Poe’s law in action.
Well then just explain what you meant because at least two reasonable people interpreted your comments to be just a bit bigoted.
I’m just glad the French were able to look past our failures of liberty in our revolution.
I won’t speak for luci, but if that’s the substantive complaint you have about his post, I’d like to say that if I had written it, I’d certainly be open to renegotiating that terminology.
Kinda depends, doesn’t it, on whether or not I think your insinuations deserve the respect of an answer.
Oh. The most boring possible decision. Thank-you for a wasting my time.
I don’t believe that’s a redefinition at all.
I started the thread because I don’t understand how an intelligent man, a powerful man like McCain could think that he could accomplish anything by visiting a faction at war in a foreign country. It is one thing to speak in Congress, but to play diplomat by himself? I think Syria is another failed nation-a mistake made in 1919-at Versailles. As such, it has no logical reason to exist-what we are seeing is the inevitable collapse of an imposed “nation”-state, upon tribes that want no part of it.
For the USA to get involved in this would be a huge mistake…of course, it is not like we haven’t seen this before (Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan). Sadly, we seem unable to learn the lessons of history. Maybe the ME should be broken up into hundreds of little states-it would at least allow for minorities to be represented…or maybe, dictatorships like Assad’s are the only option.
This is silliness. When was the last time the Crown dissolved Parliament in either the UK or any other nation of which the British Crown is the head of state (in which case QEII isn’t even asked about it, it’s all on the local GG), where that dissolution was not on the advice of the applicable Prime Minister?
Well, it looks like McCain may have indeed associated with one unsavory oppositionist:
Again, what does “associated” mean? Some guy comes up to me and asks if he can snap a picture of us together, and we are now “associates”?
I’m 100% against getting involved in this civil war, but if we do, we are going to have to “associate” with some unsavory characters. War is hell, and civil war like this is about the hellish of them all.
What is clear from the story I linked to is that Senator McCain disavows the actions of guys like the one in the picture. It’s just that he wants the United States to give them weapons.
I guess all the confusion is cleared up!
We’ve given weapons, and continue to give weapons, to much worse. If it’s in the US’s interest to give weapons to this group, the actions of one individual such as this should not be a reason to go against our interests.
The local GG being of course the Queen’s representative.
Glad to see someone’s aware of the 1974 Australian elections just 2 years after the last elections. It’s what turned Rupert Murdoch into a Republican(in the original meaning).
Anyway, the question we were discussing was whether or not the UK is a secular state and it clearly isn’t.
Incidentally, being not being a secular state like Turkey, France, or the US is hardly a bad thing.
However, trying to argue that the UK, Israel, Norway and a ton of other countries are secular as BrainGlutton and others are trying to argue is silly.
Furthermore if you asked people in the UK, Israel, or Sweden in the 40s and 50s if they lived in secular countries or not, they’d laugh and say no.
What we seem to have is a number of people who want to believe that any government that’s not a theocracy a la Iran is somehow not a theocracy and any country that’s not “secular” is somehow bad or worse than countries that are “secular”.
That’s silly and akin to insisting that Norway isn’t a monarchy because only countries with absolute monarchs should be considered monarchies.
I also think if people were honest they’d recognize this attempted redefinition of the term “secular government” which would cause Europeans from two generations ago to frown in puzzlement is the reaction to actual theocracies and a belief that if they somehow or other admitted to being “non-secular” they’d be somehow or other comparing their own countries to Iran and Saudi Arabia.
That would be as silly as somehow saying Saudi Arabia and Norway should be put in the same category because they both have a King.
Anyway, even if we were to adopt this new definition of the term “secular” then Elucid’s original comment was even stupider because based on such ludicrous definitions of the term “secular” most Middle Eastern countries, with the exception of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a couple of Emirates, are “secular”.
Yes, all the countries of the Middle East, except for Turkey and maybe one or two others, have some official recognition of religion but other than a few vague references in Constitutions such as “all laws herein are inspired by the Holy Quran” the mixture between religion and government is largely ceremonial.
Nevertheless, if a country has an official state religion it’s not secular which is why it’s moronic to claim, as BG does, that all European countries and Israel are “secular parliamentary democracies.”
Senator McCain or his spokesman perhaps should have addressed this point directly, that our national interest prevails over the misdeeds of individuals. Instead, as quoted in the article, McCain said that the US can find the “right people” to arm.
If I were to identify who is currently aboard the Straight Talk Express, it would be you, not Senator McCain. You are not furthering an illusion that we could exclusively arm good guys; whereas McCain appears to be arguing that we can do exactly that.
Yeah. US Senators do foreign policy work. Obama worked with Sen. Richard Lugar on a nuclear non-proliferation project when he was a senator. McCain can act as a representative of the USA, and if he doesn’t misrepresent his own authority, it’s usually OK.
Iraq & Saddam all over again.
What on earth are you on about?
The PM called the election, not the GG, same as always. He’d lost the confidence of Parliament, so the gig was up. Sure, it’s phrased as the PM “asking for” and the GG “granting” dissolution, but that doesn’t mean the GG has the option to say no. The last time the Crown unilaterally dissolved Parliament was in 1835. The Crown does still theoretically have the power to do so, but in all likelihood if QEII tried to do it outside of a true crisis situation Parliament would say, “Nice try,” and pick a new monarch (or go republican).
There are other lessons of history besides Vietnam and similar cases. There are also cases where regional wars break out, and the farther a war spreads, the harder it is to stay out without jeopardizing real interests. The war is now spreading to Lebanon due to Hezbollah’s interference.
And if there’s one thing we know about Lebanon, the shit never stays in Lebanon. We can expect more hijackings and more terror attacks in Europe.
Well, if that’s a concern, then Europe should be concerned. Let them handle it.
I’m sympathetic to that view, but there’s also a will and competence issue here. Europe hasn’t been able to handle these types of issues in their own backyard, I’m skeptical they’ll be able to contain this one.
In the end, it’s either going to be us, or Israel. I’m comfortable with Israel handling the situation, but others might disagree.