Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mideast Turmoil

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Mideast Turmoil

    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
    One child per woman - world motto for the 21st century (100 years, at least).
    Which only means a world full of men. I wouldn't be giving that thot a
    https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Mideast Turmoil

      How about one son and one daughter? Hate to be the second-born son.
      Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

      Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Mideast Turmoil

        Ron, how do you figure that is the result? One child per woman means only women are sure to have progeny (if they're capable, if not the birthright could be transferred). I believe that would increase the value of every child, but especially females.

        Random, second born? Not allowed, unless another's birthright is transferred.
        Last edited by salmoned; February 4, 2011, 01:19 PM.
        May I always be found beneath your contempt.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Mideast Turmoil

          You would think, but in many countries the girls are killed prior to or at birth, plus the suicide rate for women in impoverished lands is rediculously high. Japan is a prime example of how even an intelligent and culturally enlightened country can doom it's shortsighted self by greatly preferring boys. Girls have little chance, I certainly wish it were in the reverse.
          America celebrates female beauty because we still got most of them, so we'll be the last to go.
          https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Mideast Turmoil

            Ahh, but the beauty of this program is that those masses of men will leave few heirs. Family lines will discontinue, along with that male preference. Problem solved.
            May I always be found beneath your contempt.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Mideast Turmoil

              I think this preferential ignorance will continue until near extinction, which may be too late for many. But often women are equally to blame for at least tolerating it.
              https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Mideast Turmoil

                Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                No matter how well we conserve resources, if we don't limit population we will, without doubt, exhaust them. One child per woman - world motto for the 21st century (100 years, at least).
                Perhaps "One child per man" would be a good addendum as well.

                However, with female infanticide, it might be tragic, but it may reduce population growth.

                Whereas men can 'father' many children - hundreds, thousands, more!
                A woman can produce a limited number of children.
                We should cherish our women and cull our men so that only the 'best' can reproduce.

                Yeah, right, I know already.

                Eunuchs were a GOOD idea.
                Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
                ~ ~
                Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
                Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
                Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Mideast Turmoil

                  To get back on topic, in my opinion, the best strategy for the US is to stay out of it and let the Egyptian people decide what is best for themselves.

                  BTW, we love our hybrid, cfl's, and PV. "It's good to be green."
                  Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                  People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Mideast Turmoil

                    This details some of the difficulty BO faces in making hard line decisions concerning the matters http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...y-obama-hedges

                    He has to dance the fine line between supporting the status quo which has benefitted the US and helped keep a wobbly balance between nearby countries vs pressing for a revolt for Democracy, which is another way of saying a newly free people in turmoil can then vote in any US hating extremist power they want. And given the fact that the majority of people there are not US supporters, Obama has good reasons to want the corrupt evil multi-billionaire dictator Mubarak to remain.
                    https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Mideast Turmoil

                      Originally posted by Ron Whitfield View Post
                      He has to dance the fine line between supporting the status quo which has benefitted the US and helped keep a wobbly balance between nearby countries vs pressing for a revolt for Democracy, which is another way of saying a newly free people in turmoil can then vote in any US hating extremist power they want. And given the fact that the majority of people there are not US supporters, Obama has good reasons to want the corrupt evil multi-billionaire dictator Mubarak to remain.
                      Typical Americentric thinking.

                      Democracy means a government by the people,... not a government that acquiesces to America.

                      However well meaning a foreign country may claim their intentions are, would the American population tolerate an outside nation to interfere and manipulate the results of election in the US? No??? Then why should we expect Egyptians to willingly accept American intervention in their process to pick their own leaders?

                      I would think the Iranian revolution of 1979 would have taught Americans the disastrous consequences of supporting a corrupt dictator who is unpopular and has lost the mandate of his people. Supporting the pro-American Shah only fueled greater distrust of the US among the general population. Do we want to repeat the same mistake with Egypt? There are some political commentators who would, if they had their way.

                      Gee, I wonder what the IQ is of a person who keeps forgetting that placing one's hand on a hot stove is not a good idea?

                      Hosni Mubarak has maintained peace in his region and continues the cordial relations that his predecessor (Anwar Sadat) established with Israel in 1978. That's all well and good.... but does that fact alone make Mubarak a good president? If we as Americans had a President who kept our country safe from attack and was not at war, but the economy was mired in a deep recession with record high unemployment, what do you think will happen to that President come re-election time? That's right. A new president is likely to be elected. Americans expect more from their leader than just providing peace and security. So why should we expect Egyptians to be happy with Mubarak merely over the fact that he has maintained peace with Israel? If Mubarak's administration has performed poorly when it comes to economic/domestic matters, should anyone be surprised that the Egyptian people have turned against him?
                      This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Mideast Turmoil

                        If all that is directed at me, then there is no disaggreement/argument from my pov, I merely stated facts, not my own take.
                        I'd be happy with MubarakCo staying in control but further instituting some of the positive changes now starting to be mentioned. It'll always be corrupt like anywhere else, and Hosni has dug his own greedy grave, but the last 30 yrs. could've been worse and the worst may be yet to come. You can bet this guy http://www.drhawass.com/ doesn't want any of this to be happening.
                        https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Mideast Turmoil

                          if mubarak resigns today it would force an election within 60 day according to the egyptian constitution. that is probably not enough time to have an orderly and well represented group of candidates. if an election is held without planning and campaigning you may very well get a much worse leadership in place. it will come down to the most agressive gets the power.
                          the bigger the government the smaller the citizen.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Mideast Turmoil

                            Originally posted by escondido100 View Post
                            if mubarak resigns today it would force an election within 60 day according to the egyptian constitution. that is probably not enough time to have an orderly and well represented group of candidates. if an election is held without planning and campaigning you may very well get a much worse leadership in place. it will come down to the most agressive gets the power.
                            Isn't that what happened in the US in 2000 when the SCOTUS awarded the presidency to W? Didn't we "get a much worse leadership in place"? And didn't "the most agressive (sic) gets (sic) the power"? And yet we survived, sort of.

                            The US should stay out of Middle East politics.
                            Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                            People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Mideast Turmoil

                              Originally posted by escondido100 View Post
                              if mubarak resigns today it would force an election within 60 day according to the egyptian constitution. that is probably not enough time to have an orderly and well represented group of candidates. if an election is held without planning and campaigning you may very well get a much worse leadership in place. it will come down to the most agressive gets the power.
                              60 days,... 120 days. The important thing is that the election is conducted fairly, with no ballot box stuffing and no one eligible voter turned away.

                              The most aggressive candidate having an advantage? Uhhh, isn't that what we have in this country? Winning candidates usually outhustling the also-rans when it comes to campaigning and fundraising.

                              Besides, leaving a power vacuum for too long a period of time brings its own set of problems.

                              Geez, why is it so many Americans think that they and their Anglo-Saxon cousins are the only countries that can handle a democratic process? This kind of attitude is what makes people distrustful of American intentions.

                              Originally posted by matapule View Post
                              Isn't that what happened in the US in 2000 when the SCOTUS awarded the presidency to W? Didn't we "get a much worse leadership in place"? And didn't "the most agressive (sic) gets (sic) the power"? And yet we survived, sort of.

                              The US should stay out of Middle East politics.
                              Amen.
                              This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Mideast Turmoil

                                I am 100% FOR mubarak stepping down. i was merely stating a reason that he may be holding off. I beleive they have a parlamentary system there. here we basically have 2 party system. there very well could be dozens of candidates on their ballots with dozens of parties represented. in order for the govt to have a fully represented populace they will need to seek out and embrace all the different factions. this may take more than 60 days to do it effectively. if they can craft a way to do it quickly then more power to them.
                                i think mubarak was trying to form a govt he could step away from by appointing a new VP who could run things till the sept elections....but instead decided to flex some muscle.
                                yes we need to stay out of their politics but the outcome could affect the whole world. so we need to watch this and care about the outcome.
                                the bigger the government the smaller the citizen.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X