Britbillsfan

The America is No. 1 in everything myth is one that does get tired. However as with anything most developed countries have good and bad points going for them, and the article was a little harsh (to say the least), pointing out only the negatives and not any positives. America has overall a very strong economy, and the average standard of living is better than anywhere else except for a small number of countries that have vast natural resources and small populations. However, saying that, the inequalities of the American economy between haves and have-nots is extreme, which is the cause of a lot of the statistics quoted in the article, and the level of both government and personal debt will probably cause problems down the road. Of course the fact that Europeans have finally stopped butchering each other in vast numbers in the last 60 years has meant that the gap between Europe and America accross the board would close, and Europe would inevitably overtake America in some areas. Some comparisons are false, however. The issue of health care is one that vexes many on both sides of the pond. How come Europeans can get such good health care at less than it costs Americans - well, in simplistic terms, we cheat (kind of). In Europe health care is pretty much monopolised by the state, in real terms, and as monopolies the states then can pressure the drug companies to sell them the drugs at vastly reduced prices. In America the various health plans are not in as strong a position to get such deals and as such end up paying far more than their share of the development costs of new drugs. The issue is far more complicated than a few sentences in an article (or PPP post!!) and of course a lot of the problems feed on one another and snowball badly - poverty = poor diet & no / bad health care = more deaths in childbirth.

The Kurds in the north are relatively safe as well. Of course will all the acts of terror going on nowhere is what you would really call safe in Iraq compared to more stable countries. To the question, only in safe areas. (If I was an Iraqi I would probably only vote in one of the safer areas, as there would be no democratic tradition to draw upon in the area to make me really want to vote - plus I believe that the elections are not really for an elected government, more an advisory council to advise the people largely put in place by the US, so that would likely skew how I felt about the whlle idea of voting).

I don't know. Gnomes are scarey.........

Just like it does with arguments on the PPP board........

Only on the PPP board can someone call DC Tom a liberal.

No, it sheds some light in the mind set of despots. Just because those despots are a bunch of fanatic mullahs it is not an indictment of Islam per se. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran represent(ed) all the worst excesses of fanatics running a country. But you do not have to go far back in time (a few years, not decades) to find followers of other faiths having widespread and criminal systems of so-called justice and/or repression. Most Iranians are not in favour of the theocratic nut jobs and their excesses, although they would almost all consider themselves to be good muslims. There are plenty of despotic regimes in the Islamic world, many of them were puppets of one side or the other in the Cold War, who pretty much ignored their excesses in an attempt to try and ensure the other did not get the upper hand. Gaddafi, Assad and Saddam Hussein were/are all repellant individuals, but their criminal excesses had nothing to do with Islam and more to do with the way despotic regimes run their countries. It is true that unfortunately (mostly for the majority of peaceful Muslims that live in these places) that a powerful minority have turned Islam in some places into a tool of repression and barbarity. But Islam is just as much a 'religion of peace' as any other religion. And Eurabia is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes, any more than Americabia will will happen.

The code of law in Saudi Arabia is not the same as throughout Islamic countries. To say 'they behead for xyz reasons' is an indictment of Islam is wrong, since most (all?) other Islamic countries do not have the same code of laws in place. Beheading is the punishment of choice as it is seen as a (comparatively) quick and painless method (in essence it is seen as a humane method of execution). There is a dislike of beheading in the West as a method of execution that it sees this as worse than any other but as BigAl correctly states in what way can it be deemed worse than some of the methods used in the US? As far as SAUDI ARABIA'S widespread use of execution for a whole range of crimes - well that is barbaric. But a large proportion of the world sees the use of the death penalty in America to be barbaric also, even if it is only used on a far smaller range of punishments. Saudi Arabia is a country run by an evil, despotic and barbaric regime which happens to be Islamic, and an extreme form of Islam (because of deliberate policy choices by that evil, despotic and barbaric regime) at that. To then say that Islam is barbaric because of Saudi Arabia's so-called justice system is a stretch. There are a nice selection of non-Islamic countries that are as bad out there, and (surprise, surprise) the one thing they do have in common with Saudi Arabia is that they are run by evil, despotic and barbaric regimes (China, Burma, Belarus, N Korea, Zimbabwe to name a few). For most muslims Islam IS a religion of peace, same as most followers of other religions see their religion as a religion of peace. The fact that scum mis-use their religious teachings to justify their evil is nothing new and nothing exclusive to Islam.

Similar thing over here. Child killings get a lot of media attention here because they are such horrific acts that everyone feels disgust at. However the media frenzy that is created makes it seem like this is something that is far more common than it is when in fact murder of kids is at the same level that it has been historically even when kids were allowed out all the time (and encouraged to be out to get out from their parents' feet). Not allowing kids to be kids will certainly create problems for them later in life (eg: lack of fitness reducing their life expectancy) whilst the risks associated with crime are blown out of all proportion.

Plenty of fights with the king(s) in order to wrench rights away from the monarchy, dating back to around the Magna Carta. Battle of Lewes 1264 was a fight between the Barons and the monarchy over rights and parliament, the English Civil War, plenty of conflict with the Jacobites and the government, throw in the odd skirmish here and there and we have spilt plenty of blood over the ages in the long road to our current system. However it was over a far more prolonged period of time so it may seem as though it we were more peaceful/civilised getting to our current democratic state, but that is an illusion.

We don't currently have a king. Husbands of ruling queens in this country are titled princes. Prince Albert (the last one) and Prince Philip (the current one) being the two most recent.

It is such a pain as it happens to me all the time.....

British army still recruits Fijians. A larger than normal proportion used to end up in the SAS. Tough bastards. But a fourth installment of Rambo.....oh dear, oh dear, the tripe got old very quickly (liked the first movie, largely because Dennehy makes a great, arrogant bad guy). Laughable (in a not funny way) nonsense........

Western Roman Empire was doomed because of economics let alone anything else (Christianity was not such a big deal as the Romans eventually accepted and converted once they realised that the faith was not one that practised incest, cannibalism, infanticide, etc, etc which was what they thought it entailed early on) - almost all the rich provinces were in the east and over time the Romans could not afford to keep their hold on the outlying western provinces with the additional military they could then draw upon and as the Empire shrank, the enemies of Rome inched closer. But alternative history is fun with all the 'what if' scenarios that are out there.

Nah, but do prefer Cowbell..........

Absolutely. (Although I have seen between war American isolationist propaganda that stated that it was the 'military-industrial-complex' that actually caused the war via a conspiracy in order to maximise their profits....sheeeesh ). The Kaiser probably suffered from the same malady that struck down poor old George III (but not quite to the same degree) and it is very likely that his madness contributed big time to the outbreak of hostilities. (Another reason for getting rid of monarchies - if you get a complete fruit loop it can be very difficult to get rid of them in most cases before they can do too much damage) Mind you he was also a complete evil scumbag (on coming to power the Nazis sent a delegation to ask his views on various topical subjects of the day, on asking what he thought should happen his reply was 'The Jews? They should all be gassed', the first indication on record anywhere of what would became the 'final solution').

The British Royal family are to a very large degree of German descent. (I don't really hold that against them, it just gives me something else to rant about ). The name was changed in 1917 as the royal family decided it would be better to be known as the House of Windsor (good, solid English title) than the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (as German as Lederhosen and Oktoberfest) whilst at war with the....Germans. George III (you might know of him) was from the House of Hannover - so you can see the ties go back quite some way.

Bastard..... Modern monarchy (an oxymoron, surely) = inefficient use of my (and everyone elses') £s. It really annoys me that there is one family in this country that has utterly different rights to everyone else just because, ultimately, in ages past their ancestors were more vicious bastards than anyone else's. Great believer in getting to your station in life via merit and the Saxe-Gotha-Windsor-Whatever-their-REAL-name-is are just a rediculously wealthy, barely taxed (in comparison to everyone else) dysfunctional family on the biggest welfare ticket in town. AAAAAARGH!!!!!! Pickle them all and put them in a museum so the babbling masses can go and 'oooh' and 'aaaah' at them. (The monarchy and the constant fawning to those bloody ......GERMANS...... is one of the few things I truely dislike about the UK, if you had not guessed)

(Even though I think the state should butt out of how people live their lives, including going against gay marriage)

Pah. Glorious Revolution and the Declaration of Rights, 1689. (Democratically elected parliament, right to free and fair elections, free speech, taxation, blah, blah, blah). Or stretching an argument still further the Magna Carta in 1215, English Civil War and the execution of King Charles I in 1649, etc, etc Washington & Co were following in a long established tradition in the mother country of telling kings to go stuff themselves (on occassion fatally) when they denied people fair rights. And quite right too! French took forever to get into the act, comparatively. Revolutions against dictorial monarchs have been going on a long time. Of course you lot and the French (eventually) managed to get rid of the wastrels permanently. I can but dream........

McShane has always been a good actor, it is great to see him finally get a part that he can really get his teeth into. Deadwood is my one 'must watch' show. Swearengen (an apt name for a character if ever there was one) was beginning to fill out as a character at the end, a very nasty piece of work but not just another brainless psychopath but one with a history that allowed you to see what might have caused him to become such a monster. Mind you the show has a very well put together cast, McShane is not the only star that shines in it.

Royal Singapore Air Force might be an option for the time in question, as Singapore fell to the Japanese in 1942.

Wouldn't work. Probably just bounce off his hair. Was an interview on a documentary over here about King a number of years back with FBI agents talking about how they would like to get King for what he has done to fighters over the years but he is such a tricky customer that they were unable to build a good enough case that would get him convicted. Grade A scumbag and murderous trash. Who is rich enough to afford good lawyers (is that an oxymoron????) for this sort of this.

Similar situation in Europe as Japan, where runway space is at a premium (Heathrow for London for example). Transatlantic flights will use these as well as whatever monster Boeing brings out in the near future.

Concorde was not really a failure - it revitalised the French aviation industry with all its technical advances and that has been a major help to make Airbus such a successful corporation. The French exploited the knowledge they gained from the Concorde project very well (kind of like a loss-leader product in a supermarket but on a larger scale). The British aircraft industry failed to exploit the new technology and pretty much died with concorde, with the exception of smaller companies and Rolls Royce (who make the engines for many planes). There is plenty of demand for the bigger aircraft, Airbus already has plenty of sales set up. Possibly the best run (mostly) French corporation there is.

1. Deadwood (Only have to watch on my list, don't watch too much TV) 2. Without a Trace 3. The Shield 4. Little Britain (comedy) 5. Spooks (spy drama) At least in the UK we tend to only get the best of your TV, our own sucks as far as drama/comedy goes.