I suspect that my reality and how I deal with it is what matters, as for change well hope springs eternal, but I wouldn't hold your breath on this one, some things run long and very deep.

quote:

Originally posted by shuggie: I suspect that my reality and how I deal with it is what matters, as for change well hope springs eternal, but I wouldn't hold your breath on this one, some things run long and very deep.

Aye. No argument there.

I will do my best to bring about the future i wish for - not the one i fear.

And i know you will too!

quote:

Originally posted by shuggie:

quote:

Originally posted by Haqq:
Shuggie, i am not mixing the issues up, maybe we are getting crosswired?

Look Both the janjweed and the rebels (i cant remember what they call themselves) in the West are Africans, both speak arab, the difference is the janjweed are coming from the nomadic tribe, who are supported by the Sudanese goverment, and are armed in response to the Darfur rebels. (This is not to justify any action by any side) The media claim the janjaweed are arab, the reality is they are africans. I have spoken to some Sudanese from both sides they both claim to be arab and african ( the best that can be said is they are mixed blood) from my observations.

Well Haqq I'm not going to get into a p1$$ing contest with you over this, but if you search (you won't need to look far) you'll see various articles and they tend to lean towards the Arabic Janjawid against the Black Africans.

In fact one article explains in very graphic detail why the janjaweed are into rapes.

Any way we are going of the point, the issue is between two tribes (and I condem all tribilism weither it be nationilism or football hoolginism) Both are african, both speak arabic. Both are muslim, this conflict has nothing to do with religion and everthing to do with resources. That doesnt take away from the horrendous atrocities being carried out, and doesnt minimise the suffering of the Darfurians. But it puts it into context of the geopolitcal situation, and highlights the fact that in this day and age "my tribecountry/nation right or wrong" is no longer acceptable and is in fact morally repugnent

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states that an observer affects the outcome.

Actually Heisenberg uncertainty principle states the closer you try to measure the momentum of say a particle the accuracy with which you can measure its position decreases and vice versa.

But lets not go there.

pretty much what i meant!

i shall rephrase it to "Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states that an observer can affect the outcome if he looks closely enough."

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:
I have a different view of democracy.

I think it is our duty to sack the belligerent, corrupt or incompetent.

the CRUCIAL thing to do would be to convey the message to howard that "if you make the same mistakes - you will be out TOO".

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states that an observer affects the outcome.

we just need to get that message across.

Not caring about foregn policy is what gives our leaders carte blanche to do what they will.

we need to mark that card.

So we should elect someone even worse, who would have done the same thing anyway, just to prove a point? Sorry, for me, that would cause far too much damage.

Perhaps a vote of confidence in the PM at each election, though that may be too presidential, which we don't want.

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:
pretty much what i meant!

i shall rephrase it to "Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states that an observer can affect the outcome if he looks closely enough."

I has this debate with somone over on culture. What you are describing is the observer effect.

HUP says something quite different. Specifically, that if you multiply the accuracy to which you can measure momentum and position, you will always get the same value (h-bar over 2). Its got nothing to do with whether or not the particle is actually being observed. Its that, due to the weirdness of quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for both to be defined.

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock: So we should elect someone even worse,

a point not proved

quote:

who would have done the same thing anyway, just to prove a point?

no, sacking blair would have been the point

and letting howard know that we are in a sacking mood if he thinks he can try the same trick.

its whats called 'changing policy with public opinion'.

which seems to me to be entirely within the remit of democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock:

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:
pretty much what i meant!

i shall rephrase it to "Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states that an observer can affect the outcome if he looks closely enough."

I has this debate with somone over on culture. What you are describing is the observer effect.

HUP says something quite different. Specifically, that if you multiply the accuracy to which you can measure momentum and position, you will always get the same value (h-bar over 2). Its got nothing to do with whether or not the particle is actually being observed. Its that, due to the weirdness of quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for both to be defined.

Please guys don't go there, it is not what this thread is about.

^ So you think accpeting, wholesale, all the Tories' stupid policies is a good price to pay for Blair's own stupidity? You can't pick and choose the policies of the parties you vote for, the system doesn't (and can't) work like that.

What you want is a referendum on Blair himself. But he is not a president, he is not a head of state, he is the head of his political party. I see your problem, but there is no simple solution.

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock:
^ So you think accpeting, wholesale, all the Tories' stupid policies is a good price to pay for Blair's own stupidity?

yes.

progress is usually made by stepping left, right, left, right, left...

all governments suck, but for different reasons.

gotta change em like underwear.

^ I'll guess we'll just have to disagree then. I think sacrificing education, health, home and foreign policy for the sake of making a point is dangerous.

Much better to note vote at all, go on a big protest or vote for the Lib Dems (or MRLP).

A step right is inevitable.

and we could do with a few less managers in the NHS, a little less burocracy in the schools only now - we have lost the chance to send a timely message to ALL politicians that invading and killing people is not a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

quote:

Originally posted by welshwarlock:
^ So you think accpeting, wholesale, all the Tories' stupid policies is a good price to pay for Blair's own stupidity?

yes.

progress is usually made by stepping left, right, left, right, left...

all governments suck, but for different reasons.

gotta change em like underwear.

We havnt changed our "underwear" in a while.

Personally - i think we should change em every time.

they get fat and laxy in the second term, and after a decade they just laugh at how stupid we all are for voting for em

then they go insane.

quote:

Originally posted by 2112:

quote:

Originally posted by Haqq:
Darfur is not issue of race/religion the fight that is going on there is between two tribes that has been ongoing for centuries before islam arrived....., and both are muslim.

Haqq, perhaps I am misinformed but, I understood that the Darfur tragedy is a result of conflict between the mainly Muslim north and the Animist and Christian south ?

I think you are, and i mean no offense, but the media i think are deliberatly blurring the issue. Darfur is in the west of the country and is one of many provinces in sudan that oil has been discovered. The Southern Sudan conflict had been resolved ten years ago, or so. With limited autonomy given to the south.

They are very differnt issues, and are almost completely unrelated except for oil and the CIA.[/QUOTE]

Don't wish to cause a squabble over this but, the conflict is a broader issue is it not ultimately encompassing the whole of Sudan ?

Any literature I have come across generally refers to the the muslim government of northern Sudan and the southern christian population of Sudan. Hence the conflict in Darfur is being fought out between the northern proxy of the janjaweed ( and indeed covert government forces ) and the southern rebel groups. The vast bulk of the oil fields are in the south of Sudan.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Sudan/Background.html

Just want to ensure I have the facts [/QUOTE]


First Darfur is in the west what you are refering to as the south is much further than that.

Second, they are definetly seperate conflicts, the issues are the same (resources/oil) the people and regions are different

try this link, link

And Shuggie notice how tenious the claim of "arab tribes" is and how recently this distiction has come up

^ 2112, the oil fields in thta map are not in Darfur.

Darfur Map

Also, you can go on Google Earth for details on the villages that have been destroyed.

The two conflicts are largely separate. The civil war in the south has essentially been resolved. There are still lots of refugees, but the area is largely peaceful.

Darfur is the ethnic cleansing of africans by the Janjaweed Arabs and the Sudanese govnt. They claim that they are fighting Chadian-backed rebels in Darfur. Similraly Sudan is backing rebels inside Chad (other than the Janjaweed).

So while you've got ethnic cleansing in Darfur, there is a proxy war between Chad and Sudan happening at the same time. Clearly they are all intertwined.

quote:

Originally posted by Haqq:

quote:

Originally posted by shuggie:

quote:

Originally posted by Andalus:

quote:

Originally posted by shuggie:
Sorry but he has real world experience and you have what exactly...
The carnage in Iraq and Darfur is also imaginary is it

lol. he went on a holiday to saudi. what does that have to do iwth iraq and darfur? i know people who have lived their all their lifes.

Two seperate questions chap, proving a bit difficult, let me help you.
I'm merely showing that what he observed in Saudi actually plays out in other parts of the Islamic world. notably in Darfur, which you deny.

Darfur is not issue of race/religion the fight that is going on there is between two tribes that has been ongoing for centuries before islam arrived. Both these tribes are speak arabic, both are african, both have lived in this region for thousands of years, and both are muslim. This is a war about resources, with one tribe being sedintory, farmers, the other being nomadic herders. Add modern weapons and now the discovery that the region is floating on oil, and volaa you have a major crisis!

You are wrong on Darfur, the Arab Jangaweed are killing the blacks, christians and anamists, get yor facts right. This is a genocide.

quote:

Originally posted by ex 500+ poster:

quote:

Originally posted by Haqq:

quote:

Originally posted by shuggie:

quote:

Originally posted by Andalus:

quote:

Originally posted by shuggie:
Sorry but he has real world experience and you have what exactly...
The carnage in Iraq and Darfur is also imaginary is it

lol. he went on a holiday to saudi. what does that have to do iwth iraq and darfur? i know people who have lived their all their lifes.

Two seperate questions chap, proving a bit difficult, let me help you.
I'm merely showing that what he observed in Saudi actually plays out in other parts of the Islamic world. notably in Darfur, which you deny.

Darfur is not issue of race/religion the fight that is going on there is between two tribes that has been ongoing for centuries before islam arrived. Both these tribes are speak arabic, both are african, both have lived in this region for thousands of years, and both are muslim. This is a war about resources, with one tribe being sedintory, farmers, the other being nomadic herders. Add modern weapons and now the discovery that the region is floating on oil, and volaa you have a major crisis!

You are wrong on Darfur, the Arab Jangaweed are killing the blacks, christians and anamists, get yor facts right. This is a genocide.

How am i wrong?
The south has nothing to do with the janjweed, and the claim of "arab" vs african is tenous at best, if you bothered to read my previouls link


And i had been trying to link to news reports of new oilfileds in Darfur, but it admin seem to think this needs to be censored!!!