Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on December 21, 2003, 09:53:52 pm
-
HAW HAW (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20031221/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_saddam_britain_031221040020&e=2)
-
yay another reason to not vote for bush in 04!
VIVALA CLARK!
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
yay another reason to not vote for bush in 04!
VIVALA CLARK!
Ohh, you mean the guy that gave the go ahead for the Waco, TX massacre? Ohh, you didn't know that, did you?
-
Bush is gonna walk the election, but lets not have this turn into a politics thread. I want it to be a 'damn all that American propaganda' thread.
-
I'm a skeptic.
Is there any corroboration for this anywhere but this one article?
-
As long as we got him in the end, I don't care if he was captured by the Duchy of Bum-Fuqq.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Bush is gonna walk the election, but lets not have this turn into a politics thread. I want it to be a 'damn all that American propaganda' thread.
Damn all that mother****ing American propaganda!
I'm American BTW...:doubt: It's a shame to see what people I know have come to believe just because the media said it.
-
err.. that doesn't mean Americans didn't capture him.. it just implies that they didn't capture him first.
-
The Kurds caught him, got the Americans to agree to some land-deals, then let them 'seize the evil tyrant'.
Who's betting that in 5-6 years those very same Kurds will be invading Iran with American weapons?
-
yes, damn that.. uh, American?... propaganda!
if this gets any coroboration or shows even the slightest chance of beeing true, this just might slay Bush's re-election plans, but for that reason I don't see why Bush would have been so stupid as to try this stunt, he would have gotten nearly identical boost no mater how he was captured, but lieing about it would almost asureidly get out before the election, so I don't see why he'd risk it. this seems like that 'find the boeing' thing that claims that the plane hitting the pentegon on 9-11 was faked, it seems like too much of a political risk to fake somethinging in a manner that wouldn't make a diference in the end result.
but then again, Bush is a moron, so I supose it's posable, and if it is I just hope we can get one of the better contenders (like Lieberman or McCain) to replace him, but that seems unlikely
you know I think the story of him being captured by his own people as a result of his (son's) brutality makes for a better story, than us just finding him and him surendering. so this just doen't make any sence
[edit]hey, when did our terror alert placebo thingy go up?[/edit]
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
...but then again, Bush is a moron...
This will be my last post on this thread I promise....
But if Bush is such a moron, how come he has managed to so completely hasten the death of the Democrat Party? He has carefully taken away all issues accept for the issue of himself.
We all know it's dying. And for good cause, the Republicans are hardly any different! Time now for the Constitutionalists to fill the void!
-
just becase the democrats are complete ****ing brain dead tards doesn't make Bush a genius.
the dems dug there own hole
-
The Kurd-capture thing appears to be somewhat breaking news. Musta started when then Iraqi papers went out (which, seen as the UK papers are being run and delivered now, should be the same as whatever their GMT off-set is).
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941612613.html
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,8231507%255E954,00.html
-
Originally posted by an0n
Who's betting that in 5-6 years those very same Kurds will be invading Iran with American weapons?
Arming the Kurds would be the most stupid move possible. They wouldn't attack Iran. If they attacked anyone it would be Turkey who is already a member of NATO and will shortly be a member of the EU.
By NATO treaty any attack on a NATO nation is considered an attack on them all (with the possible exception of France) so the whole of NATO would then have to go in and fight the Kurds.
Just cause it's stupid doesn't mean Bush won't do it. I just wanted it on record that I detected the stupidity :)
-
The source is quoted as the Sunday Express, though - which quadruples the chances of it being made up bollocks.
Even if it seems to make sense...... if it's in the Express, it's most likely made up.
-
That was my first thought - it's the Express. Not even tramps will pick up an Express if they find it lying in a park.
-
If you put fish & chips in an Express, they taste worse.
-
True dat
-
It's not fit for wiping your arse on, that paper. I could probably launch a page long tirade about how it embodies the worst of humanity and deserves a cruiser missile, but that'd require me actually looking at the thing. And that'd likely cause me to vomit.
Oh, and on the subject of newspapers in general - Piers Morgan = dickhead.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
By NATO treaty any attack on a NATO nation is considered an attack on them all (with the possible exception of France) so the whole of NATO would then have to go in and fight the Kurds.
I don't know why I find this line especially funny...
-
I added the bit about France because I wasn't sure if the mutual defence bit covered them. The comedy value is purely incidental *honest ;)*
-
They'd be crying under their beds begging for help anyway *shrug*
-
i thought france left nato in the 60s
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Ohh, you mean the guy that gave the go ahead for the Waco, TX massacre? Ohh, you didn't know that, did you?
Let's see a rundown of some other Democratic candidates:
Howard Dean: He's from a small, goofy, liberal state with no real cities (Vermont) and is the ultimate blue-blood New England elite. He is definitely not a good representative of our country.
John Kerry: This guy cursed out George Bush in public. Public officials just shouldn't do that.
Joe Lieberman: I don't know much about him, but I've heard that he wants to censor video games, which makes me really pissed off.
Satan Hillary Clinton: She hasn't announced her candidacy and it's kind of late, but you never know. I am NOT voting for this witch no matter what.
And since Bush is 100% certain to win the Republican nomination, I guess I'll vote Bush for '04. He's not perfect, but he's ten times better than the Dem candidates.
And who cares which soldiers captured him? It really doesn't matter because either way the important part is that we've got him and we'll kick his ass after and if he gives us some information (he's very good at keeping his mouth shut) so :ha:
Originally posted by Bobboau
just becase the democrats are complete ****ing brain dead tards doesn't make Bush a genius.
the dems dug there own hole
Some of Bush's "Bushisms" may actually be deliberate. A lot of the working-class people in the Midwest and South are actually very distrustful of "dem dere innaleckshuls", so he's actually catering somewhat to these moron voters because their support can be crucial in elections, no matter what party you're on. This is why Democrats often try to woo them with juicy entitlement programs, because stupid people are generally poor.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Let's see a rundown of some other Democratic candidates:
Howard Dean: He's from a small, goofy, liberal state with no real cities (Vermont) and is the ultimate blue-blood New England elite. He is definitely not a good representative of our country.
John Kerry: This guy cursed out George Bush in public. Public officials just shouldn't do that.
Joe Lieberman: I don't know much about him, but I've heard that he wants to censor video games, which makes me really pissed off.
Satan Hillary Clinton: She hasn't announced her candidacy and it's kind of late, but you never know. I am NOT voting for this witch no matter what.
And since Bush is 100% certain to win the Republican nomination, I guess I'll vote Bush for '04. He's not perfect, but he's ten times better than the Dem candidates.
And who cares which soldiers captured him? It really doesn't matter because either way the important part is that we've got him and we'll kick his ass after and if he gives us some information (he's very good at keeping his mouth shut) so :ha:
Some of Bush's "Bushisms" may actually be deliberate. A lot of the working-class people in the Midwest and South are actually very distrustful of "dem dere innaleckshuls", so he's actually catering somewhat to these moron voters because their support can be crucial in elections, no matter what party you're on. This is why Democrats often try to woo them with juicy entitlement programs, because stupid people are generally poor.
Looks at irony in his statements.
I thought "dem dern innaleckshuls" would never swear, since Kerry does swear, doesn't that make him more like the 'common people' and a better representative? ;)
Just pulling your leg.
Honestly, I don't care who gets elected, as long as it isn't Bush :p
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
i thought france left nato in the 60s
I know for a fact that they didn't pull out all the way. Which is why I'm not sure if the mutual defence pact still applies to them.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's not fit for wiping your arse on, that paper. I could probably launch a page long tirade about how it embodies the worst of humanity and deserves a cruiser missile, but that'd require me actually looking at the thing. And that'd likely cause me to vomit.
Oh, and on the subject of newspapers in general - Piers Morgan = dickhead.
The only paper I could read without the bile rising into the back of my throat is The Independent and I'm not too keen on that.
Piers Morgan is a complete and utter ****.
-
The mutual defence article must be enacted by the head of Nato (last time I checked it was Lord Robertson). Obviously it has an automated status, such as nuclear attack (for reason of despatch), but conventional attack is not treated as such.
[q]If you put fish & chips in an Express, they taste worse.[/q]
Do you notice that never happens anymore? I've not had a fish supper wrapped in newspaper in years.... :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
And since Bush is 100% certain to win the Republican nomination, I guess I'll vote Bush for '04. He's not perfect, but he's ten times better than the Dem candidates.
You forgot one thing that all the democrats have going for them: they're not Bush.
Some of Bush's "Bushisms" may actually be deliberate. A lot of the working-class people in the Midwest and South are actually very distrustful of "dem dere innaleckshuls", so he's actually catering somewhat to these moron voters because their support can be crucial in elections, no matter what party you're on. This is why Democrats often try to woo them with juicy entitlement programs, because stupid people are generally poor.
You know, when I think of the common man, the average working joe, the blue collar men and women this country can't do without, I think Republicans. I remember all the times the Republicans went to bat for the unions that protect workers' rights. I remember all those Republican programs that cut taxes for the average guy and put the burden where it belongs: on the rich.
Those damned intellectual, over-educated Democrats. How could they possibly speak for the common man?
oh sorry. I woke up and read a post from Bizarro World. What bloody crack are you smoking?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You forgot one thing that all the democrats have going for them: they're not Bush.
You know, when I think of the common man, the average working joe, the blue collar men and women this country can't do without, I think Republicans. I remember all the times the Republicans went to bat for the unions that protect workers' rights. I remember all those Republican programs that cut taxes for the average guy and put the burden where it belongs: on the rich.
Those damned intellectual, over-educated Democrats. How could they possibly speak for the common man?
oh sorry. I woke up and read a post from Bizarro World. What bloody crack are you smoking?
I think you weren't' quite awake when you read my post.
A very large proportion of the population is composed of moronic, small-minded right-wing proles who are very distrustful of the "innaleckshuls" (people with some degree of intelligence and/or liberals) and the "big men" or "suits" (white-collar people). A lot of them are pious Christians too. These people like Bush because Bush spins himself a good image of a folksy, simple, prole kind of guy (even though he isn't). They like his mannerisms, his cowboy image, his religion, and his bizarre mutations of English words and phrases (many of which are deliberate). The Democrats also want the vote from both these people and their far-left counterparts (which will be mentioned later), so they try to bait them with entitlement programs and welfare and social programs. It's not that Howard Dean is realy bad because he's an intellectual "blue-blood", it's that it's going to hurt him in the elections because it will alienate these people. Many of our leaders are morons (or pretend to be morons) because so many people WANT morons in office. And the morons are not all on the right: witness the far-left loonies on the coasts who post messages on Internet sites like Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com) in support of everything from socialism on the more moderate end of the spectrum to three-bong-hit super-communism and anarchy on the absolute lunatic fringe.
The average human being in ANY part of the world is a moron. Were it not so easy to manipulate stupid people, human civilization would've gone to **** long ago.
-
1. Oy vey. About time the truth got out. And I thank whoever helped to get this out into the open, as it will really damage Bush and the Republicans. The whole operation was a publicity stunt, just like Jessica Lynch, just like the aircraft carrier landing, just like the Saddam statue etc. Its makes me sick knowing that a)Many many people will still believe that the valiant US heros swooped in to catch the evil tyrant, or something, and b)People will most likely not care that Bush tried to lie. Its like "Well, you can't blame him for trying, he is the Prez after all, so he shouldn't REALLY be accountable"
2. Democrats or Republicans, its the same bull****. People think that Democrats are angels or something, that they're anti-war. Well guess what, Clinton went to war in 1999 with about as much actual reason as Bush (read: none) and everyone just kind of forgets that. The difference between Yugoslavia 1999 and Iraq 2003 is Public Relations. Clinton did it better, so he got virtually no dissent among the international community. The only Dem candidate thats at all worth voting for is Kucinich, but we all know how hard the media is working to marginalize him. Clark led a war not 5 years ago. How can anyone POSSIBILY consider him to be the "peaceful" vote. The majority of the Dem candidates are fence-sitters extrordinare.
3. Why is it that being an inteletual is suddenly a bad quality for a leader? I mean, if the person who is supposed to be in charge of the United States can't pronounce "nuclear", what is he doing in office. Intellectual=wiser=better. I'de like to hear anyone dispute that.
Well, enough of my rants, its good that the truth got out in the end.
-
Actually, I remember Clinton leading US troops into Yugoslavia. I also remember that fewer US troops lost their lives there in the entire time they were there than lost their lives in Iraq in the first three months we were there. Further, I recall that Clinton's work in Iraq was indeed sanctioned and supported by the international community. In fact, I also recall that the justification Clinton gave for sending US troops in the first place, turned out not to change every two weeks when things were looking unpopular. You can blame Clinton for a lot of things, but not for being a bad or dishonest war-leader.
There is a difference between Dems and Reps. Mostly in which end of society they want to screw. I'm from the bottom 60% so I'm all for screwing over the rich guys. Hell, I'm more than a little bit of a socialist. Its one of the reasons I'm looking forward to moving to Australia.
Intellectualism is bad. Being smart isn't. There's a sort of "IM SO L33T" attitude that seems to come in to play with intellectuals. Better vote for a smart person who understands people than a genius who doesn't have any social skills.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Many many people will still believe that the valiant US heros swooped in to catch the evil tyrant
If I ever see you refering to ANY armed forces person(s) as anything other than [a] hero(es), I will personally hunt you down and stab you through the chest with a very blunt log.
-
...
you know I'm actualy suprised this hassn't been given more (read any) press over here, this is exactly the sort of thing CNN or the democrats would cum over. weather it's true or not
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]If you put fish & chips in an Express, they taste worse.[/q]
Do you notice that never happens anymore? I've not had a fish supper wrapped in newspaper in years.... :sigh:
There is a place just up the street from my apartment that does it. Theres nothing like the image Paul Martin on your dinner to completely destroy your appitite.
-
To the best of my knowledge, in Britain and Australia, they can't use the paper at fish and chips shops anymore because fo the inks. I dunno about Canada. The US hasn't allowed it for ages (not that we have proper fish'n'chips places here).
-
The EU banned the use of newspaper as it's supposedly unhygienic.
So they just started buying unprinted newspaper paper and wrapping chips in that.
-
Originally posted by an0n
If I ever see you refering to ANY armed forces person(s) as anything other than [a] hero(es), I will personally hunt you down and stab you through the chest with a very blunt log.
I thought I was being pretty clear on the issue. Guess not.
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, I remember Clinton leading US troops into Yugoslavia. I also remember that fewer US troops lost their lives there in the entire time they were there than lost their lives in Iraq in the first three months we were there. Further, I recall that Clinton's work in Iraq was indeed sanctioned and supported by the international community. In fact, I also recall that the justification Clinton gave for sending US troops in the first place, turned out not to change every two weeks when things were looking unpopular. You can blame Clinton for a lot of things, but not for being a bad or dishonest war-leader.
There is a difference between Dems and Reps. Mostly in which end of society they want to screw. I'm from the bottom 60% so I'm all for screwing over the rich guys. Hell, I'm more than a little bit of a socialist. Its one of the reasons I'm looking forward to moving to Australia.
Intellectualism is bad. Being smart isn't. There's a sort of "IM SO L33T" attitude that seems to come in to play with intellectuals. Better vote for a smart person who understands people than a genius who doesn't have any social skills.
The # of US dead isn't the issue. The number of innocents is. If the measure of a war is based only on the number of your own soldiers killed, which is to say "effectiveness", then moraliy goes out the window.
-
Morality is only a means of justification.
Wars are started to serve the greed, power and vengence of those in power.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
To the best of my knowledge, in Britain and Australia, they can't use the paper at fish and chips shops anymore because fo the inks. I dunno about Canada. The US hasn't allowed it for ages (not that we have proper fish'n'chips places here).
I imagine its the same in Canada... its run by a bunch of asians who can barely speak English, so they probably dont know...
-
One place in my town still wraps em in newspaper except that the newspaper is on the outside and another paper is on the inside with nothing on it. Still best insulation/resuable stuff anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The # of US dead isn't the issue. The number of innocents is. If the measure of a war is based only on the number of your own soldiers killed, which is to say "effectiveness", then moraliy goes out the window.
An excellent point, and one that would apply if the region hadn't already been plunged into the depths of war already. Yugoslavia... isn't that the place where people were being killed for bing from the wrong tribe?
Oh wait. No one drills oil in Yugoslavia, so we can't use "crimes against humanity" as an excuse, right?
Sorry. I forgot how the justification game was played.
-
it's simple
America is wrong.
and anyone allied with America is therfore vicariously also wrong.
and I think the number of dead innocents shouldn't be the measure, but rather the ratio of innocents to non-innocents, relitive to what it would be had no action been taken.
-
Just another such miserable thing among a heap of the others.
Is there a real difference it'll maken in YOUR life?
Thought not. Look elsewhere,.
-
And I'm sure you didn't think that the russian invasian of Afghanistan would have any effect on our lives either.
-
or the Islamic revolt of Iran
-
Originally posted by mikhael
An excellent point, and one that would apply if the region hadn't already been plunged into the depths of war already. Yugoslavia... isn't that the place where people were being killed for bing from the wrong tribe?
Oh wait. No one drills oil in Yugoslavia, so we can't use "crimes against humanity" as an excuse, right?
Sorry. I forgot how the justification game was played.
I advise you not to go there... here's a few reasons (http://www.softmakers.com/fry/docs/Oberg.htm)...
Although the motive for going in there with guns firing at every target available may have been the best, it's actions certainly weren't. :(
Of course Yugoslavia was a communist state before that, so I think the reason NATO went there was to blow up the communist faction for good.
-
Someone needs to read more Chomsky, he has some interesting facts on that one. Clickety ("http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859843808/qid=1072536987/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_2_3/026-0443449-1799662")
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it's simple
America is wrong.
and anyone allied with America is therfore vicariously also wrong.
and I think the number of dead innocents shouldn't be the measure, but rather the ratio of innocents to non-innocents, relitive to what it would be had no action been taken.
How easy it is to simply classify any critisism under "fanatical anti-Americanism" and be done with it. Now, until you stop generalizing and start refuting the specific arguements provided (not here specifically, but in general) against American foreign policy, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Originally posted by karajorma
And I'm sure you didn't think that the russian invasian of Afghanistan would have any effect on our lives either.
I don't know about you, but neither the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, nor the Islamic revolution in Iran has ever affected my life in the slightest. For that matter, the recent invasion of Iraq has also not affected my life. However, if people show interest in things that concern the directly, and not those things that concern mankind itself, then you end up with a society who's goals and desires begin and end at their doorstep. And I think that you'll agree, this is not a society in which you want to live.
Originally posted by mikhael
An excellent point, and one that would apply if the region hadn't already been plunged into the depths of war already. Yugoslavia... isn't that the place where people were being killed for bing from the wrong tribe?
Oh wait. No one drills oil in Yugoslavia, so we can't use "crimes against humanity" as an excuse, right?
Sorry. I forgot how the justification game was played.B]
Allow me to summarize your view of Yugoslavia, 1990-2003.
Communism fell. The Macedonians, Croats, Bosnians and Slovenians decided they had had enough of Serb oppression and peacefully tried to secceede. The Serbs, driven by bloodlust and headed by an insane leader promptly started killing Bosnians and Croats en masse wherever they could find them. Not being the type to fight back, the Croats and Bosnians just sort of took the punishment. The US intervened out of humanitarian reasons and after several failed attempts negoiated a lasting truce. Several years later, the Serbs were at it again, commiting genocide in Kosovo, a territory that rightfully belonged to the Albanians who formed the vast majority of the population of Kosovo. They too did not fight back, and after several hundred thousand Albanian civilians had been killed by the brutal Serb regime, NATO intervened to stop the massacre. A 78 bombing campaign was initiated, during which no civilians were killed. Now, under NATO protection, the oppressed Albanian masses in Kosovo can finally live in peace. They have also decided to let bygones be bygones, and have embraced with open arms any Serbs who choose to live in the Kosovo area.
Am I correct?
If you wish to argue intellegently about a subject such as this, I would advise you to get some history first. I am EXTREMELY wary of anyone who tries to divide the world into black and white, good and evil. And it is exactly this that the US has done for the past X years, and which the citizens of United States as well of many Europeans countries have blindly accepted. Don't believe me?
Communists=bad, West=good
North Vietnamese=bad, United States=good
North Koreans=bad, United States=good
Serbs=bad, Croats, Bosnians=good
Afghanistan=bad, United States=good
Iraq=bad, United States=good
Palestinians=bad, Israelis=good
Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia=bad, United States=good
France, Germany=bad, United States=good
See a pattern? I'm sure I could think of more if I put my mind to it, but I think that you see where I'm going with this. In none of these cases had the media decided to provide a fair and accurate picture or any real history of the conflict whatsoever. So really I can't blame you for having such a biased view of things. But atleast try to be aware of your own bias, and do not mistake it for the truth.
As for specifically the Kosovo conflict, and Yugoslavia in general, I'll try to dig up an excellent mp3 file which is an hour long interview with a historian (Bosnian, now living in the US) who does a very good job of explaining the Balkans 1990-present. If I can find it, I really suggest you listen to it, its extremely informative and next time someone asks you your opinion about the Balkans, you'll have one based on actual fact.
Peace out
-
Here it is. About 50 megs and an hour long. Strongly suggest you listen to it. After all, its an hour to get some pretty detailed knowledge of the history of the Balkan conflicts.
http://www.philipdru.com/audio/malic.mp3
-
[q]Am I correct?[/q]
Perhaps historically there is a shred of accuracy in there, otherwise no.
One ("http://www.commondreams.org/views/031400-107.htm")
I can't find more online, go read The New Generation Draws A Line.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't know about you, but neither the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, nor the Islamic revolution in Iran has ever affected my life in the slightest. For that matter, the recent invasion of Iraq has also not affected my life. However, if people show interest in things that concern the directly, and not those things that concern mankind itself, then you end up with a society who's goals and desires begin and end at their doorstep. And I think that you'll agree, this is not a society in which you want to live.
Consider that 9/11 is a concequence of the invasion of Afghanistan and maybe you'll start to see where I was going with that comment.
I very strongly agree that we should care about repression and torture of anyone, anywhere rather than simply dismissing it as happening to someone else in a country far away. I take particular exception to people saying that just cause events occur in another country we should ignore them though. Cause that's just piling ignorance on top of a lack of feeling.
-
vyper: I meant, am I right about that being his views of the situation, not that that was the truth of the situation. I ofcourse know that there is not a shred of truth (or rather, some lies and some half truths) in there, thats why I wrote it. However, sad as it may be, I think that many, many people believe exactly that.
karajorma: Disagree with your first statement, agree with your second. We SHOULD care about the lives of other, no matter if what happens to thekm influences us. Apathy to injustice is only one better than perpetrating the injustice yourself. However, I don't think that 9/11 was an effect of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I mean, you could argue that because of the Soviet invasion, the United States had cause to train and arm Bin Laden and his Islamic militants, but I think thats only part of it. The reason why the WTCs were hit is more an reflection of US foreign policy than of Soviet Russia's failed attempt at taking Afghanistan.
-
But the point is that if Russia had never invaded Afghanistan none of it would ever have happened.
Sure American politics was also a major cause but only a fool thinks that major events have only one cause.
-
You're both right and both wrong.
-
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was also due to the cold war politics- which were further enflamed by the United State's anti-communist policies. Had the united states not had such a hard stance, there might not need to have been an invasion at all. But then, Stalinistic rule (I refuse to call it socialism or communism, its just a dictatorship) would have had a far worse presence in the world.
Their is no one person to solely blame for Afghanistan- both the USSR AND America were responsible for the problems that occured there.
-
And the British. You can't forget that the crazy mosaic of the current southwest and southeast asian countries is almost directly attributable to Britain's silly imperial colonialism.
Of course we can also further take that back to the "portable" form of Christianity that dominated the first millennium AD, and most of the the second. But wait, that portable, viral Christendom was also an offshoot of earlier Roman and Greek and Carthaginian policies...
-
Its pretty safe to say that there are countless events which are responisble for almost any and every idea, insititution or power currently in existence. You can track everything back to the BIg Bang, if you are one to believe in that theory. However, look too far back and you loose anything resembeling a coherent cause, since as mikhael said, eveything is a mosaic, and one which grows exponentially the farther back you go.
-
You can track everything back to the BIg Bang, if you are one to believe in that theory.
Where there is an atom, there is conflict!! :D
Every conflict since WW2 have been linked somehow to the cold war... consequences of leader on both sides of the wall...
This race is doomed, let's start a new one!!!!! :D ;7