Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, let me get this straight. According to you, all Europeans are “rabid dogs” besides Russia, the one country that can be absolved of any sin.
It’s funny that you criticise NATO for poking the bear, but you support its policies to keep Europeans in line.
It's the single good thing NATO has done. Europeans would be murdering one another wholesale without it. The rest of NATOs goals are not exactly for the good of mankind. If they were Russia would be a part of it. Why don't you explain to me from your lofty amoral throne just why this hasn't happened?
History is subjective because we learn different things about it depending on where we are from or which educational institution we follow. Just by reading different sources we get varying accounts of the type of events that transpired. History tends to have a political agenda behind it, which makes it hard to come up with an objective assessment, especially when it’s being written by parties that were not directly present to observe the events that transpired. This is in contrast to something like math, where a general consensus can easily be found. The sum of a triangle’s angles will always be 180 degree, regardless of whether one studies in the US, Russia, Iran or NK.
True that, yet at the same time when historic events happen, they still happen; they are as much of a fact as the "sum of triangles' angels," and not a figment of someone's imagination.
Quote:
I’ve been very passionate about history since I was a kid, but over the years I’ve learnt to accept the notion that everything I read is essentially an opinion piece. That’s why I use history as an educational tool rather than a limitation to define who or what I should like based on past events.
Really?
The way I always saw it - back in the 1917 Lenin got on that "bronevik," made a speech and Soviet Revolution happened, no matter who would like make what out of it...
Quote:
1953 tends to be remembered, but probably for the wrong reasons. In many ways it’s a propaganda tool used by the Islamic republic to justify their position. I have read from many sources that try to criticise western interference in the ME, that the Shah was put into power following the overthrow of Mossadegh, but that is not an accurate assessment at all since the younger Pahlavi had been Shah since 1941. Mossadegh took advantage of the Shah’s weakness and while he was abroad died to overthrow him. I’m not denying that the UK and US decided to keep the Shah for their own benefit, but it’s importaant to remember that he was the de facto ruler at the time.
See, it's difficult just to use "propaganda tool" if *propaganda* is not based on beliefs of at least some part of population.
Quote:
It’s obviously a very small sample of the total population and tends to represent the least conservative elements of their society.
The reason those people adapt quite well in the Western world is because they generally are not very religious to begin with. There are a number of Iranians who resent Islam for the role it played in shaping their country over the years. In many ways Islam is viewed as a foreign invader to Persia because their nation had a long history that predates Islam by a considerable margin. I admit though, that I don’t know if that idea is extant amidst their society or is mostly limited to the diaspora.
Well truth to be told - it is.
Quote:
Reza Shah was indeed a very progressive monarch that paved the way for the modernisation of the country. He was also a lot more forceful then his son, who took a more passive approach to dealing with radicalism. He expelled Khomeini in 1964, but was not able to curb the radical elements, that kept on growing in the country.
When talking about Iran, I am sadly looking at the country post 1979. Unfortunately, I don’t see much difference between them anymore, other then the fact that they are on opposite sides because they support different sects of religion.
And I always keep in mind that one country is the ORIGINAL source of a problem ( i.e. Islam,) and is the conqueror, while the other one is the conquered one.
Quote:
I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Even the Vegas shooting is not likely going to cause a massive shift. I fully understand the country’s fascination with guns, as they played an important role in its development over the years and are symbolic with free speech. I was just pointing out the fact, that the second amendment was written at the end of the 18th century when guns were quite different then they are today. Back then no one had a machine gun.
Hey, the bigger/better is the gun, the "freer" is the speech. Apparently so.
Quote:
What about Eve?
What's about her? She was a secondary creation, AFTER Adam.
But does it mean, that the first and original god shares in it both *masculine* and *feminine*?
I would think it's a case.
Quote:
Because it’s a major contradiction. We already know that humans have been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years.
To be fair though, it’s important that you understand where I’m coming from with this. I have a background in science and am an engineer by profession, therefore I tend to place a lot more value in science than in religion.
The way I see it - science doesn't contradict religion. We know ( through science) as much as we are allowed to know. But that organized "religion" is not necessarily the same thing as "god" - that I understand too.
Quote:
It’s a non falsifiable theory. We cannot prove the existence of another universe as it exists beyond our 4 dimensional space-time.
We probably can't prove, but what prevents us from guessing?
Another thing I have trouble grasping is how can people defend blind nationalism. Many of those oil companies were working in the country in conjunction with the local government and that helped pave the way for development, even if there was an ulterior motive to try and exploit the resources. How can the government just tell those companies to f*** off one day and then take advantage of everything they built? The same thing happened in Egypt with the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, even though Egypt was not the one that opened those waterways.
See, what the history shows us ( I think) is that the governments ( in mostly "developing" countries as they are called now) that cooperate with foreign companies are usually NOT the same governments that are telling to those companies to "f*** off" one day ( and then take an advantage of everything those companies built.)
What usually happens, is that the governments that cooperate with foreign companies, usually have their own "cut" in the deal, acting like a "middle man," a broker that allows the foreigners a desired access to the natural resources of a given country. So these are usually very corrupt governments, that enjoy the life of luxury for the people on top, while the rest of population is sinking in poverty and desperation. And when the general population votes out such governments/creates the coup d'etat/Revolutions, it's the NEXT new government *chosen by people* that says to the foreign companies to f*** off.
Thanks Scrat335, such lovely park and background music. Pyotr Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker is loved by children all over the world especially during the Christmas season.
I believe only non_muslim populations in Indonesia eat pork. Like the hindus in Bali.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
