no the two moons if fake!!
Eastern Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:04:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:05:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:06:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:07:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:08:24 am
Central Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:03:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:04:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:05:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:06:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:07:24 am
Mountain Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:02:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:03:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:04:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:05:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:06:24 am
Pacific Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:01:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:02:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:03:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:04:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:05:24 am
Alaska Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:12:51 am
Total Eclipse Begins:01:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:02:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:03:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:04:24 am
Hawaiian Time:
Partial Eclipse Begins:10:51 pm
Total Eclipse Begins:01:52 am
Mid-Eclipse:02:37 am
Total Eclipse Ends:01:22 am
Partial Eclipse Ends:02:24 am
Friday, February 12, 2010
Is it true the entire middle east was just voted ';last remaining barbaric hotspot';?
Of course Israel does not apply to this recent classification , since israel is a technologically advanced and democratic state.Is it true the entire middle east was just voted ';last remaining barbaric hotspot';?
';barbaric hotspot'; - are you sure it's not the title of a porn movie? utl your reference.Is it true the entire middle east was just voted ';last remaining barbaric hotspot';?
hot-spot yes, barbaric maybe, whats remaining there is a question.
No that would be my neighborhood.
IF IT WASN'T IT SHOULD BE.
Who voted?
I haven't seen that. I'm sure there are other barbaric hotspots. Wouldn't want those barbarians feeling TOO special, do we?
';barbaric hotspot'; - are you sure it's not the title of a porn movie? utl your reference.Is it true the entire middle east was just voted ';last remaining barbaric hotspot';?
hot-spot yes, barbaric maybe, whats remaining there is a question.
No that would be my neighborhood.
IF IT WASN'T IT SHOULD BE.
Who voted?
I haven't seen that. I'm sure there are other barbaric hotspots. Wouldn't want those barbarians feeling TOO special, do we?
Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you read the paper you are misinformed.
You need to look at several different sources and you might get an idea about the true story, but not always.
Nothing is 100% true, it can not be because you always have the bias of the reporter.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
no. In fact, most newspapers and channels are biased against Israel. The real story is that Hamas has been launching over missiles for several years, but recently, it just got worse. Hamas has been launching over 100 missiles a day, killing civilians. On the other hand, Israel is just protecting its country. Israel warns Hamas 30 minutes before because they hate killing civilians. Hamas then literately drags women and children civilians to the building in which it is being bombed and use them as a human shield. Unfortunately, the media isn't really showing this side of the war. Watch Fox News to get a better update on the war.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
The overwhelming majority is filled with complete crap. Many tend to cling to the one that they agree with the most. Some swear by Fox News while others will cling to CNN or the New York Times saying it's the most accurate. Really, those news sources are just telling them what they like to hear.
Remember that the overall objective in the news is to sell stories. A good number (well.. most) of reporters over there will base stories off of hearsay without being able to substantiate them. Some will go out of their way to get everything right, though those gems are far less common (They're easy to pick out by having good stories with absolutely no negative or positive spin).
My brother once told me of a case in Iraq that he looked into. A reporter was looking for some kind of information on a shooting. He was going to write a story about how coalition troops shot a nine year-old girl in the head while on patrol in Iraq. Looking deeper into the story (it only too him a few hours to find out what actually happened), he found that what had actually happened was that some Iraqi man got shot in the leg by an insurgent (they think it may have been someone the guy knew). To that reporter and through a giant game of telephone, that somehow translated into a little girl getting shot in the head. Yea. No bias there...
I doubt most would believe it, but the military's news is actually extremely accurate. Heh, unfortunately that also makes it very dry and boring. There have been cases of high ranking officers losing their commissions for spreading false stories. Most don't want to hear it though. I'd imagine because of the case of ';ZOMFG T3H EVIL GOVRNMT CONTRLZ UR MINDZ THINK FOR URSLF!!!11!!1!'; When you have large groups of people who band together and think like this (as well as when they all think alike), who are the ones thinking for themselves?
The more accurate, balanced, and unbiased news sources are from Reuters and the Washington Post.
You won't see this
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstr鈥?/a>
Each news channel or web site doesn't tell the whole story or shortens it to save time, leaving out some important details. Choose a reliable news website, like CNN, and read the articles over it, whole. Also news over it from different countries.
No not any newspaper or channel. You have to read news from different countries as well as the US and form your own OPINION on what is going on. Not even intelligence agencies KNOW whats going on a lot of the time.
There is no way to know whether it is 100% true.
I do find that watching BBC News covers some topics about the war that our news stations don't.
The stories your hear in the news are always going to be distorted.
everything you hear on tv especially coming form them, has been fixed to make us look bad.
Who knows? This is what we like to call 'Yellow Journalism'.
only if your a liberal
noooo
never 100% true 50 % true ok xx
You need to look at several different sources and you might get an idea about the true story, but not always.
Nothing is 100% true, it can not be because you always have the bias of the reporter.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
no. In fact, most newspapers and channels are biased against Israel. The real story is that Hamas has been launching over missiles for several years, but recently, it just got worse. Hamas has been launching over 100 missiles a day, killing civilians. On the other hand, Israel is just protecting its country. Israel warns Hamas 30 minutes before because they hate killing civilians. Hamas then literately drags women and children civilians to the building in which it is being bombed and use them as a human shield. Unfortunately, the media isn't really showing this side of the war. Watch Fox News to get a better update on the war.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
The overwhelming majority is filled with complete crap. Many tend to cling to the one that they agree with the most. Some swear by Fox News while others will cling to CNN or the New York Times saying it's the most accurate. Really, those news sources are just telling them what they like to hear.
Remember that the overall objective in the news is to sell stories. A good number (well.. most) of reporters over there will base stories off of hearsay without being able to substantiate them. Some will go out of their way to get everything right, though those gems are far less common (They're easy to pick out by having good stories with absolutely no negative or positive spin).
My brother once told me of a case in Iraq that he looked into. A reporter was looking for some kind of information on a shooting. He was going to write a story about how coalition troops shot a nine year-old girl in the head while on patrol in Iraq. Looking deeper into the story (it only too him a few hours to find out what actually happened), he found that what had actually happened was that some Iraqi man got shot in the leg by an insurgent (they think it may have been someone the guy knew). To that reporter and through a giant game of telephone, that somehow translated into a little girl getting shot in the head. Yea. No bias there...
I doubt most would believe it, but the military's news is actually extremely accurate. Heh, unfortunately that also makes it very dry and boring. There have been cases of high ranking officers losing their commissions for spreading false stories. Most don't want to hear it though. I'd imagine because of the case of ';ZOMFG T3H EVIL GOVRNMT CONTRLZ UR MINDZ THINK FOR URSLF!!!11!!1!'; When you have large groups of people who band together and think like this (as well as when they all think alike), who are the ones thinking for themselves?
The more accurate, balanced, and unbiased news sources are from Reuters and the Washington Post.
You won't see this
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstr鈥?/a>
Each news channel or web site doesn't tell the whole story or shortens it to save time, leaving out some important details. Choose a reliable news website, like CNN, and read the articles over it, whole. Also news over it from different countries.
No not any newspaper or channel. You have to read news from different countries as well as the US and form your own OPINION on what is going on. Not even intelligence agencies KNOW whats going on a lot of the time.
There is no way to know whether it is 100% true.
I do find that watching BBC News covers some topics about the war that our news stations don't.
The stories your hear in the news are always going to be distorted.
everything you hear on tv especially coming form them, has been fixed to make us look bad.
Who knows? This is what we like to call 'Yellow Journalism'.
only if your a liberal
noooo
never 100% true 50 % true ok xx
Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
1. The earliest Korean account of the original myth of the Koreans records a legend about a Chinese exile, Qizi from the Shang dynasty, who founded a state in Korea.
2. The Chinese-styled civil service examination system adopted in Silla provided opportunities to people from lower-ranking class who wanted to improve their social or political status.
3. The Yi dynasty defeated the Mongols who had invaded and colonized part of the Koryo regime in the 14th century, and unified and ruled Korea from then to 1910.
4. During the Edo era, Japanese commoners had no access to receive any kabuki training because the founder of kabuki was a nobleman who created this form of performance for the entertainment of the royal clan.Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
im failin history so idk
2. The Chinese-styled civil service examination system adopted in Silla provided opportunities to people from lower-ranking class who wanted to improve their social or political status.
3. The Yi dynasty defeated the Mongols who had invaded and colonized part of the Koryo regime in the 14th century, and unified and ruled Korea from then to 1910.
4. During the Edo era, Japanese commoners had no access to receive any kabuki training because the founder of kabuki was a nobleman who created this form of performance for the entertainment of the royal clan.Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
im failin history so idk
Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you read the paper you are misinformed.
You need to look at several different sources and you might get an idea about the true story, but not always.
Nothing is 100% true, it can not be because you always have the bias of the reporter.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
no. In fact, most newspapers and channels are biased against Israel. The real story is that Hamas has been launching over missiles for several years, but recently, it just got worse. Hamas has been launching over 100 missiles a day, killing civilians. On the other hand, Israel is just protecting its country. Israel warns Hamas 30 minutes before because they hate killing civilians. Hamas then literately drags women and children civilians to the building in which it is being bombed and use them as a human shield. Unfortunately, the media isn't really showing this side of the war. Watch Fox News to get a better update on the war.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
The overwhelming majority is filled with complete crap. Many tend to cling to the one that they agree with the most. Some swear by Fox News while others will cling to CNN or the New York Times saying it's the most accurate. Really, those news sources are just telling them what they like to hear.
Remember that the overall objective in the news is to sell stories. A good number (well.. most) of reporters over there will base stories off of hearsay without being able to substantiate them. Some will go out of their way to get everything right, though those gems are far less common (They're easy to pick out by having good stories with absolutely no negative or positive spin).
My brother once told me of a case in Iraq that he looked into. A reporter was looking for some kind of information on a shooting. He was going to write a story about how coalition troops shot a nine year-old girl in the head while on patrol in Iraq. Looking deeper into the story (it only too him a few hours to find out what actually happened), he found that what had actually happened was that some Iraqi man got shot in the leg by an insurgent (they think it may have been someone the guy knew). To that reporter and through a giant game of telephone, that somehow translated into a little girl getting shot in the head. Yea. No bias there...
I doubt most would believe it, but the military's news is actually extremely accurate. Heh, unfortunately that also makes it very dry and boring. There have been cases of high ranking officers losing their commissions for spreading false stories. Most don't want to hear it though. I'd imagine because of the case of ';ZOMFG T3H EVIL GOVRNMT CONTRLZ UR MINDZ THINK FOR URSLF!!!11!!1!'; When you have large groups of people who band together and think like this (as well as when they all think alike), who are the ones thinking for themselves?
The more accurate, balanced, and unbiased news sources are from Reuters and the Washington Post.
You won't see this
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstr鈥?/a>
Each news channel or web site doesn't tell the whole story or shortens it to save time, leaving out some important details. Choose a reliable news website, like CNN, and read the articles over it, whole. Also news over it from different countries.
No not any newspaper or channel. You have to read news from different countries as well as the US and form your own OPINION on what is going on. Not even intelligence agencies KNOW whats going on a lot of the time.
There is no way to know whether it is 100% true.
I do find that watching BBC News covers some topics about the war that our news stations don't.
The stories your hear in the news are always going to be distorted.
everything you hear on tv especially coming form them, has been fixed to make us look bad.
Who knows? This is what we like to call 'Yellow Journalism'.
only if your a liberal
noooo
never 100% true 50 % true ok xxmyspace codes
You need to look at several different sources and you might get an idea about the true story, but not always.
Nothing is 100% true, it can not be because you always have the bias of the reporter.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
no. In fact, most newspapers and channels are biased against Israel. The real story is that Hamas has been launching over missiles for several years, but recently, it just got worse. Hamas has been launching over 100 missiles a day, killing civilians. On the other hand, Israel is just protecting its country. Israel warns Hamas 30 minutes before because they hate killing civilians. Hamas then literately drags women and children civilians to the building in which it is being bombed and use them as a human shield. Unfortunately, the media isn't really showing this side of the war. Watch Fox News to get a better update on the war.Can I believe what I read on newspaper and heard on TV about the Middle East war? Is it 100 % true?
The overwhelming majority is filled with complete crap. Many tend to cling to the one that they agree with the most. Some swear by Fox News while others will cling to CNN or the New York Times saying it's the most accurate. Really, those news sources are just telling them what they like to hear.
Remember that the overall objective in the news is to sell stories. A good number (well.. most) of reporters over there will base stories off of hearsay without being able to substantiate them. Some will go out of their way to get everything right, though those gems are far less common (They're easy to pick out by having good stories with absolutely no negative or positive spin).
My brother once told me of a case in Iraq that he looked into. A reporter was looking for some kind of information on a shooting. He was going to write a story about how coalition troops shot a nine year-old girl in the head while on patrol in Iraq. Looking deeper into the story (it only too him a few hours to find out what actually happened), he found that what had actually happened was that some Iraqi man got shot in the leg by an insurgent (they think it may have been someone the guy knew). To that reporter and through a giant game of telephone, that somehow translated into a little girl getting shot in the head. Yea. No bias there...
I doubt most would believe it, but the military's news is actually extremely accurate. Heh, unfortunately that also makes it very dry and boring. There have been cases of high ranking officers losing their commissions for spreading false stories. Most don't want to hear it though. I'd imagine because of the case of ';ZOMFG T3H EVIL GOVRNMT CONTRLZ UR MINDZ THINK FOR URSLF!!!11!!1!'; When you have large groups of people who band together and think like this (as well as when they all think alike), who are the ones thinking for themselves?
The more accurate, balanced, and unbiased news sources are from Reuters and the Washington Post.
You won't see this
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstr鈥?/a>
Each news channel or web site doesn't tell the whole story or shortens it to save time, leaving out some important details. Choose a reliable news website, like CNN, and read the articles over it, whole. Also news over it from different countries.
No not any newspaper or channel. You have to read news from different countries as well as the US and form your own OPINION on what is going on. Not even intelligence agencies KNOW whats going on a lot of the time.
There is no way to know whether it is 100% true.
I do find that watching BBC News covers some topics about the war that our news stations don't.
The stories your hear in the news are always going to be distorted.
everything you hear on tv especially coming form them, has been fixed to make us look bad.
Who knows? This is what we like to call 'Yellow Journalism'.
only if your a liberal
noooo
never 100% true 50 % true ok xx
Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
1. The earliest Korean account of the original myth of the Koreans records a legend about a Chinese exile, Qizi from the Shang dynasty, who founded a state in Korea.
2. The Chinese-styled civil service examination system adopted in Silla provided opportunities to people from lower-ranking class who wanted to improve their social or political status.
3. The Yi dynasty defeated the Mongols who had invaded and colonized part of the Koryo regime in the 14th century, and unified and ruled Korea from then to 1910.
4. During the Edo era, Japanese commoners had no access to receive any kabuki training because the founder of kabuki was a nobleman who created this form of performance for the entertainment of the royal clan.Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
im failin history so idk
2. The Chinese-styled civil service examination system adopted in Silla provided opportunities to people from lower-ranking class who wanted to improve their social or political status.
3. The Yi dynasty defeated the Mongols who had invaded and colonized part of the Koryo regime in the 14th century, and unified and ruled Korea from then to 1910.
4. During the Edo era, Japanese commoners had no access to receive any kabuki training because the founder of kabuki was a nobleman who created this form of performance for the entertainment of the royal clan.Who knows their East Asian History? Will you answer these true/false questions?
im failin history so idk
Is it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW ll were half Russian?
For at least a generation?Is it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW ll were half Russian?
The historical subject of the rapes committed by Soviet soldiers against women and girls (German, Hungarian, Polish, Yugoslav, Chinese, and others) during and after the Second World War still seems controversial, particularly in Russia today. Using many German, Russian, and English-language sources, I have studied this subject in detail.
'Is it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW II were half-Russian
for at least a generation?'
No, that's untrue. While it was common for German women and girls to be raped by
Soviet soldiers (many of whom were not Russian) from 1945 (the war's last year)
until long after the war, most rapes did not result in pregnancies, and many such pregnancies did not result in the victims (who preferred to have abortions) giving birth. Many rape victims died as a consequence of internal injuries (after being brutally violated), untreated sexually transmitted diseases (the needed drugs were hardly ever available for women in Germany soon after the war), badly performed abortions, or suicides (particularly for traumatised victims who had been raped many times).
The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949
by Norman Naimark, an American historian, states that it was common for Soviet
soldiers to rape German women (an enjoyable 'perk of occupation') long after the war.
Consequently, German women had a significantly lower level of approval than German men had toward Soviet Communism or the Soviet military occupation of Germany.
'While the battle continued, another savage onslaught was going on. It was grim and personal. The hordes of Russian troops coming up behind the disciplined front-line veterans now demanded the rights due the conquerors: the women of the conquered.'
--Cornelius Ryan (The Last Battle, 1966)
In his book on the 1945 Battle of Berlin, Cornelius Ryan described (based on his interviews with victims) the rapes of at least several German women by Soviet soldiers.
Soviet officers varied in their attitudes toward rape,which officially was a major crime under Soviet military laws. On one hand, some Soviet officers ordered the executions of some Soviet soldiers who were believed guilty of rape. On the other hand, some Soviet officers participated in rape or encouraged their men to rape (out of a sense of revenge or perhaps to promote more 'male-bonding' within a unit). Broadly speaking, most Soviet soldiers seem to have condoned (or been unable to restrain their men) most rapes committed by Soviet soldiers toward the end of or shortly after the war. There seems to have been a popular attitude among Soviet soldiers that German or Hungarian (Hungary was allied with Germany until the end) women and girls were their rightful 'spoils of war' to be taken by force and freely enjoyed in celebrating victory.
As far as I know (yes, I have spoken with some Russians), the general attitude in Russia today toward the historical subject of the many rapes committed by Soviet soldiers during or after the Second World War is one of denial (admitting there were a few rapes at most) or complete rationalization ('the Nazis brutally raped our country first, so our soldiers have the right to take revenge by raping some German women'). The 2003 publication of the Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor, a British military historian, which (like Cornelius Ryan's earlier book) described some (of the many) rapes of German women by Soviet soldiers, provoked outrage among many Russians, who liked to deny that Soviet soldiers had done anything wrong in their treatment of German women and girls. In my view, the overwhelming evidence (from many sources, including Soviet) makes such vehement denials seem motivated by nothing more than self-righteous nationalism and a dishonest refusal to face the facts. In the interest of fairness, I am not singling out the Soviet peoples or the Russian people for moral condemnation. War crimes have been committed by combatants of about every nationality, race, and religion. With regard to the subject of rape in the Second World War, the crimes of Japanese soldiers in China were perhaps the worst of all. And, while it's not as bad as the Japanese in China, American soldiers have a bad record of rape (most of which has been censored in the US media) in their Asian wars, and most Americans seem deeply in denial about US war crimes (which tend to be ignored or whitewashed in the 'patriotic' US media).
Through the Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War on the Eastern Front, 1942-45 by Boris Gorbachevsky is a memoir, which discusses the subject of rape by Soviet soldiers with remarkable honesty. Recently, a Russian woman historian (who grew up after the war) asserted that it was rare for Soviet soldiers to rape German women and, in those rare cases, the rapists were properly punished by Soviet military justice. Based on what he had observed in wartime, Boris Gorbachevsky wrote that this Russian woman historian was extremely ignorant and misinformed about the realities of rape in the Soviet Army. According to Boris Gorbachevsky, rape was a common practice among Soviet soldiers (he roughly estimated that 1/3 of Soviet soldiers had raped at least one woman or girl), and most Soviet officers seemed to do little or nothing to discipline their men for it. Although a few Soviet soldiers were executed for rape, a Soviet soldier could rape a woman in Germany while usually feeling quite confident that he never would be punished for it. Indeed, Boris Gorbachevsky was present at a gathering of Soviet soldiers, who (except himself) boasted about how many German women they already had raped and how much they had enjoyed it.
The excuse that Soviet soldiers (selectively) raped German women only to avenge much worse Nazi war crimes is without merit. It's true, of course, that the Axis (primarily the Germans, but other nationalities, such as the Romanians, also were responsible) committed many terrible war crimes in the USSR. But it's untrue that Soviet soldiers were so carefully discriminating as to select only apparently pro-Nazi German women to rape for revenge. Many of their rape victims were too young (girls) to have had any legal or moral responsibilities for the war. Some of their rape victims were undoubtedly anti-Nazi, in fact, being Jews or Communists. Particularly when they were drunk, Soviet soldiers were not choosy about their rape victims, almost any female would do to satisfy their lusts. Indeed, Soviet soldiers raped many women and girls from some countries that were allied with the USSR. Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav Communist, complained to Stalin that Soviet soldiers had raped many Yugoslav women while briefly passing through Yugoslavia (Stalin replied that his soldiers were naturally just having some fun.). In his book Retribution: The Battle of Japan 1944-45, Max Hastings, a British military historians, wrote that many Chinese women were raped by Soviet soldiers when they liberated parts of China from Japanese rule.
In addition to the books that I have mentioned, here are some books of interest:
A Woman in Berlin is the journal of a German rape victim.
The Siege of Budapest by Krisztian Ungvary (Many Hungarian women were raped.)
Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945 by Catherine MerridaleIs it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW ll were half Russian?
No,it's physically impossible.
When Russian soldiers entered East Germany,they didn't have time to get physical with most of German women because they were fighting the Nazis.Even if they did,still they couldn't have made love to most of them and not every woman gets pregnant after having sex.
Some of German citizens of that time,at least for one generation were half German for sure,but not most of them.
Hope that helped.
-Nina
some russsian men did something to german women
some german men did something to russian women
this has been going on since world war 1
uh....no.
how'd we suppose ta know man!
The historical subject of the rapes committed by Soviet soldiers against women and girls (German, Hungarian, Polish, Yugoslav, Chinese, and others) during and after the Second World War still seems controversial, particularly in Russia today. Using many German, Russian, and English-language sources, I have studied this subject in detail.
'Is it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW II were half-Russian
for at least a generation?'
No, that's untrue. While it was common for German women and girls to be raped by
Soviet soldiers (many of whom were not Russian) from 1945 (the war's last year)
until long after the war, most rapes did not result in pregnancies, and many such pregnancies did not result in the victims (who preferred to have abortions) giving birth. Many rape victims died as a consequence of internal injuries (after being brutally violated), untreated sexually transmitted diseases (the needed drugs were hardly ever available for women in Germany soon after the war), badly performed abortions, or suicides (particularly for traumatised victims who had been raped many times).
The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949
by Norman Naimark, an American historian, states that it was common for Soviet
soldiers to rape German women (an enjoyable 'perk of occupation') long after the war.
Consequently, German women had a significantly lower level of approval than German men had toward Soviet Communism or the Soviet military occupation of Germany.
'While the battle continued, another savage onslaught was going on. It was grim and personal. The hordes of Russian troops coming up behind the disciplined front-line veterans now demanded the rights due the conquerors: the women of the conquered.'
--Cornelius Ryan (The Last Battle, 1966)
In his book on the 1945 Battle of Berlin, Cornelius Ryan described (based on his interviews with victims) the rapes of at least several German women by Soviet soldiers.
Soviet officers varied in their attitudes toward rape,which officially was a major crime under Soviet military laws. On one hand, some Soviet officers ordered the executions of some Soviet soldiers who were believed guilty of rape. On the other hand, some Soviet officers participated in rape or encouraged their men to rape (out of a sense of revenge or perhaps to promote more 'male-bonding' within a unit). Broadly speaking, most Soviet soldiers seem to have condoned (or been unable to restrain their men) most rapes committed by Soviet soldiers toward the end of or shortly after the war. There seems to have been a popular attitude among Soviet soldiers that German or Hungarian (Hungary was allied with Germany until the end) women and girls were their rightful 'spoils of war' to be taken by force and freely enjoyed in celebrating victory.
As far as I know (yes, I have spoken with some Russians), the general attitude in Russia today toward the historical subject of the many rapes committed by Soviet soldiers during or after the Second World War is one of denial (admitting there were a few rapes at most) or complete rationalization ('the Nazis brutally raped our country first, so our soldiers have the right to take revenge by raping some German women'). The 2003 publication of the Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor, a British military historian, which (like Cornelius Ryan's earlier book) described some (of the many) rapes of German women by Soviet soldiers, provoked outrage among many Russians, who liked to deny that Soviet soldiers had done anything wrong in their treatment of German women and girls. In my view, the overwhelming evidence (from many sources, including Soviet) makes such vehement denials seem motivated by nothing more than self-righteous nationalism and a dishonest refusal to face the facts. In the interest of fairness, I am not singling out the Soviet peoples or the Russian people for moral condemnation. War crimes have been committed by combatants of about every nationality, race, and religion. With regard to the subject of rape in the Second World War, the crimes of Japanese soldiers in China were perhaps the worst of all. And, while it's not as bad as the Japanese in China, American soldiers have a bad record of rape (most of which has been censored in the US media) in their Asian wars, and most Americans seem deeply in denial about US war crimes (which tend to be ignored or whitewashed in the 'patriotic' US media).
Through the Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War on the Eastern Front, 1942-45 by Boris Gorbachevsky is a memoir, which discusses the subject of rape by Soviet soldiers with remarkable honesty. Recently, a Russian woman historian (who grew up after the war) asserted that it was rare for Soviet soldiers to rape German women and, in those rare cases, the rapists were properly punished by Soviet military justice. Based on what he had observed in wartime, Boris Gorbachevsky wrote that this Russian woman historian was extremely ignorant and misinformed about the realities of rape in the Soviet Army. According to Boris Gorbachevsky, rape was a common practice among Soviet soldiers (he roughly estimated that 1/3 of Soviet soldiers had raped at least one woman or girl), and most Soviet officers seemed to do little or nothing to discipline their men for it. Although a few Soviet soldiers were executed for rape, a Soviet soldier could rape a woman in Germany while usually feeling quite confident that he never would be punished for it. Indeed, Boris Gorbachevsky was present at a gathering of Soviet soldiers, who (except himself) boasted about how many German women they already had raped and how much they had enjoyed it.
The excuse that Soviet soldiers (selectively) raped German women only to avenge much worse Nazi war crimes is without merit. It's true, of course, that the Axis (primarily the Germans, but other nationalities, such as the Romanians, also were responsible) committed many terrible war crimes in the USSR. But it's untrue that Soviet soldiers were so carefully discriminating as to select only apparently pro-Nazi German women to rape for revenge. Many of their rape victims were too young (girls) to have had any legal or moral responsibilities for the war. Some of their rape victims were undoubtedly anti-Nazi, in fact, being Jews or Communists. Particularly when they were drunk, Soviet soldiers were not choosy about their rape victims, almost any female would do to satisfy their lusts. Indeed, Soviet soldiers raped many women and girls from some countries that were allied with the USSR. Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav Communist, complained to Stalin that Soviet soldiers had raped many Yugoslav women while briefly passing through Yugoslavia (Stalin replied that his soldiers were naturally just having some fun.). In his book Retribution: The Battle of Japan 1944-45, Max Hastings, a British military historians, wrote that many Chinese women were raped by Soviet soldiers when they liberated parts of China from Japanese rule.
In addition to the books that I have mentioned, here are some books of interest:
A Woman in Berlin is the journal of a German rape victim.
The Siege of Budapest by Krisztian Ungvary (Many Hungarian women were raped.)
Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945 by Catherine MerridaleIs it true that most of the babies born in East Germany after WW ll were half Russian?
No,it's physically impossible.
When Russian soldiers entered East Germany,they didn't have time to get physical with most of German women because they were fighting the Nazis.Even if they did,still they couldn't have made love to most of them and not every woman gets pregnant after having sex.
Some of German citizens of that time,at least for one generation were half German for sure,but not most of them.
Hope that helped.
-Nina
some russsian men did something to german women
some german men did something to russian women
this has been going on since world war 1
uh....no.
how'd we suppose ta know man!
Is it true that we got attacked on 9/11 because of are bias involvement in the middle east?
Was it because we indiscriminately support Israel.Is it true that we got attacked on 9/11 because of are bias involvement in the middle east?
We were attacked because extremists, claiming religious reasons, wanted to attack us.
BTW. Osama bin Laden claimed it was because of American military installations in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia. He neglected to notice that the Saudis invited us in.Is it true that we got attacked on 9/11 because of are bias involvement in the middle east?
The real reason, although Americans will never understand nor admit it because of a biased media, was US foreign policy towards Israel and the support it has provided in supporting the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. This is the only reason 9/11 happened.
American propaganda, soon after 9/11, strove to provide answers that were related in some way to the 'jealousy of our freedoms' factor, which is egoistical and incorrrect. Thousands of Palestinians homes were destroyed and millions displaced when Israel was forcibly created in 1948 (The only state in history to be forcibly created). The resentment within the whole of the Arab world is very strong and for decades US military assistance, financial and political aid and the inability of various US administrations to deflect the pressure of the Israeli lobby in the US culminated in a terroristic attack on US soil. This resentment towards the US's biased support of Israel took many decades to finally come to fruition and was not, as many state, a contemporary reaction. Unfortunately, American citizens do not receive that same media coverage of events in Palestine as do Europeans and therefore remain perpetually naive to the plight of Palestinians and thus the true reason behind the 9/11 attacks.
I think that was part of it yes, but not all of it. We also got attacked because those people do not appreciate American culture as expressed in commerce coming into their countries and changing things.
Britney Spears shaking what she has got in a commercial does not play the same in the middle east as it does in the West.
We are involved in a war of cultures. It is not going to stop until one wins. The world is too small for us to just ignore each other anymore.
We got attacked on 9/11 because of Clinton's weakness.
The 9/11 attack was decided before Bush even won the election.
The 9/11 attack was just the next in the series of escalating terrorist attacks on the USA, from the 1993 WTC bombing up to the attack on the USS Cole.
Because Clinton's response was weak every time, the terrorists ratcheted up the size of the attack another notch with 9/11, as they had done with each previous attack.
After 9/11, the terrorists discovered that our new leader was not weak. He whupped Taliban keester out of Afghanistan.
That's why we had no more terrorist attacks against the USA after 9/11.
Now that we have a weak, spineless president again, we are in danger of a new series of escalating attacks.
No. We got attacked on 9/11 because Muslims consider anyone who is not a Muslim an infidel who must die.
There is not a more simple concept to grasp. 2+2=4 is a harder concept to grasp. Yet people will come up with ideas, reasons and excuses by the list to keep from having to face this simple truth.
I don't get it. Never did and I don't want to; it would require me to think like them and I refuse to allow that to happen, thank you very much.
we got attacked cause clinton was a wimp and let 2 attacks go with no consiquences .remember uss cole and the 1st time the towers were bombed .so the muslims took avantage and thought bush would do the same .but we said hell no SHOCK %26amp; AWE BABY
Nope. It was an excuse to go into Afghanistan and then later go to Iraq, set up military bases and CIA buildings, Monopolize the Middle east for the NWO and to control the Oil
1. We support the apartheid state called Israel.
2. We put sactions on Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands.
3. We support undemocraic tyrannical regimes there.
We were attacked by Muslims whose goal is to
kill all the Infidels (those whose God is NOT Allah).
Israel and America fit into that category. They're
evil and can't be trusted.
Yes that is a big part of it. Many of my republican friends may disagree but foreign intervention almost always means future trouble.
America been fighting them 200 years,,and before that 2000 years...
no.
part of it.
google that question.
We were attacked because extremists, claiming religious reasons, wanted to attack us.
BTW. Osama bin Laden claimed it was because of American military installations in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia. He neglected to notice that the Saudis invited us in.Is it true that we got attacked on 9/11 because of are bias involvement in the middle east?
The real reason, although Americans will never understand nor admit it because of a biased media, was US foreign policy towards Israel and the support it has provided in supporting the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. This is the only reason 9/11 happened.
American propaganda, soon after 9/11, strove to provide answers that were related in some way to the 'jealousy of our freedoms' factor, which is egoistical and incorrrect. Thousands of Palestinians homes were destroyed and millions displaced when Israel was forcibly created in 1948 (The only state in history to be forcibly created). The resentment within the whole of the Arab world is very strong and for decades US military assistance, financial and political aid and the inability of various US administrations to deflect the pressure of the Israeli lobby in the US culminated in a terroristic attack on US soil. This resentment towards the US's biased support of Israel took many decades to finally come to fruition and was not, as many state, a contemporary reaction. Unfortunately, American citizens do not receive that same media coverage of events in Palestine as do Europeans and therefore remain perpetually naive to the plight of Palestinians and thus the true reason behind the 9/11 attacks.
I think that was part of it yes, but not all of it. We also got attacked because those people do not appreciate American culture as expressed in commerce coming into their countries and changing things.
Britney Spears shaking what she has got in a commercial does not play the same in the middle east as it does in the West.
We are involved in a war of cultures. It is not going to stop until one wins. The world is too small for us to just ignore each other anymore.
We got attacked on 9/11 because of Clinton's weakness.
The 9/11 attack was decided before Bush even won the election.
The 9/11 attack was just the next in the series of escalating terrorist attacks on the USA, from the 1993 WTC bombing up to the attack on the USS Cole.
Because Clinton's response was weak every time, the terrorists ratcheted up the size of the attack another notch with 9/11, as they had done with each previous attack.
After 9/11, the terrorists discovered that our new leader was not weak. He whupped Taliban keester out of Afghanistan.
That's why we had no more terrorist attacks against the USA after 9/11.
Now that we have a weak, spineless president again, we are in danger of a new series of escalating attacks.
No. We got attacked on 9/11 because Muslims consider anyone who is not a Muslim an infidel who must die.
There is not a more simple concept to grasp. 2+2=4 is a harder concept to grasp. Yet people will come up with ideas, reasons and excuses by the list to keep from having to face this simple truth.
I don't get it. Never did and I don't want to; it would require me to think like them and I refuse to allow that to happen, thank you very much.
we got attacked cause clinton was a wimp and let 2 attacks go with no consiquences .remember uss cole and the 1st time the towers were bombed .so the muslims took avantage and thought bush would do the same .but we said hell no SHOCK %26amp; AWE BABY
Nope. It was an excuse to go into Afghanistan and then later go to Iraq, set up military bases and CIA buildings, Monopolize the Middle east for the NWO and to control the Oil
1. We support the apartheid state called Israel.
2. We put sactions on Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands.
3. We support undemocraic tyrannical regimes there.
We were attacked by Muslims whose goal is to
kill all the Infidels (those whose God is NOT Allah).
Israel and America fit into that category. They're
evil and can't be trusted.
Yes that is a big part of it. Many of my republican friends may disagree but foreign intervention almost always means future trouble.
America been fighting them 200 years,,and before that 2000 years...
no.
part of it.
google that question.
Is it true that white guys prefer south east asian women than other races of women(except white women)?
I'm filipino. i've heard that western guys prefer south east asian women. is it true?
I mean 'not' indian,pakistani,nepal,bangladesh. I mean south east asian women.(filipino, malaysian, cambodian, thai, vietnamese, Laos)Is it true that white guys prefer south east asian women than other races of women(except white women)?
I don't think it's true. I always thought they prefered north west asian women. Like eskimo and malamute.Is it true that white guys prefer south east asian women than other races of women(except white women)?
Since when are Malaysian and Filipino women South EAST Asian? Obviously you are a Filipina with a superiority complex, stop acting like you are better than Indian or any other Asian women. But yes white guys generally prefer Asian (not just south east) ALL ASIAN women. Period.
No i heard most south east asians want to get with white men, even though they put down their races alot with really racism comments.
Especially Filipinos I heard of th is, but its okay for them because they are mixed with spainards (Some percentage)
yes they are mostly like to get married to Asian women because Asian women are better housewives.
Well my white boyfriend likes me %26amp; im black (get mistaken for bein' latina idk why) and he's always liked black females. Depends on the guy
I think that it depends upon the guy: but I do know that many men fantasize about Thai women as they believe them to be more submissive!
I like any woman from anywhere as long as she's attractive and not fat. Currently I'm looking all over the world for a mate, Phils are ok.
Yes=)
Asian girls are so beautiful.
i think you are right
but not indian pakistani or bengali no no no
Yep it is definitely true
it sooo is true and it because they are so submissive.
way true.
this shat makes me laugh...oh god...stop it please...lol
I mean 'not' indian,pakistani,nepal,bangladesh. I mean south east asian women.(filipino, malaysian, cambodian, thai, vietnamese, Laos)Is it true that white guys prefer south east asian women than other races of women(except white women)?
I don't think it's true. I always thought they prefered north west asian women. Like eskimo and malamute.Is it true that white guys prefer south east asian women than other races of women(except white women)?
Since when are Malaysian and Filipino women South EAST Asian? Obviously you are a Filipina with a superiority complex, stop acting like you are better than Indian or any other Asian women. But yes white guys generally prefer Asian (not just south east) ALL ASIAN women. Period.
No i heard most south east asians want to get with white men, even though they put down their races alot with really racism comments.
Especially Filipinos I heard of th is, but its okay for them because they are mixed with spainards (Some percentage)
yes they are mostly like to get married to Asian women because Asian women are better housewives.
Well my white boyfriend likes me %26amp; im black (get mistaken for bein' latina idk why) and he's always liked black females. Depends on the guy
I think that it depends upon the guy: but I do know that many men fantasize about Thai women as they believe them to be more submissive!
I like any woman from anywhere as long as she's attractive and not fat. Currently I'm looking all over the world for a mate, Phils are ok.
Yes=)
Asian girls are so beautiful.
i think you are right
but not indian pakistani or bengali no no no
Yep it is definitely true
it sooo is true and it because they are so submissive.
way true.
this shat makes me laugh...oh god...stop it please...lol
Is it true that Polynesians originated from South-east Asia?
Yes, blood test indicate this. Poly means many, so put that together and Polynesian would just mean many Asians. As the people settled in Pacific islands such as Samoa, Tonga, Hawaii,etc. they began to mix with the people of Melanesia who are descendants of black people, then the Europeans came in the 1600's and also started to mix with Polynesians. Even the languages can be linked.Is it true that Polynesians originated from South-east Asia?
The Polynesian forebears were from South East Asia conclusively. They had their own culture which was different from the later developed Polynesian culture. The Polynesian race from a scientific perspective is a speciation derived from the intermixing of ancient forebears. Scientific scholars of Hawaii attribute the Polynesians as the bloodline intermixing of an ancient mongoloid race of forebears and a ******* race of forebears, hence their Egyptian like morphologies. Malayo-Polynesian is a consequence of influences yet genotypes %26amp; phenotypes affirm the Hawaii scientific determination.
The children of the Polynesian forebears were then genetically drifted into isolation and maintained in the Samoa-Tonga area 2000-500BC, Savai'i %26amp; Upolu in particular. They developed a unique Polynesian culture to meet their needs for survival. A culture anciently based on strong family values, community sharing %26amp; responsibility and a valued respect for community elders, a community-centered or ' communism ' ideology. In this discussion, we will first analyze Population Genetics as it applies to the development or evolution of the Polynesian people, and then focus to analyze the development of their unique Polynesian culture.Is it true that Polynesians originated from South-east Asia?
Here is a definitive answer to your question: http://dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnat鈥?/a>
Notice that Polynesians are *most closely related*, genetically, to *Africans*. Go ahead and read how the study was done. It is very sound science.
I find it very interesting that genetic similarity often has little to do with obvious physical similarities.
Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/
I have read that genetics connect the Polynesians with the indigenous people of the island of Taiwan and the indigenous Ainu people of Japan. So more East Asia rather than South East Asia.
The Polynesian forebears were from South East Asia conclusively. They had their own culture which was different from the later developed Polynesian culture. The Polynesian race from a scientific perspective is a speciation derived from the intermixing of ancient forebears. Scientific scholars of Hawaii attribute the Polynesians as the bloodline intermixing of an ancient mongoloid race of forebears and a ******* race of forebears, hence their Egyptian like morphologies. Malayo-Polynesian is a consequence of influences yet genotypes %26amp; phenotypes affirm the Hawaii scientific determination.
The children of the Polynesian forebears were then genetically drifted into isolation and maintained in the Samoa-Tonga area 2000-500BC, Savai'i %26amp; Upolu in particular. They developed a unique Polynesian culture to meet their needs for survival. A culture anciently based on strong family values, community sharing %26amp; responsibility and a valued respect for community elders, a community-centered or ' communism ' ideology. In this discussion, we will first analyze Population Genetics as it applies to the development or evolution of the Polynesian people, and then focus to analyze the development of their unique Polynesian culture.Is it true that Polynesians originated from South-east Asia?
Here is a definitive answer to your question: http://dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnat鈥?/a>
Notice that Polynesians are *most closely related*, genetically, to *Africans*. Go ahead and read how the study was done. It is very sound science.
I find it very interesting that genetic similarity often has little to do with obvious physical similarities.
Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/
I have read that genetics connect the Polynesians with the indigenous people of the island of Taiwan and the indigenous Ainu people of Japan. So more East Asia rather than South East Asia.
Why did the true and valued puppet-creations of Ronald Reagan in the Middle East all came back to haunt us?
.
You know, cute lil' monsters like:
Saddam Hussein in Iraq
Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan
just to name a few.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z-hEyVQD鈥?/a>
.Why did the true and valued puppet-creations of Ronald Reagan in the Middle East all came back to haunt us?
The neo-cows will never admit this obvious fact.Why did the true and valued puppet-creations of Ronald Reagan in the Middle East all came back to haunt us?
Have you ever heard of the ememy of my ememy is my friend?!
We would not have needed Saddam Hussein if Jimmy Carter had supported the Sha of Iran instead of letting him be over thrown! We can also thank Jimmy Carter policies of appeasement for the rise in power of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban! But have no fear Barrack Hussein Obama Mm Mm MM is returning us to many of Jimmy Carters failed policies and a pre-911 mentality. But don't worry Muslem extremists don't really want to kill you and your family!
What exactly has succeeded in the Middle East? Cite all the Liberal success stories? Like Jimmy Carter's Peace deal that ended when Sadat was killed. The Left somehow calls that a victory.
Those are situational events. Iran had attacked Iraq and we had business interests to protect. Jimmy Carter was in office at the time, BTW. Do you have a crystal ball? Can you tell me what Obama should do about Pakistan?
Did you support Clinton when he turned down Bin Laden? That worked out perfectly.
I'm convinced that when it comes to the Middle East, there is only evil and lesser evils. The US tries to play monsters against monsters. Sometimes it bites them in the ***. My question is why are there so many monsters in control over there? What is it about the people in that region that makes them susceptible to the influence of truly evil men?
Saddam became president of Iraq, in 1979, when jimmy carter was president.
The mujaheddin formed in 1979, while jimmy carter was president.
Carter is the president who sent the CIA to Afghanistan to aid the mujaheddin.
Seems like you are looking at the wrong president.
Since you aren't able to demonstrate a tie between Reagan and ';creating'; any of the problems you're nonetheless certain he's responsible for, does it astound you that I can tell you're a Democrat or rough equivalent thereof?
When was the Iran-Iraq war?
Iraq invaded on 22 Sept 1980-while Jimmy Carter was still president. The US was helping Saddam at that point.
Education helps you avoid a lot of mistakes in life.
that's what happens when you give thugs machine guns. The really disgusting thing is how now we are fighting these same terrorists we funded (and continue to fund).
What are you talking about?myspace codes
You know, cute lil' monsters like:
Saddam Hussein in Iraq
Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan
just to name a few.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z-hEyVQD鈥?/a>
.Why did the true and valued puppet-creations of Ronald Reagan in the Middle East all came back to haunt us?
The neo-cows will never admit this obvious fact.Why did the true and valued puppet-creations of Ronald Reagan in the Middle East all came back to haunt us?
Have you ever heard of the ememy of my ememy is my friend?!
We would not have needed Saddam Hussein if Jimmy Carter had supported the Sha of Iran instead of letting him be over thrown! We can also thank Jimmy Carter policies of appeasement for the rise in power of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban! But have no fear Barrack Hussein Obama Mm Mm MM is returning us to many of Jimmy Carters failed policies and a pre-911 mentality. But don't worry Muslem extremists don't really want to kill you and your family!
What exactly has succeeded in the Middle East? Cite all the Liberal success stories? Like Jimmy Carter's Peace deal that ended when Sadat was killed. The Left somehow calls that a victory.
Those are situational events. Iran had attacked Iraq and we had business interests to protect. Jimmy Carter was in office at the time, BTW. Do you have a crystal ball? Can you tell me what Obama should do about Pakistan?
Did you support Clinton when he turned down Bin Laden? That worked out perfectly.
I'm convinced that when it comes to the Middle East, there is only evil and lesser evils. The US tries to play monsters against monsters. Sometimes it bites them in the ***. My question is why are there so many monsters in control over there? What is it about the people in that region that makes them susceptible to the influence of truly evil men?
Saddam became president of Iraq, in 1979, when jimmy carter was president.
The mujaheddin formed in 1979, while jimmy carter was president.
Carter is the president who sent the CIA to Afghanistan to aid the mujaheddin.
Seems like you are looking at the wrong president.
Since you aren't able to demonstrate a tie between Reagan and ';creating'; any of the problems you're nonetheless certain he's responsible for, does it astound you that I can tell you're a Democrat or rough equivalent thereof?
When was the Iran-Iraq war?
Iraq invaded on 22 Sept 1980-while Jimmy Carter was still president. The US was helping Saddam at that point.
Education helps you avoid a lot of mistakes in life.
that's what happens when you give thugs machine guns. The really disgusting thing is how now we are fighting these same terrorists we funded (and continue to fund).
What are you talking about?
Is there true democracy in the Middle East?
Democracy is just a strong phrase that politicians use in their speeches and for elections.
Any democracy around the world has a define roof where you have to stop and obey decision makers.
There is no True democracy ever.
It鈥檚 the Magical word that some people use to justify their power on us.
CheersIs there true democracy in the Middle East?
IsraelIs there true democracy in the Middle East?
NO true democracy in the Middle East,.
but their is a true demo without cracy
best answer yes??
There isn't ';true democracy'; anywhere.
there is no true democracy any where in the world. not even here in america.
yes there is.
there is no ';true'; democracy anywhere....usa is not a true democracy....not until they get rid of the electorial college
Any democracy around the world has a define roof where you have to stop and obey decision makers.
There is no True democracy ever.
It鈥檚 the Magical word that some people use to justify their power on us.
CheersIs there true democracy in the Middle East?
IsraelIs there true democracy in the Middle East?
NO true democracy in the Middle East,.
but their is a true demo without cracy
best answer yes??
There isn't ';true democracy'; anywhere.
there is no true democracy any where in the world. not even here in america.
yes there is.
there is no ';true'; democracy anywhere....usa is not a true democracy....not until they get rid of the electorial college
Is it true? when in Australia that East is on the right-hand side of the compass.?
Yes.
.Is it true? when in Australia that East is on the right-hand side of the compass.?
It depends on whether you're holding your compass with North on the top or South on the top. This is true in the northern hemisphere also.
If you are asking whether the part of the needle that points to north in the northern hemisphere points south in Australia, the answer is no. North is still north.
Edited: There are differences in northern and southern hemisphere, but they're more subtle.
http://www.williams.edu/Biology/Faculty_鈥?/a>
';In the northern hemisphere the north end of the needle is pulled downwards, and the south end is counterweighted to balance the needle. When you use a northern hemisphere compass in, say, Australia, the south end of the magnet is pulled downwards by the magnetic field, and is also heavier than the north end - resulting in a needle that catches and drags on the bottom of the compass housing when the compass is held horizontal.';
It's the vertical tilt of the compass needle rather than the direction it points.Is it true? when in Australia that East is on the right-hand side of the compass.?
Yes. East is on the right hand side of any compass. (is this a trick question?)
But, if you're wondering if east is different on a compass in the northern hemisphere versus the southern hemisphere, they are the same. Think about it. The north pole is still the north pole, and the south pole is still the south pole, regardless of whether you're in the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere (or on the equator, for that matter). So, if you are facing north in either hemisphere, east is still to your right and west is still to your left.
I'm in Canada, and I just looked at my compass and lo and behold East is on the right side of the compass! Maybe it has something to do with if North is 12 o'clock then East is 3:15?
Yes, just like it does in the Northern Hemisphere (if you have North at the needle).
It's the toilet flushing that's the opposite in the northern and southern hemisphres.
east is always on the right hand side of the compass. North(the traditional top of the compass) is north no matter where you are.
If the needle is pointing north, yes. East is always on the right-hand side when you're facing north.
if you look north east is always on the right!
.Is it true? when in Australia that East is on the right-hand side of the compass.?
It depends on whether you're holding your compass with North on the top or South on the top. This is true in the northern hemisphere also.
If you are asking whether the part of the needle that points to north in the northern hemisphere points south in Australia, the answer is no. North is still north.
Edited: There are differences in northern and southern hemisphere, but they're more subtle.
http://www.williams.edu/Biology/Faculty_鈥?/a>
';In the northern hemisphere the north end of the needle is pulled downwards, and the south end is counterweighted to balance the needle. When you use a northern hemisphere compass in, say, Australia, the south end of the magnet is pulled downwards by the magnetic field, and is also heavier than the north end - resulting in a needle that catches and drags on the bottom of the compass housing when the compass is held horizontal.';
It's the vertical tilt of the compass needle rather than the direction it points.Is it true? when in Australia that East is on the right-hand side of the compass.?
Yes. East is on the right hand side of any compass. (is this a trick question?)
But, if you're wondering if east is different on a compass in the northern hemisphere versus the southern hemisphere, they are the same. Think about it. The north pole is still the north pole, and the south pole is still the south pole, regardless of whether you're in the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere (or on the equator, for that matter). So, if you are facing north in either hemisphere, east is still to your right and west is still to your left.
I'm in Canada, and I just looked at my compass and lo and behold East is on the right side of the compass! Maybe it has something to do with if North is 12 o'clock then East is 3:15?
Yes, just like it does in the Northern Hemisphere (if you have North at the needle).
It's the toilet flushing that's the opposite in the northern and southern hemisphres.
east is always on the right hand side of the compass. North(the traditional top of the compass) is north no matter where you are.
If the needle is pointing north, yes. East is always on the right-hand side when you're facing north.
if you look north east is always on the right!
Is all that true about how they treat with women in middle east?
I was watching Everwood and in this show a girl said that in middle east women are punished for adultery, or if they are raped, they need 4 male witnesses, otherwise they will go to jail. is this true?????????????????? poor womenIs all that true about how they treat with women in middle east?
Different Middle Eastern differ slightly, but yes, in a lot of ME countries women witnesses only count as a half of a person. Women get stoned to death for adultery and it can be very hard to prove rape.Is all that true about how they treat with women in middle east?
Sad but true
Oh yes, much of it is true and then some. Thank God you live in America.
I'm not sure about that but all the other stories are true women are really treated like that. I feel so thankful and lucky but I want to do something about it.
Yes that is true and there is even worse. Afghanistan was barbaric when the Taliban was in powder. It's not much better now. A 15 yr. old girl was raped in her home while her parents and brother were held in another room by Taliban soldiers. When they brought her home from the hospital her father and brother beat her for bringing shame to the family!!!
You can find out about this by looking at reports filed by human rights NGO's and United Nations bodies examining conditions in the various countries comprising the Middle East.
The following site is an excellent place to begin your research:
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/human.htm
In many ME countries, it's much worse than they showed on Everwood. If a woman is raped, she can be executed for violating muslim law. It's against their code for a woman to be alone with a man who is not a close relative. A woman caught in that situation is considered a whore and can be raped or murdered without any punishment to the men.
There was a case in Afghanistan where a building caught on fire. The women in the building ran outside, but the men forced them back into the fire where they died. Muslim law prohibits women from being in public without their burkha, so they were forced to burn to death rather than violate that law.
Women in many countries are forbidden to go to school or learn to read. They are forced into arranged marriages, and can be murdered or raped if they refuse.
Don't listen to multiculturalists. They have an anti-Western agenda.
No that's not true. I'm a Muslim woman and in Islam you need 4 witnesses to prove adultery. Adulators are stoned to death though. My husband is from the Middle East and the men are punished for rape not the woman. But if a woman commits adultery she can be whipped 100 times in public. Adultery is forbidden in Islam.
You can't make such a claim, when exactly the same happens for men in the Western culture.
Yes, it is true BUT in the West, men are punished for adultery while women aren't (or so, I heard).
I really don't think you should be punished for it.
Different Middle Eastern differ slightly, but yes, in a lot of ME countries women witnesses only count as a half of a person. Women get stoned to death for adultery and it can be very hard to prove rape.Is all that true about how they treat with women in middle east?
Sad but true
Oh yes, much of it is true and then some. Thank God you live in America.
I'm not sure about that but all the other stories are true women are really treated like that. I feel so thankful and lucky but I want to do something about it.
Yes that is true and there is even worse. Afghanistan was barbaric when the Taliban was in powder. It's not much better now. A 15 yr. old girl was raped in her home while her parents and brother were held in another room by Taliban soldiers. When they brought her home from the hospital her father and brother beat her for bringing shame to the family!!!
You can find out about this by looking at reports filed by human rights NGO's and United Nations bodies examining conditions in the various countries comprising the Middle East.
The following site is an excellent place to begin your research:
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/human.htm
In many ME countries, it's much worse than they showed on Everwood. If a woman is raped, she can be executed for violating muslim law. It's against their code for a woman to be alone with a man who is not a close relative. A woman caught in that situation is considered a whore and can be raped or murdered without any punishment to the men.
There was a case in Afghanistan where a building caught on fire. The women in the building ran outside, but the men forced them back into the fire where they died. Muslim law prohibits women from being in public without their burkha, so they were forced to burn to death rather than violate that law.
Women in many countries are forbidden to go to school or learn to read. They are forced into arranged marriages, and can be murdered or raped if they refuse.
Don't listen to multiculturalists. They have an anti-Western agenda.
No that's not true. I'm a Muslim woman and in Islam you need 4 witnesses to prove adultery. Adulators are stoned to death though. My husband is from the Middle East and the men are punished for rape not the woman. But if a woman commits adultery she can be whipped 100 times in public. Adultery is forbidden in Islam.
You can't make such a claim, when exactly the same happens for men in the Western culture.
Yes, it is true BUT in the West, men are punished for adultery while women aren't (or so, I heard).
I really don't think you should be punished for it.
True or False? The War of 1812 gave the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi at least a glimmer of better?
days to come in their ongoing battle to resist white expansion.True or False? The War of 1812 gave the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi at least a glimmer of better?
False. The Indians had protected themselves by playing the British and French off each other until the 7 Years War. Once the French left, the only ones speaking for the Indians were the British. The Crown's attempts to limit colonists' expropriation of Indian lands were among the complaints Americans had against Britain. After the war of 1812, British forces were withdrawn from the west and all hope for the Indians died.True or False? The War of 1812 gave the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi at least a glimmer of better?
';Gayle'; is right. On October 5, 1813 at the Battle of the Thames the best Indian leader Tecumseh was killed. After the battle the tribes of his confederation surrendered at Detroit. The Native American Indian tribes would not threaten American colonists east of the Mississippi after 1813.
False. The Indians had protected themselves by playing the British and French off each other until the 7 Years War. Once the French left, the only ones speaking for the Indians were the British. The Crown's attempts to limit colonists' expropriation of Indian lands were among the complaints Americans had against Britain. After the war of 1812, British forces were withdrawn from the west and all hope for the Indians died.True or False? The War of 1812 gave the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi at least a glimmer of better?
';Gayle'; is right. On October 5, 1813 at the Battle of the Thames the best Indian leader Tecumseh was killed. After the battle the tribes of his confederation surrendered at Detroit. The Native American Indian tribes would not threaten American colonists east of the Mississippi after 1813.
What happens to the middle east if Iraq becomes a true democracy?
I would submit that 'Democracy' In Iraq will not resemble what ours does. Nor should it, there are cultural differences that should remain and they will put together a political system that will work for them.
However a friendly state in the middle east does offer certain strategic advantages to our nation. This may even show citizens in neighboring states that things can be different.
Long term goals. Or dreams depending on your view.What happens to the middle east if Iraq becomes a true democracy?
Walk up you have a nightmareWhat happens to the middle east if Iraq becomes a true democracy?
Joke, right?
Iraq is now nominally a republic, and democracy is no guarantee of anything, contrary to what our politicians would have you believe. The former Soviet Union, the People's REPUBLIC of China, and the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran are all forms of democracy. The former government of Iraq and the nation of Libya were both governed by forms of democracy.
Adolph Hitler rose to power under a form of democracy.
Even your great grand kids will never see this happen.
Big oil for all it's corruption is our best counter weight to OPEC. If Iraq becomes a democracy and contracts to U.S. companies Iran and Venezuela suffer a blow to economic power . . .
The Saudis Royal family will be crying and moving more money into Switzerland.
However a friendly state in the middle east does offer certain strategic advantages to our nation. This may even show citizens in neighboring states that things can be different.
Long term goals. Or dreams depending on your view.What happens to the middle east if Iraq becomes a true democracy?
Walk up you have a nightmareWhat happens to the middle east if Iraq becomes a true democracy?
Joke, right?
Iraq is now nominally a republic, and democracy is no guarantee of anything, contrary to what our politicians would have you believe. The former Soviet Union, the People's REPUBLIC of China, and the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran are all forms of democracy. The former government of Iraq and the nation of Libya were both governed by forms of democracy.
Adolph Hitler rose to power under a form of democracy.
Even your great grand kids will never see this happen.
Big oil for all it's corruption is our best counter weight to OPEC. If Iraq becomes a democracy and contracts to U.S. companies Iran and Venezuela suffer a blow to economic power . . .
The Saudis Royal family will be crying and moving more money into Switzerland.
Is the situation in the middle-east the true beginning or escalation of world war 3?
I thought when the United States invaded Iraq WWW III had started. However, I now know that historical event was a hallmark to the current escalation of violence.
Examine the SCOPE of muslim radical fundamentalism (the name does not deserve to capitalized). These terrorists are imbedded in every country around the globe, especially in Europe, with the belief of conversion or death to all. When formulating your own opinion about your question, keep in mind the recent reaction to terrorism by France and Spain in contrast to the reaction by the United States of America and Israel. Why are Russia and China content on supporting ineffective United Nation resolutions and bogus negotiations with rogue terrorist factions/states?
One must also take into consideration the Geographical locations of these countries involved in the current conflict and ask the question, ';How would this situation be different if the United States did not have troops in Iraq?'; Israel would be facing threats from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey.
There are many clowns in the media who put their own spin on issues and feed it to the public by misreporting, omitting facts, or adding personal responses to the news to influence opinions in order to “change the world.” Filter these charlatans with the question, “What does nuclear proliferation mean in 2006?” I challenge you to research the true COMPLETE HISTORY of conflict between the Muslims and Israelis, the rise and fall of Hitler and fascism in WWII, and Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”. Then answer your own question. The Muslim religion is not a religion of peace, neither is Christianity or Judaism. History is repeating itself.Is the situation in the middle-east the true beginning or escalation of world war 3?
Nobody wants a war, especially a WW3. There will be a long fight for dipolmacy before that happens. The international community will put alot of pressure on Israel and Lebanon before that happens.
B/c of that, I believe it's very unlikely.Is the situation in the middle-east the true beginning or escalation of world war 3?
Hatred is getting stronger and WWW3 is not being fought like any other war. Terrorist attacks can hit around the world and you don't know who does the bombing until it is done if you know then. Terrorism is a dirty type of war fought by individuals who believe it an honor and privilege to die for their cause and even stoop to using little children to carry out their plans. We are sleeping if we don't know that it has already started. Just when it will escalate is another matter.
I sure hope not since major powers are involve yet
i think that it is a very great possiblity. also the draft is a great possiblity.
I think it very well may be. With our heads buried in the sand, Korea is silently planning some kind of attack on some country. While Israel has nukes and so do many others. It is a scary thought that there could be another world war. It is even scarier that this one could possibly be fought on our own soil. If we would keep our noses out of other countries business, there wouldn't be all this chaos. Same goes for out ';do as we say, not as we do'; attitude. Bush is not the president of earth. Just the US. Hopefully some one in our government thinks like the real people in this country and takes a stand before something else horrible happens.
It's perhaps the worst case scenario that you can think of, but I think it's pretty darn unlikely
I will say the beginning. You see we just don't know what the Arabs have to defend themselves now the Cold war is over and Russia has sold it's weapons to the highest bidder.
I am afraid it very well could be.
There have been world wars faught over much less.
Every country it seems is involved in a war someplace.
When Isreal is attacked, it has a nuclear bomb
that is the only reason they are still alive.
Becuase the other islamic countries don't.
If they are forced to use it and now pakstan has a bomb
this is definitely a world crissis.
I think so but I think things have been builing up to it for decades now.
Please try to understand. A ';World War'; requires all sides to be equal participants in the conflict. What we're seeing now is simple posturing by the Zionists against weak, insignificant little governments to cover for their implementation of a one world government. Once China and the West begin exchanging nuclear blows, then it will be a ';World War';.myspace codes
Examine the SCOPE of muslim radical fundamentalism (the name does not deserve to capitalized). These terrorists are imbedded in every country around the globe, especially in Europe, with the belief of conversion or death to all. When formulating your own opinion about your question, keep in mind the recent reaction to terrorism by France and Spain in contrast to the reaction by the United States of America and Israel. Why are Russia and China content on supporting ineffective United Nation resolutions and bogus negotiations with rogue terrorist factions/states?
One must also take into consideration the Geographical locations of these countries involved in the current conflict and ask the question, ';How would this situation be different if the United States did not have troops in Iraq?'; Israel would be facing threats from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey.
There are many clowns in the media who put their own spin on issues and feed it to the public by misreporting, omitting facts, or adding personal responses to the news to influence opinions in order to “change the world.” Filter these charlatans with the question, “What does nuclear proliferation mean in 2006?” I challenge you to research the true COMPLETE HISTORY of conflict between the Muslims and Israelis, the rise and fall of Hitler and fascism in WWII, and Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”. Then answer your own question. The Muslim religion is not a religion of peace, neither is Christianity or Judaism. History is repeating itself.Is the situation in the middle-east the true beginning or escalation of world war 3?
Nobody wants a war, especially a WW3. There will be a long fight for dipolmacy before that happens. The international community will put alot of pressure on Israel and Lebanon before that happens.
B/c of that, I believe it's very unlikely.Is the situation in the middle-east the true beginning or escalation of world war 3?
Hatred is getting stronger and WWW3 is not being fought like any other war. Terrorist attacks can hit around the world and you don't know who does the bombing until it is done if you know then. Terrorism is a dirty type of war fought by individuals who believe it an honor and privilege to die for their cause and even stoop to using little children to carry out their plans. We are sleeping if we don't know that it has already started. Just when it will escalate is another matter.
I sure hope not since major powers are involve yet
i think that it is a very great possiblity. also the draft is a great possiblity.
I think it very well may be. With our heads buried in the sand, Korea is silently planning some kind of attack on some country. While Israel has nukes and so do many others. It is a scary thought that there could be another world war. It is even scarier that this one could possibly be fought on our own soil. If we would keep our noses out of other countries business, there wouldn't be all this chaos. Same goes for out ';do as we say, not as we do'; attitude. Bush is not the president of earth. Just the US. Hopefully some one in our government thinks like the real people in this country and takes a stand before something else horrible happens.
It's perhaps the worst case scenario that you can think of, but I think it's pretty darn unlikely
I will say the beginning. You see we just don't know what the Arabs have to defend themselves now the Cold war is over and Russia has sold it's weapons to the highest bidder.
I am afraid it very well could be.
There have been world wars faught over much less.
Every country it seems is involved in a war someplace.
When Isreal is attacked, it has a nuclear bomb
that is the only reason they are still alive.
Becuase the other islamic countries don't.
If they are forced to use it and now pakstan has a bomb
this is definitely a world crissis.
I think so but I think things have been builing up to it for decades now.
Please try to understand. A ';World War'; requires all sides to be equal participants in the conflict. What we're seeing now is simple posturing by the Zionists against weak, insignificant little governments to cover for their implementation of a one world government. Once China and the West begin exchanging nuclear blows, then it will be a ';World War';.
Terrorism in the Middle East increased dramatically after Isreal became a nation. True or False?
False. Terrorism in the middle east increased after OPEC was formed, long after Israel became a nation. Those facts are impossibe to refute, period. This is proven by your own numbers, Israel became a nation in 1948.Terrorism in the Middle East increased dramatically after Isreal became a nation. True or False?
Thanks. Money+religion=conflict
Terrorism in the Middle East increased dramatically after Isreal became a nation. True or False?
True whitout a doubt that Israel was the main cause or inspiration for terrorism.
';Israel'; fits under a category called colonialism in the maghreb countries to the west you can see what effect Colonialsim had especially in algeria.
Today Israel is occupied mainly by white european or american people whos family settled there they are not the jews of the bible by no means whatever jewish leniage they have is greatly exaggerated for their own purpouses. They are mostly white except for being racially .5 jew froma few thousand years ago or have none jew in themselves (their ancestors where converts)
So you can see that the people living in Israel are just using a bad excuse to live in someoen elses land.
I happen to know an frenchmen whos family settled in Algeria (from europe) many generations ago and took all the good farm land from the inhabitants of the country....sound like some place you know of?
false
false, it became more violent after the British left.
And most of those terrorist attacks were on Israel by the murdering palestinians. Don't even try to make it look like Israel is the cause of all terrorism. The goddamn Saudis have been stuck in a terrorist plot for many many decades, long before Israel became a legal country.
I seriously doubt the existence of Israel made any difference (and Israel itself had it's share of terrorists attacking the British). Israel is always just a cheap excuse for everybody's expansionist agenda down there.
Thanks. Money+religion=conflict
Report Abuse
Terrorism in the Middle East increased dramatically after Isreal became a nation. True or False?
True whitout a doubt that Israel was the main cause or inspiration for terrorism.
';Israel'; fits under a category called colonialism in the maghreb countries to the west you can see what effect Colonialsim had especially in algeria.
Today Israel is occupied mainly by white european or american people whos family settled there they are not the jews of the bible by no means whatever jewish leniage they have is greatly exaggerated for their own purpouses. They are mostly white except for being racially .5 jew froma few thousand years ago or have none jew in themselves (their ancestors where converts)
So you can see that the people living in Israel are just using a bad excuse to live in someoen elses land.
I happen to know an frenchmen whos family settled in Algeria (from europe) many generations ago and took all the good farm land from the inhabitants of the country....sound like some place you know of?
false
false, it became more violent after the British left.
And most of those terrorist attacks were on Israel by the murdering palestinians. Don't even try to make it look like Israel is the cause of all terrorism. The goddamn Saudis have been stuck in a terrorist plot for many many decades, long before Israel became a legal country.
I seriously doubt the existence of Israel made any difference (and Israel itself had it's share of terrorists attacking the British). Israel is always just a cheap excuse for everybody's expansionist agenda down there.
Is it true people from east europe are usually less friendly then the rest of europeans?
This is nonsense. People in Eastern Europe are as friendly as people in Western Europe....Is it true people from east europe are usually less friendly then the rest of europeans?
No, not at all. Some Eastern Europeans don't believe in superficial niceties, they are however a lot more helpful than Western Europeans in my experience, once you get to talk to them.Is it true people from east europe are usually less friendly then the rest of europeans?
No matter where you go you can find friendly people... You can find problems in the West and in the East. So all in all Eastern Europe is no less friendly than any other place I have travelled to.
No, it is not true at all. There are friendly and unfriendly people all over. It has nothing to do with being from the East or the West.
no they are not i went to soviet union and people were any body else it was the war and suffering that gave them some stiffness but they are friendly..
not true at all, you might encounter a bit of a language barrier - not as many speak english as they do in the west, but most will go out of their way to help you
No, not at all. Some Eastern Europeans don't believe in superficial niceties, they are however a lot more helpful than Western Europeans in my experience, once you get to talk to them.Is it true people from east europe are usually less friendly then the rest of europeans?
No matter where you go you can find friendly people... You can find problems in the West and in the East. So all in all Eastern Europe is no less friendly than any other place I have travelled to.
No, it is not true at all. There are friendly and unfriendly people all over. It has nothing to do with being from the East or the West.
no they are not i went to soviet union and people were any body else it was the war and suffering that gave them some stiffness but they are friendly..
not true at all, you might encounter a bit of a language barrier - not as many speak english as they do in the west, but most will go out of their way to help you
Is it true that CONS only CLAIM to want democracy in the Middle East ?
Aren't Iran and Palestien demacracies ?Is it true that CONS only CLAIM to want democracy in the Middle East ?
They don't even want democracy in the United States! Why in the world would they want other countries to have it????Is it true that CONS only CLAIM to want democracy in the Middle East ?
be it true that you be got edumecated
A genocidal dictator was removed saving thousands of Iraqis from torture and death. Inevitably, once a dictator is removed a power struggle ensues. Stop trying to rile up your tree-hugging friends and grow up.
Your spelling inhales.
*LOL* At least the Cons are claiming to want democracy. Libs only want a democracy where everyone bows to their wishes.
I THINK SO. IRANS SHAH A DICTATOR WAS PUT IN POWER BY EISENHOWERS ADMINISTATION AND BUILT UP HIS MILITARY OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS MAKING THEM THE FOURTH LARGEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD AND EVEN BUILT THE FIRST NUKE REACTOR FOR HIM. AFTER THE OVERTHROW OF THE SHAH WE BECAME THIER ENEMY. SADDAM WAS PUT IN POWER BY THE HELP OF WESTERN INTELLAGENCE AGENCIES US AND GRAET BRIT WE ALSO BUILT HIS MILITARY UP AND BACKED HIM IN A WAR AGAIST IRAN AFTER THEY REVOLTED AGAIST THE SHAH I COULD ELABORATE MORE BUT I AM AT WORK AND NEED TO LEAVE
No iran is not a democracy. The president gets his orders from th Iatolah. So while on the surface people feel better about voting, its the same guy until he gives it up or dies that gives the orders. And for Palestine, while maybe a democracy its roots are in hatred of the Jews at all party levels. So it would be like you having to choose between several people from the same party...
They do want democracy in the Middle East...that will be friendly to their interests. Unfortunately they don't pay attention to the fact that most people in the Middle East don't like us and probably never will as long as we meddle in their affairs. As a result the democracies that spring up are likely to vote people in who hate the U.S.
cons claim what faux newz tells them to claim
It'll change next week...
They do prefer democracies but will settle for stable governments who do not pose a threat to the stability of the Middle East. The stability of the Middle East is very important for us since it is where we get much of our oil. A Middle East that is unstable will wreak havoc to our economy which is mostly based on oil. As for most people over there hating us, it is true. We are their enemy because we are to them infidels. They want us to convert or DIE! The reason they concentrate on the US is because we are their greatest threat - most power full non-Muslim country.
Iran is not a democracy, because the election system is a farse.
Palestine is, that's true, but it's not a very functional one because it lives under the thumb of Israel.
Moving on...the US has historically NOT supported democracy in the Middle East (just look at Egypt and it's love for Saudi Arabia, who hasn't had an actual election that involved more than 5% of the people ever, and suppressed popular uprisings in Iraq when Saddam Hussein first took power).
It's a cover to go to war with whomever they want, whenever they like.
They don't even want democracy in the United States! Why in the world would they want other countries to have it????Is it true that CONS only CLAIM to want democracy in the Middle East ?
be it true that you be got edumecated
A genocidal dictator was removed saving thousands of Iraqis from torture and death. Inevitably, once a dictator is removed a power struggle ensues. Stop trying to rile up your tree-hugging friends and grow up.
Your spelling inhales.
*LOL* At least the Cons are claiming to want democracy. Libs only want a democracy where everyone bows to their wishes.
I THINK SO. IRANS SHAH A DICTATOR WAS PUT IN POWER BY EISENHOWERS ADMINISTATION AND BUILT UP HIS MILITARY OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS MAKING THEM THE FOURTH LARGEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD AND EVEN BUILT THE FIRST NUKE REACTOR FOR HIM. AFTER THE OVERTHROW OF THE SHAH WE BECAME THIER ENEMY. SADDAM WAS PUT IN POWER BY THE HELP OF WESTERN INTELLAGENCE AGENCIES US AND GRAET BRIT WE ALSO BUILT HIS MILITARY UP AND BACKED HIM IN A WAR AGAIST IRAN AFTER THEY REVOLTED AGAIST THE SHAH I COULD ELABORATE MORE BUT I AM AT WORK AND NEED TO LEAVE
No iran is not a democracy. The president gets his orders from th Iatolah. So while on the surface people feel better about voting, its the same guy until he gives it up or dies that gives the orders. And for Palestine, while maybe a democracy its roots are in hatred of the Jews at all party levels. So it would be like you having to choose between several people from the same party...
They do want democracy in the Middle East...that will be friendly to their interests. Unfortunately they don't pay attention to the fact that most people in the Middle East don't like us and probably never will as long as we meddle in their affairs. As a result the democracies that spring up are likely to vote people in who hate the U.S.
cons claim what faux newz tells them to claim
It'll change next week...
They do prefer democracies but will settle for stable governments who do not pose a threat to the stability of the Middle East. The stability of the Middle East is very important for us since it is where we get much of our oil. A Middle East that is unstable will wreak havoc to our economy which is mostly based on oil. As for most people over there hating us, it is true. We are their enemy because we are to them infidels. They want us to convert or DIE! The reason they concentrate on the US is because we are their greatest threat - most power full non-Muslim country.
Iran is not a democracy, because the election system is a farse.
Palestine is, that's true, but it's not a very functional one because it lives under the thumb of Israel.
Moving on...the US has historically NOT supported democracy in the Middle East (just look at Egypt and it's love for Saudi Arabia, who hasn't had an actual election that involved more than 5% of the people ever, and suppressed popular uprisings in Iraq when Saddam Hussein first took power).
It's a cover to go to war with whomever they want, whenever they like.
Gay male porn movies don't exist in many Middle East countries. is that true?
Since having gay sex is illegal in those countries ( sometimes gays face death penalty ) , no one produce any gay male porn movies in those countries . ( Otherwise the film director and the gay male actors are prosecuted ? ) Do you agree with what I say ?
In my opinion, it's kind of sad that gay men are prohibited to express themselves in tmany Middle East countries.Gay male porn movies don't exist in many Middle East countries. is that true?
NOpe... not just that..
women are suppressed to.. like they can't be like '; i wanna have sex';
Only men can say that!!
people in these countries have to power to have as many sex fun as they want...Gay male porn movies don't exist in many Middle East countries. is that true?
well if coming out of the closet means death, then you'd be a fool to do so
i dont think they heterosexual porn movies
Your question is somewhat funny for the person like me staying in Middle east (I am not middle easter). In Islam pronography itself is prohibited irrespctive of homo and hetero.
BTW, why do you think that middle east should be judged based on abomination like ';western culture';? Your culture is stinking by desolation and yet you are trying to judge holy places like middle based on your wicked hedonist culture?
i live in the middle east... born here in Lebanon.. and i can say that it's true that ';unnatural sex practises'; are illegal.. only the judge decides what he considers to be unnatural... but it's mostly used against gay men.. (to my own surprise it's more against gay men than it is against gay women)... so ya i would agree with you.. but maybe there is some gay male porn movies being made but those would be soooooo private and carefully sold in the gay UNDERGROUND community in these countries... because of the whole illegal thing.. as far as i know they even twist the meanings of the laws to ';get rid'; of gay men and women.. bcuz to prove that two men are gayly inappropriate meaning that they're sleeping together they need proof.. or witnesses.. and that's not gonna happen! and the law ONLY puts penalty on sexual gay behaviour.. and nobody knows what happens between two gays behind closed doors... all they can do is assume..
this situation is sad.. but in some of these middle east countries there are organisations who have come a long way in trying to speak up for the gay community and trying to ebolish these laws.. i can speak best about Lebanon, there is a law that punishes ';unnatural sex practises'; and there's a LGBT organisation who has over the past many years decreased the penalty and now is trying to eliminate this law.. there even has been a big demonstration in 2006 where gays of all sorts spoke their mind and passed their will of treating them equally and of course finishing this law!
some of these middle eastern countries have hope of getting into the real world, beyond their own borders!...
In my opinion, it's kind of sad that gay men are prohibited to express themselves in tmany Middle East countries.Gay male porn movies don't exist in many Middle East countries. is that true?
NOpe... not just that..
women are suppressed to.. like they can't be like '; i wanna have sex';
Only men can say that!!
people in these countries have to power to have as many sex fun as they want...Gay male porn movies don't exist in many Middle East countries. is that true?
well if coming out of the closet means death, then you'd be a fool to do so
i dont think they heterosexual porn movies
Your question is somewhat funny for the person like me staying in Middle east (I am not middle easter). In Islam pronography itself is prohibited irrespctive of homo and hetero.
BTW, why do you think that middle east should be judged based on abomination like ';western culture';? Your culture is stinking by desolation and yet you are trying to judge holy places like middle based on your wicked hedonist culture?
i live in the middle east... born here in Lebanon.. and i can say that it's true that ';unnatural sex practises'; are illegal.. only the judge decides what he considers to be unnatural... but it's mostly used against gay men.. (to my own surprise it's more against gay men than it is against gay women)... so ya i would agree with you.. but maybe there is some gay male porn movies being made but those would be soooooo private and carefully sold in the gay UNDERGROUND community in these countries... because of the whole illegal thing.. as far as i know they even twist the meanings of the laws to ';get rid'; of gay men and women.. bcuz to prove that two men are gayly inappropriate meaning that they're sleeping together they need proof.. or witnesses.. and that's not gonna happen! and the law ONLY puts penalty on sexual gay behaviour.. and nobody knows what happens between two gays behind closed doors... all they can do is assume..
this situation is sad.. but in some of these middle east countries there are organisations who have come a long way in trying to speak up for the gay community and trying to ebolish these laws.. i can speak best about Lebanon, there is a law that punishes ';unnatural sex practises'; and there's a LGBT organisation who has over the past many years decreased the penalty and now is trying to eliminate this law.. there even has been a big demonstration in 2006 where gays of all sorts spoke their mind and passed their will of treating them equally and of course finishing this law!
some of these middle eastern countries have hope of getting into the real world, beyond their own borders!...
Is it true if the middle east was nuked, in a few decades, it will turn into ice, it will turn into a huge..?
mirror, thus reflecting sun light and its warmth??Is it true if the middle east was nuked, in a few decades, it will turn into ice, it will turn into a huge..?
No. THere would be some glassy areas in the desert but in a realistic nuking of the middle east the cities would be struck, not the open desert. The areas involved are tiny compared to the whole stretch of deserts. So, don't worry, nuke away.
No. THere would be some glassy areas in the desert but in a realistic nuking of the middle east the cities would be struck, not the open desert. The areas involved are tiny compared to the whole stretch of deserts. So, don't worry, nuke away.
Is it true that you suffer more Jetlag when travelling west to east . That is when you loose time.?
When one travel from east to west one gains time as the day seems to hang on and never pass. When you travel from west to east days pass rapidally that is you loose time as you are travelling against motion of earth.
I felt very less jet lag wnen I went US from India. The jetlag is very severe in the return journey and has taken a week to settle.
Any idea to manage jetlag efficiently.Is it true that you suffer more Jetlag when travelling west to east . That is when you loose time.?
My personal experience is that traveling west to east results in much worse jet lag than east to west.
The time change is part of ';jet lag';, but only part. For example, people experience jet lag when traveling from North America to South America even when they don't change time zones. Dehydration caused by dry air in the cabin is as important as the time change, and dehydration can be cumulative + aggravated by your environment/activities before the flight. Jet lag can be much worse on the return leg of a relatively short trip becuase you never really recovered from the lag incurred on the first leg. It can also be aggravated by what you do between trips.
I have not found anything that eliminates jet lag, but staying hydrated helps reduce it. Water and non-carbonated liquids are best. Avoid drinking a lot of anything with caffine, including colas. Lots of alcohol also aggravates the dehydration and you may have a hangover by the end of the flight.
Sleeping on the flight (even if it isn't very good sleep) also helps. The seats are MUCH, MUCH better in Business and First Class on long distance flights so upgrade if you can. If you can't upgrade, select a window seat so you can pile extra pillows %26amp; blankets against the interior of the cabin to lean against for a bit of extra comfort. A sleep mask (like www.mindfold.com) and earplugs may help you sleep.
You can choose to take something to help you sleep on the plane, but try it first. Many sleep aids can make you groggy long after you need to wake up. I just use asprin.
Speed your body's adjustment to local time by living on the local schedule: Stay awake until local bedtime at your destination and stay in bed until local morning. If you absolutely must take a nap make sure you don't sleep more than 3 hours. Eat meals at the normal local time. And so on.
It still takes me 1 day per hour of time change to fully adjust (a 12 hour time difference takes me almost 2 weeks to get over).Is it true that you suffer more Jetlag when travelling west to east . That is when you loose time.?
Seems to me traveling east gives me the worst jet lag. The 10 hour differance between Vietnam and Seattle time takes me about two weeks to recoupmyspace codes
I felt very less jet lag wnen I went US from India. The jetlag is very severe in the return journey and has taken a week to settle.
Any idea to manage jetlag efficiently.Is it true that you suffer more Jetlag when travelling west to east . That is when you loose time.?
My personal experience is that traveling west to east results in much worse jet lag than east to west.
The time change is part of ';jet lag';, but only part. For example, people experience jet lag when traveling from North America to South America even when they don't change time zones. Dehydration caused by dry air in the cabin is as important as the time change, and dehydration can be cumulative + aggravated by your environment/activities before the flight. Jet lag can be much worse on the return leg of a relatively short trip becuase you never really recovered from the lag incurred on the first leg. It can also be aggravated by what you do between trips.
I have not found anything that eliminates jet lag, but staying hydrated helps reduce it. Water and non-carbonated liquids are best. Avoid drinking a lot of anything with caffine, including colas. Lots of alcohol also aggravates the dehydration and you may have a hangover by the end of the flight.
Sleeping on the flight (even if it isn't very good sleep) also helps. The seats are MUCH, MUCH better in Business and First Class on long distance flights so upgrade if you can. If you can't upgrade, select a window seat so you can pile extra pillows %26amp; blankets against the interior of the cabin to lean against for a bit of extra comfort. A sleep mask (like www.mindfold.com) and earplugs may help you sleep.
You can choose to take something to help you sleep on the plane, but try it first. Many sleep aids can make you groggy long after you need to wake up. I just use asprin.
Speed your body's adjustment to local time by living on the local schedule: Stay awake until local bedtime at your destination and stay in bed until local morning. If you absolutely must take a nap make sure you don't sleep more than 3 hours. Eat meals at the normal local time. And so on.
It still takes me 1 day per hour of time change to fully adjust (a 12 hour time difference takes me almost 2 weeks to get over).Is it true that you suffer more Jetlag when travelling west to east . That is when you loose time.?
Seems to me traveling east gives me the worst jet lag. The 10 hour differance between Vietnam and Seattle time takes me about two weeks to recoup
People from the Middle East get tax breaks in America - True or False?
You always hear about how people from Middle Eastern countries get to live in America for a number of years without paying taxes, and how mad everybody is about it. But in all honesty, I've never seen any actual proof of this supposed wide-spread injustice - It just seems like one of those urban myths. Can anybody provide proof of this other than something you heard from somebody else?People from the Middle East get tax breaks in America - True or False?
I've never heard this one. I do know that after the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01, at least 15,000 Arabs living in the US were rounded up for questioning and for a check on any immigration violations. Those with even technical violations were deported. And, if they hadn't been paying taxes, they would have been thrown in jail before being deported.
Here's an article on this topic:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/鈥?/a>People from the Middle East get tax breaks in America - True or False?
Wrong. I've always understood it in the opposite direction. Americans get tax breaks when they live in the middle east. When I lived in the middle east I did not have to pay income tax or social security.
FALSE omg my parents are from the middle east and everybody pays i live in a community where everybody gots to pay taxes and nobody gets to have a freebie if they from the middleast mexico or europe.
Of course not. Perhaps they get a break from paying taxes in their home countries, and somebody got confused. Why do people believe everything they hear?
I've never heard this one. I do know that after the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01, at least 15,000 Arabs living in the US were rounded up for questioning and for a check on any immigration violations. Those with even technical violations were deported. And, if they hadn't been paying taxes, they would have been thrown in jail before being deported.
Here's an article on this topic:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/鈥?/a>People from the Middle East get tax breaks in America - True or False?
Wrong. I've always understood it in the opposite direction. Americans get tax breaks when they live in the middle east. When I lived in the middle east I did not have to pay income tax or social security.
FALSE omg my parents are from the middle east and everybody pays i live in a community where everybody gots to pay taxes and nobody gets to have a freebie if they from the middleast mexico or europe.
Of course not. Perhaps they get a break from paying taxes in their home countries, and somebody got confused. Why do people believe everything they hear?
Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
I doubt it, that funny. We may should try that here in USA. W might could catch some of them that way.Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
You would have to ask them, but I am guessing no. My brothers best friend was killed in Iraq on Nov. 10th 2005. If they are keeping track there is one right there. I cannot hate them because the same thing we are fighting for in an essence they are fighting for.Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
Yes, it is true that they have a terrorist awards show.
I don't know but i'd bet they would be hosted by Kerry and Murtha, televised by airamerica and made into a handsome commemarative video by Micheal Moore.
no
if so, they should blow that up and get alot of terrorists in one shot.
A scientist which give away nuclear secrets to Iran and elsewhere is honoured by the military regime in Pakistan,and given its highest civil award.He is not being produced for questioning,for the spread of nuclear armaments.WHICH SHOW IS BIGGER THAN THIS FOR WHICH EVEN THE USA,govt. has bowed its head.
first of all its not a gammy its a grammy and second of all dont say those things my husband is from the middle east and we dont appreciate your crticism and racist opinions based on the actions of people who are terrorists not evereyone from the middle east is a terrorist..and its frowned upon by islam.....
They also have a contest going on to see how many of them are killed by American or Israeli invaders.
Another contest for how many missiles land in their living rooms each year.
Another one right here in the USA for how many families are treated poorly by hateful, bigoted Americans?
You would have to ask them, but I am guessing no. My brothers best friend was killed in Iraq on Nov. 10th 2005. If they are keeping track there is one right there. I cannot hate them because the same thing we are fighting for in an essence they are fighting for.Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
Yes, it is true that they have a terrorist awards show.
I don't know but i'd bet they would be hosted by Kerry and Murtha, televised by airamerica and made into a handsome commemarative video by Micheal Moore.
no
if so, they should blow that up and get alot of terrorists in one shot.
A scientist which give away nuclear secrets to Iran and elsewhere is honoured by the military regime in Pakistan,and given its highest civil award.He is not being produced for questioning,for the spread of nuclear armaments.WHICH SHOW IS BIGGER THAN THIS FOR WHICH EVEN THE USA,govt. has bowed its head.
first of all its not a gammy its a grammy and second of all dont say those things my husband is from the middle east and we dont appreciate your crticism and racist opinions based on the actions of people who are terrorists not evereyone from the middle east is a terrorist..and its frowned upon by islam.....
They also have a contest going on to see how many of them are killed by American or Israeli invaders.
Another contest for how many missiles land in their living rooms each year.
Another one right here in the USA for how many families are treated poorly by hateful, bigoted Americans?
Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
I really Really REALLY hope that u r joking %26amp; not that gullible.
But if they had one, that would be great, U.S. could kill thousands of turds w/ one bomb.Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
True fact. And they save a lot of money on the awards. All the winners blew themselves up.Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
Of course not.
i wouldnt put nothing past them, mother fuucckers are crazy
who knows with them people.
Al ja zeera
LOL nah, it's a reality show called Al-Jazeera.
no doubt they celebrate when thy commit crimes against
humanity
Sounds like propaganda to me.
Keep the Americans afraid and they will continue to be sheep.
Its called Bush Bashing
But if they had one, that would be great, U.S. could kill thousands of turds w/ one bomb.Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
True fact. And they save a lot of money on the awards. All the winners blew themselves up.Is it true middle east has terrorist awrds show? like oscar or gammy?
Of course not.
i wouldnt put nothing past them, mother fuucckers are crazy
who knows with them people.
Al ja zeera
LOL nah, it's a reality show called Al-Jazeera.
no doubt they celebrate when thy commit crimes against
humanity
Sounds like propaganda to me.
Keep the Americans afraid and they will continue to be sheep.
Its called Bush Bashing
Is it true the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit doesnt support Australian Govt position?
Not much details here in Australia, is there a web site that can be viewed?Is it true the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit doesnt support Australian Govt position?
I'm not sure of a website you can view in relation to your question, but I wouldn't believe anyone who says the ';Climategate'; emails are nothing to worry about. It's so serious that CRU director Phil Jones has been stood down pending an enquiry and may face criminal charges if it's discovered (as it's believed they will) that raw data was ';adjusted'; to reach a predetermined conclusion.
See this article from the UK Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/gerald…
Some of the many issues that have been discovered through the Climategate email saga is:
* Scientists are paid for government environmental grants only to reach conclusions suggesting climate change is real, very serious and caused predominately by man. If you come up with another theory, you don't get paid. Climate science has become a political issue, and no longer about valid scientific theories. The CRU received research grants of $20 million for their conclusions.
* The East Anglia University CRU deliberately ';bent and distorted'; scientific data before releasing it to many of the world's climate organisations - including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia. Organisations worldwide relied on accurate data from the CRU to come to their conclusions but accuracy was ignored for the political movements benefit.
* The CRU team tampered with the bureaucratic process of the UN and the IPCC to exclude ';inconvenient results'; based on political prejudice.
* The CRU Team re-defined the meaning of ';Peer reviewed'; science to ensure that only those scientists who agreed with their political position on climate change actually had their works published and presented to government leaders and the IPCC.
* They had emailed each other about using a ';trick'; to conceal a decline in paleoclimate temperatures. Email quote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
* They expressed dismay that, contrary to all their predictions, temperatures remained relatively stable for the last 15 years, and even dropped slightly in the last 9 years. Their emails described the difference between their predictions and ';real life'; data was a travesty they couldn't explain which put their whole theory of ';the science is settled'; public statement into serious doubt.
* They interfered with the process of ';peer review'; by leaning on science journals to ensure only their friends would get papers and opinions published - and not the opinions of scientists with an opposing theory. They also mounted a campaign to have a journal's editor removed from his position because he was not prepared to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* The mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via an expensive website they had created.
* Contrary to the rules of open, verifiable science the CRU conspired to conceal and destory computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an external researcher who had good reason to doubt their ';research'; was either honest or competent.
I have the personal belief that it would be a good idea to reduce pollution in the atmosphere if we can, but not because of some flawed, biased science based on taxing the population and installing an unelected and unaccountable global world government. It's amazing just how far this climate change scam has spread!Is it true the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit doesnt support Australian Govt position?
Well the UEA staff were saying privately that they can't understand the meterological data from Australia.
';I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!';
The lack of coherant data doesn't prevent the Australian Bureau of Meteorology from reporting one of the highest levels of global warming in the world.
That's ok, in climate change research garbage in = gospel out.
The conclusion that the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit reached was that global warming/climate change is a real phenomena and that while there is some natural flux in the climate what we are experiencing today is not natural, and is the result of man made pollutants.
You can safely ignore most of the controversy. It all boils down to some scientists in England writing some emails saying that some of the data about global trends poor and thus should be ignored as it would corrupt the overall data.
Who cares about a fraud, peer review wrecking fraud at that.
I'm not sure of a website you can view in relation to your question, but I wouldn't believe anyone who says the ';Climategate'; emails are nothing to worry about. It's so serious that CRU director Phil Jones has been stood down pending an enquiry and may face criminal charges if it's discovered (as it's believed they will) that raw data was ';adjusted'; to reach a predetermined conclusion.
See this article from the UK Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/gerald…
Some of the many issues that have been discovered through the Climategate email saga is:
* Scientists are paid for government environmental grants only to reach conclusions suggesting climate change is real, very serious and caused predominately by man. If you come up with another theory, you don't get paid. Climate science has become a political issue, and no longer about valid scientific theories. The CRU received research grants of $20 million for their conclusions.
* The East Anglia University CRU deliberately ';bent and distorted'; scientific data before releasing it to many of the world's climate organisations - including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia. Organisations worldwide relied on accurate data from the CRU to come to their conclusions but accuracy was ignored for the political movements benefit.
* The CRU team tampered with the bureaucratic process of the UN and the IPCC to exclude ';inconvenient results'; based on political prejudice.
* The CRU Team re-defined the meaning of ';Peer reviewed'; science to ensure that only those scientists who agreed with their political position on climate change actually had their works published and presented to government leaders and the IPCC.
* They had emailed each other about using a ';trick'; to conceal a decline in paleoclimate temperatures. Email quote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
* They expressed dismay that, contrary to all their predictions, temperatures remained relatively stable for the last 15 years, and even dropped slightly in the last 9 years. Their emails described the difference between their predictions and ';real life'; data was a travesty they couldn't explain which put their whole theory of ';the science is settled'; public statement into serious doubt.
* They interfered with the process of ';peer review'; by leaning on science journals to ensure only their friends would get papers and opinions published - and not the opinions of scientists with an opposing theory. They also mounted a campaign to have a journal's editor removed from his position because he was not prepared to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* The mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via an expensive website they had created.
* Contrary to the rules of open, verifiable science the CRU conspired to conceal and destory computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an external researcher who had good reason to doubt their ';research'; was either honest or competent.
I have the personal belief that it would be a good idea to reduce pollution in the atmosphere if we can, but not because of some flawed, biased science based on taxing the population and installing an unelected and unaccountable global world government. It's amazing just how far this climate change scam has spread!Is it true the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit doesnt support Australian Govt position?
Well the UEA staff were saying privately that they can't understand the meterological data from Australia.
';I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!';
The lack of coherant data doesn't prevent the Australian Bureau of Meteorology from reporting one of the highest levels of global warming in the world.
That's ok, in climate change research garbage in = gospel out.
The conclusion that the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit reached was that global warming/climate change is a real phenomena and that while there is some natural flux in the climate what we are experiencing today is not natural, and is the result of man made pollutants.
You can safely ignore most of the controversy. It all boils down to some scientists in England writing some emails saying that some of the data about global trends poor and thus should be ignored as it would corrupt the overall data.
Who cares about a fraud, peer review wrecking fraud at that.
Is it true south east asians have more people with the so called ';double eyelids'; than east asians?
I heard some say they do
others say koreans have plenty of double eye lids
so why do they have double eyelids more than east asians
I know south east asians arnt mixed thoughIs it true south east asians have more people with the so called ';double eyelids'; than east asians?
What's ';double eyelids'; ?Is it true south east asians have more people with the so called ';double eyelids'; than east asians?
Yes, because most Southeast Asian countries are not homogeneous countries... unlike East Asian countries such as Japan and Korea...
鈥?Southeast Asians are a different type of Mongoloids...they are from a different sub-race and are genetically different from the East Asians ie. (Han Chinese)....The Mongoloid race is divided into different sub-races and many ethnic groups...
鈥?Southeast Asian countries are more diverse than East Asian countries...they have Australoid natives and some individuals have Caucasoid admixtures....many Southeast Asian people are hybrids of different races and ethnic groups...
鈥?Though some Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Malaysia are predominantly ';Han Chinese'; which are the same people of East Asia... ';Northern Mongoloids';...
These are some of the reasons why Southeast Asians tend to have ';double eyelids';...Mainly it's because they're different from the East Asians... though some may share some similarities in features...(varying by country)
se asians aren't mixed?? they are extremely mixed between mongoloid, east indians and australoid, learn ur geography.
oh, you said south-east asians. then yeah its true.
yes i see it more often on them
others say koreans have plenty of double eye lids
so why do they have double eyelids more than east asians
I know south east asians arnt mixed thoughIs it true south east asians have more people with the so called ';double eyelids'; than east asians?
What's ';double eyelids'; ?Is it true south east asians have more people with the so called ';double eyelids'; than east asians?
Yes, because most Southeast Asian countries are not homogeneous countries... unlike East Asian countries such as Japan and Korea...
鈥?Southeast Asians are a different type of Mongoloids...they are from a different sub-race and are genetically different from the East Asians ie. (Han Chinese)....The Mongoloid race is divided into different sub-races and many ethnic groups...
鈥?Southeast Asian countries are more diverse than East Asian countries...they have Australoid natives and some individuals have Caucasoid admixtures....many Southeast Asian people are hybrids of different races and ethnic groups...
鈥?Though some Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Malaysia are predominantly ';Han Chinese'; which are the same people of East Asia... ';Northern Mongoloids';...
These are some of the reasons why Southeast Asians tend to have ';double eyelids';...Mainly it's because they're different from the East Asians... though some may share some similarities in features...(varying by country)
se asians aren't mixed?? they are extremely mixed between mongoloid, east indians and australoid, learn ur geography.
oh, you said south-east asians. then yeah its true.
yes i see it more often on them
I heard a report given some time ago that there is another set of planets north east of the sun is this true?
How can anything be north-east of the sun? The sun doesn't really have the normal directions we have and depending where you're looking at it from the sun, it could be north-east, north-west, north. I'm pretty sure this report you heard was full of crap.I heard a report given some time ago that there is another set of planets north east of the sun is this true?
Something can be ';North'; of the Sun but East?, it is a spinning ball, how would one determine East of any round spinning object?I heard a report given some time ago that there is another set of planets north east of the sun is this true?
There are planets in all directions of us.
Hon, there are other galaxies, other sun systems outside of our own. The planets in our system revolve completely around the sun covering all perceived directions, so practically, there would be no planets to the northeast of the sun. There have been some recent discoveries of what they call 'dwarf' planets in our solar system in recent years. It's possible that may be what you are asking about.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/prof鈥?/a>
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/prof鈥?/a>
Various star systems have shown evidence of having planets. As far as direct evidence, at this time our technology will discover only rather massive planets, but yes there are planets orbiting other stars.
Within the solar system, there are eight planets and a few minor planets (the current official term is dwarf planets) of which we know plus a number of moons. The minor planets are mainly in the Kuiper belt which begins at about the orbit of Neptune (30 times as far from the sun as Earth) and extends to a distance of 55 times as far from the sun as is the Earth.
Now for the extrasolar planets or exoplanets, there is a catalog of them. Some of them are relatively small (at least one is 1.9 times the mass of earth orbiting a dim red star every three days) and technology is improving. Some new techniques may be able to detect liquid water.
No. You cannot have a set of planets ';north east'; of the sun, that is impossible. North, East, West, and South deal with directions respective to the Earth. Therefore, how could there possibly be any planet north east of the sun?myspace codes
Something can be ';North'; of the Sun but East?, it is a spinning ball, how would one determine East of any round spinning object?I heard a report given some time ago that there is another set of planets north east of the sun is this true?
There are planets in all directions of us.
Hon, there are other galaxies, other sun systems outside of our own. The planets in our system revolve completely around the sun covering all perceived directions, so practically, there would be no planets to the northeast of the sun. There have been some recent discoveries of what they call 'dwarf' planets in our solar system in recent years. It's possible that may be what you are asking about.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/prof鈥?/a>
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/prof鈥?/a>
Various star systems have shown evidence of having planets. As far as direct evidence, at this time our technology will discover only rather massive planets, but yes there are planets orbiting other stars.
Within the solar system, there are eight planets and a few minor planets (the current official term is dwarf planets) of which we know plus a number of moons. The minor planets are mainly in the Kuiper belt which begins at about the orbit of Neptune (30 times as far from the sun as Earth) and extends to a distance of 55 times as far from the sun as is the Earth.
Now for the extrasolar planets or exoplanets, there is a catalog of them. Some of them are relatively small (at least one is 1.9 times the mass of earth orbiting a dim red star every three days) and technology is improving. Some new techniques may be able to detect liquid water.
No. You cannot have a set of planets ';north east'; of the sun, that is impossible. North, East, West, and South deal with directions respective to the Earth. Therefore, how could there possibly be any planet north east of the sun?
Is it true govt will charge $5 to enter East Coast Park and $3 for child?
Not now! But we won't know in the future, as you know the Singapore's Government can just impose any charges anywhere they like! Just like they put ERP at housing estate, so why not charges at East Coast Park.Is it true govt will charge $5 to enter East Coast Park and $3 for child?
How can that be true when you can enter from any part of the entire East Coast Park? They'd have to fence up the entire Coast if they do that right?Is it true govt will charge $5 to enter East Coast Park and $3 for child?
why will the govt will do that?
It's a public place which should be enjoyed by anyone!
Seriously, why would they? And how would they control this? East Coast is so big, I don't think they can create one gigantic barrier all around it. And let's not forget all the overhead bridges / underpasses to get there. Oh, the food court and bike rentals there - they'll really get a headache if the government were to charge people for 'entering' East Coast.
[p.s.: Is the government really so desperate for money? or is this NParks?]
izit true??
How can that be true when you can enter from any part of the entire East Coast Park? They'd have to fence up the entire Coast if they do that right?Is it true govt will charge $5 to enter East Coast Park and $3 for child?
why will the govt will do that?
It's a public place which should be enjoyed by anyone!
Seriously, why would they? And how would they control this? East Coast is so big, I don't think they can create one gigantic barrier all around it. And let's not forget all the overhead bridges / underpasses to get there. Oh, the food court and bike rentals there - they'll really get a headache if the government were to charge people for 'entering' East Coast.
[p.s.: Is the government really so desperate for money? or is this NParks?]
izit true??
Is it true that AT&T is the only phone company in the middle east that the troops can use to call home?
Not true... there is another phone company and the Service Member can get with their Communications Unit and find this out.. All Battalions have about 5 Satellite Phones per Company.. average 200 U.S. Service Member and they usally let personnel use it from time to time鈥?Depending on the current situation and on what base they are on鈥?but to answer you question that is a no鈥?you are allowed to use phone cards through AT%26amp;T .. HOPE THIS HELPEDIs it true that AT%26amp;T is the only phone company in the middle east that the troops can use to call home?
Many servicemen use phone cards. At%26amp;T may be the only one over there with facilities to call back to the states, but with a phone card it doesn't matter. I don't know if they are the only game in town or not, but it's a good possibility.Is it true that AT%26amp;T is the only phone company in the middle east that the troops can use to call home?
it looks that way
HATE TO SAY THIS SWEETIE BUT YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR AGE ...OR SHOULD I SAY LACK OF IT. BACK IN MY TIME, BY CRACKY, I DIDNT KNOW ANYBODY WHO ACTUALLY TALKED TO SOMEBODY IN THE STATES DURING THEIR ENTIRE TOUR OF DUTY (65,66). COURSE I WAS WAY BACK IN INDIAN COUNTRY SO THAT MAY BE THE REASON. I DONT THINK THE BOYS AND GALS REALLY CARE WHO THEIR PROVIDER IS. THEY ARE JUST TICKLED PINK TO HEAR MA AND PA AND MAYBE THEIR SWEETIE SAY A FEW SWEET WORDS. IN MANY SITUATIONS IT CAN BE A REAL COMFORT OR DISTRACTION DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
Not totally true. They have DSN, and other independant companies as well. AT%26amp;T is the most common.
Depending on which country you are in, T-Mobile and Cingular are the best Cellular companies. Watiniya sucks, but it is better then nothing.
At%26amp;t is not the only provider. Sequvoia is another provider which has popped up where you can buy troops phone cards (rechargable online). On the lighter less commercialized side, there are locals who have calling centers that take cash. Plus there are free phones with time limits at MWR centers. Also, there DSN phones. I've used them all liberally...
877-211-0653
I agree with bionic. I had a T-Mobile cell phone that worked in Kuwait but not in Iraq. I only used that when I couldn't call out on DSN (military phone system) becuase it was around $1 per minute. With DSN I could get to a US number and use a US calling card at the same rate as if it were a domestic call, otherwise a call would eat through a 250 minute phone card in a fraction of that time.
Many servicemen use phone cards. At%26amp;T may be the only one over there with facilities to call back to the states, but with a phone card it doesn't matter. I don't know if they are the only game in town or not, but it's a good possibility.Is it true that AT%26amp;T is the only phone company in the middle east that the troops can use to call home?
it looks that way
HATE TO SAY THIS SWEETIE BUT YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR AGE ...OR SHOULD I SAY LACK OF IT. BACK IN MY TIME, BY CRACKY, I DIDNT KNOW ANYBODY WHO ACTUALLY TALKED TO SOMEBODY IN THE STATES DURING THEIR ENTIRE TOUR OF DUTY (65,66). COURSE I WAS WAY BACK IN INDIAN COUNTRY SO THAT MAY BE THE REASON. I DONT THINK THE BOYS AND GALS REALLY CARE WHO THEIR PROVIDER IS. THEY ARE JUST TICKLED PINK TO HEAR MA AND PA AND MAYBE THEIR SWEETIE SAY A FEW SWEET WORDS. IN MANY SITUATIONS IT CAN BE A REAL COMFORT OR DISTRACTION DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
Not totally true. They have DSN, and other independant companies as well. AT%26amp;T is the most common.
Depending on which country you are in, T-Mobile and Cingular are the best Cellular companies. Watiniya sucks, but it is better then nothing.
At%26amp;t is not the only provider. Sequvoia is another provider which has popped up where you can buy troops phone cards (rechargable online). On the lighter less commercialized side, there are locals who have calling centers that take cash. Plus there are free phones with time limits at MWR centers. Also, there DSN phones. I've used them all liberally...
877-211-0653
I agree with bionic. I had a T-Mobile cell phone that worked in Kuwait but not in Iraq. I only used that when I couldn't call out on DSN (military phone system) becuase it was around $1 per minute. With DSN I could get to a US number and use a US calling card at the same rate as if it were a domestic call, otherwise a call would eat through a 250 minute phone card in a fraction of that time.
Wasn't it true Middle-East had best hygene,medical & astronomers over 200 yrs ago, why are so backwards now??
I thought that when Western Civilization was only bathing maybe once a year , we were still blood-letting %26amp; thought the earth was flat, the Middle-Easterners were bathing regularly, had advanced surgical techniques %26amp; were quite sophisticated in their celestial views. What the heck happened? Every time I view CNN or BBC I see havoc %26amp; bedlam, massive groups of men rhythmically vowing to destroy anyone who speaks of their world in a durogatory way...throngs of women as well as men signing up to blow themselves up for this cause %26amp; promise of eternal bliss. (by the way I'd be very interested to know what the women are told they will be rewarded with in heaven if she does this) I'm saddened that this at one time very progressive society seems to have lost that impetus %26amp; would be gratefull for any links to a fact-based historically logical answer.Wasn't it true Middle-East had best hygene,medical %26amp; astronomers over 200 yrs ago, why are so backwards now??
Thanks to the Mesopotamians, who invented everything from the wheel , to glass, to math, etc.... We Assyrians are the decedents of the Mesopotamians, not the Arabs that live in the Iraq today. Those are descendants of the invading Arabs who wished to convert us to Islam, so my people wished to die, therefore they killed off thousands to millions of Assyrians, forever ended the Assyrian rule of Iraq, our homeland. If the Assyrians (who were the first people to accept Christianity) ruled Iraq/Mesopotamia, the Middle East would be a very different place today.Wasn't it true Middle-East had best hygene,medical %26amp; astronomers over 200 yrs ago, why are so backwards now??
capitalism fked the world...
Of course you will think negatively if they are only showing negative things on the news. I'm sure they still have all of those things...hygiene, medical, astronomers. What you see is NOT how everyone in the whole region thinks.
Thanks to the Mesopotamians, who invented everything from the wheel , to glass, to math, etc.... We Assyrians are the decedents of the Mesopotamians, not the Arabs that live in the Iraq today. Those are descendants of the invading Arabs who wished to convert us to Islam, so my people wished to die, therefore they killed off thousands to millions of Assyrians, forever ended the Assyrian rule of Iraq, our homeland. If the Assyrians (who were the first people to accept Christianity) ruled Iraq/Mesopotamia, the Middle East would be a very different place today.Wasn't it true Middle-East had best hygene,medical %26amp; astronomers over 200 yrs ago, why are so backwards now??
capitalism fked the world...
Of course you will think negatively if they are only showing negative things on the news. I'm sure they still have all of those things...hygiene, medical, astronomers. What you see is NOT how everyone in the whole region thinks.
Is it true that East indians...?
East Indians invented flats, and skirts with leggings (or just skirts and just leggings)?Is it true that East indians...?
skirts with leggings resemble the shalwar kameez that indo/pak women wear.
and flats are more popular in that part of the world than heels.
As for them inventing it, I dunno, but their traditional attire seems to have influenced these styles, greatly.
im sure some western fashion designer borrowed these concepts, and voila, comfortable, practical western clothing was born :)
skirts with leggings resemble the shalwar kameez that indo/pak women wear.
and flats are more popular in that part of the world than heels.
As for them inventing it, I dunno, but their traditional attire seems to have influenced these styles, greatly.
im sure some western fashion designer borrowed these concepts, and voila, comfortable, practical western clothing was born :)
Is the statement I'm about to say about war in the mid-east true or false(see below)?
the reason it has become harder for us to fight a war is because Few actual governments are fighting us.Instead we faced with small groups of people who hit and run hiding within the civilian population and wearing the same closes as they do.our government is built to fight governments not civilians. we want to face governments that keep their civilian population as far away from the front lines as possible. To protect them from harm not use them as hostages without them even knowing it.governments that have fixed BOOs(base of operation) and leaders who care of their people %26amp; doing whats right for them more then the leaders themselves.I'm saying this because I saw a documentary that with each war America enters more civilians die.That didn't set well with me and as I started thinking about it this popped in my mind.Am I being to simple minded in my thinking or am I right?I hope nobody is offended by what I have wrote and if you think I'm just a other right-wind American nut job I understand.I have never been a soldier or been in war so I don't know if I should be making such a statement.If your from the mid-east and want to call me a simpleton Then do it I will not be mad or hate you.I guess your smarter then me.I just want to know if I'm right or wrong.if U think I'm wrong tell me why %26amp; help me learn the true but if I'm right how come I don't hear people saying this?I'm so sorry if I offended anyone I just want to know if what I stated was true or not?Thank you for reading this and may god bless you.Hope to hear your comments.Is the statement I'm about to say about war in the mid-east true or false(see below)?
I believe what you are saying may be true. Kinda hard to understand. We are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq and not necessarily the people or government. These freedom fighters or what every they are called stir up conflict in other cultures. They are light sewer rats and travel from site to site. They can stir up the general public and promote further conflict.
I believe what you are saying may be true. Kinda hard to understand. We are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq and not necessarily the people or government. These freedom fighters or what every they are called stir up conflict in other cultures. They are light sewer rats and travel from site to site. They can stir up the general public and promote further conflict.
Is the statement I'm about to say about war in the mid-east true or false(see below)?
the reason it has become harder for us to fight a war is because Few actual governments are fighting us.Instead we faced with small groups of people who hit and run hiding within the civilian population and wearing the same closes as they do.our government is built to fight governments not civilians. we want to face governments that keep their civilian population as far away from the front lines as possible. To protect them from harm not use them as hostages without them even knowing it.governments that have fixed BOOs(base of operation) and leaders who care of their people %26amp; doing whats right for them more then the leaders themselves.I'm saying this because I saw a documentary that with each war America enters more civilians die.That didn't set well with me and as I started thinking about it this popped in my mind.Am I being to simple minded in my thinking or am I right?I hope nobody is offended by what I have wrote and if you think I'm just a other right-wind American nut job I understand.I have never been a soldier or been in war so I don't know if I should be making such a statement.If your from the mid-east and want to call me a simpleton Then do it I will not be mad or hate you.I guess your smarter then me.I just want to know if I'm right or wrong.if U think I'm wrong tell me why %26amp; help me learn the true but if I'm right how come I don't hear people saying this?I'm so sorry if I offended anyone I just want to know if what I stated was true or not?Thank you for reading this and may god bless you.Hope to hear your comments.Is the statement I'm about to say about war in the mid-east true or false(see below)?
I believe what you are saying may be true. Kinda hard to understand. We are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq and not necessarily the people or government. These freedom fighters or what every they are called stir up conflict in other cultures. They are light sewer rats and travel from site to site. They can stir up the general public and promote further conflict.myspace codes
I believe what you are saying may be true. Kinda hard to understand. We are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq and not necessarily the people or government. These freedom fighters or what every they are called stir up conflict in other cultures. They are light sewer rats and travel from site to site. They can stir up the general public and promote further conflict.
Is this true ';you can always find East by staring directly at the sun';?
Not correct.
The sun rises in the eastern part of the sky, though not necessarily at a point due east of you. But the sun passes across the sky during the day, and does not remain in the east.
You can find east during the day if the sun is visible and you have an analog clock or wristwatch. Point the hour hand at the sun, and south is halfway between the hour hand and 12:00 on the clock face. Then just remember that east is 90 degrees from south, and there it is.Is this true ';you can always find East by staring directly at the sun';?
Blindness more likely!
The sun is in different parts of the sky depending on time and your position on the globe. So..no, not necessarily.Is this true ';you can always find East by staring directly at the sun';?
Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Not always.
Not true.
The sun rises in the eastern part of the sky, though not necessarily at a point due east of you. But the sun passes across the sky during the day, and does not remain in the east.
You can find east during the day if the sun is visible and you have an analog clock or wristwatch. Point the hour hand at the sun, and south is halfway between the hour hand and 12:00 on the clock face. Then just remember that east is 90 degrees from south, and there it is.Is this true ';you can always find East by staring directly at the sun';?
Blindness more likely!
The sun is in different parts of the sky depending on time and your position on the globe. So..no, not necessarily.Is this true ';you can always find East by staring directly at the sun';?
Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Not always.
Not true.
Is it true that its common for cousins in the middle east to marry?
im not middle eastern and this has nothing to do withmy life.
but is it common?Is it true that its common for cousins in the middle east to marry?
No, but it's not outlawed in many countries in the Middle East. Doctors have said that there is very little risk of mutation or mental illness in children born to cousins. The risk is high only if their parents married their own cousins, and so on. So ethnocentric views on it being considered a cause for any disorder isn't really based on fact.Is it true that its common for cousins in the middle east to marry?
yes, very much, it's ok in islam. it's most common in rural areas to keep the land and wealth in the family. actually it's a traditional saying that a cousin can let his cousin step down from a horse, that means if a woman is going to get married and it's her wedding day, and she's on horse taking her to her yet to be husband house, her cousin can stop the marriage by saying that he will marry her instead.
it was hard for me to stop my father from annoying me, that i should marry one of my cosins, i feel them like my sisters!
In small villages, 2nd cousins marry occasionally. In urban areas it is rare. I don't think it is actually ';common'; anywhere.
I sure hope not, and ignore the gy above me. I heard he sells it on the weekends in common crack houses along the jersey shore. So sad
Not sure. But it was common for European royalty to marry cousins. In fact, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip are distant cousins.
its also common for cousin in puerto rico to marry. its a sweet isalnd to live in. ay dios mio
HOW DARE YOU!!!???!!! Trying to bring shame on the Holy Middle East! Almighty Allah has stated that the Muslim Man can marry whoever he likes!!!! If you realised how close i am to declaring Jihad then you would be RUNNING away from your computer screen! Now RUN KUFFAR RUN!!!! Before i make you my Concubine, and make you shine my hook!
but is it common?Is it true that its common for cousins in the middle east to marry?
No, but it's not outlawed in many countries in the Middle East. Doctors have said that there is very little risk of mutation or mental illness in children born to cousins. The risk is high only if their parents married their own cousins, and so on. So ethnocentric views on it being considered a cause for any disorder isn't really based on fact.Is it true that its common for cousins in the middle east to marry?
yes, very much, it's ok in islam. it's most common in rural areas to keep the land and wealth in the family. actually it's a traditional saying that a cousin can let his cousin step down from a horse, that means if a woman is going to get married and it's her wedding day, and she's on horse taking her to her yet to be husband house, her cousin can stop the marriage by saying that he will marry her instead.
it was hard for me to stop my father from annoying me, that i should marry one of my cosins, i feel them like my sisters!
In small villages, 2nd cousins marry occasionally. In urban areas it is rare. I don't think it is actually ';common'; anywhere.
I sure hope not, and ignore the gy above me. I heard he sells it on the weekends in common crack houses along the jersey shore. So sad
Not sure. But it was common for European royalty to marry cousins. In fact, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip are distant cousins.
its also common for cousin in puerto rico to marry. its a sweet isalnd to live in. ay dios mio
HOW DARE YOU!!!???!!! Trying to bring shame on the Holy Middle East! Almighty Allah has stated that the Muslim Man can marry whoever he likes!!!! If you realised how close i am to declaring Jihad then you would be RUNNING away from your computer screen! Now RUN KUFFAR RUN!!!! Before i make you my Concubine, and make you shine my hook!
Is anyone out there correctly informed and aware of the true reasons for the world war in the Middle East?
You mean the precursor to WWIII,and yes,some of us are.Far more about realigning nations for the Fascist New World Order than about oil or graft.Is anyone out there correctly informed and aware of the true reasons for the world war in the Middle East?
World war in the Middle East ?. The middle East is only a small part of the world. Do you mean Iraq, Iran, Israel or Palestine. I think that militants are trying to take power in Iraq and that Palestine want all the land back that the Israelis stole. There are many other reasons but it would take hours no days to write them all down hereIs anyone out there correctly informed and aware of the true reasons for the world war in the Middle East?
Islamist imperialism, of course.
Yes, its to steal as much oil as possible without paying for it.
Yes. Bush needed a cash cow for Halliburton and created this phony war at the cost of thousands of innocent lives and several hundred billion dollars; Halliburton also got away with refusing an IRS audit. This administration is the real domestic terrorist gang and they sit on their fat white asses in the White House counting all OUR money. God knows it isn;t going to the troops who fight with sub standard equipment and have to rely on family members to send them basic protective gear. God has to forgive them, I cannot.
you bet ye we are.
As they say follow the money ! That that is going in as well as what is going out. You find all the reasons for it.
There is no world war yet. Just wait. You haven't seen anything yet!!!!!!!
World war in the Middle East ?. The middle East is only a small part of the world. Do you mean Iraq, Iran, Israel or Palestine. I think that militants are trying to take power in Iraq and that Palestine want all the land back that the Israelis stole. There are many other reasons but it would take hours no days to write them all down hereIs anyone out there correctly informed and aware of the true reasons for the world war in the Middle East?
Islamist imperialism, of course.
Yes, its to steal as much oil as possible without paying for it.
Yes. Bush needed a cash cow for Halliburton and created this phony war at the cost of thousands of innocent lives and several hundred billion dollars; Halliburton also got away with refusing an IRS audit. This administration is the real domestic terrorist gang and they sit on their fat white asses in the White House counting all OUR money. God knows it isn;t going to the troops who fight with sub standard equipment and have to rely on family members to send them basic protective gear. God has to forgive them, I cannot.
you bet ye we are.
As they say follow the money ! That that is going in as well as what is going out. You find all the reasons for it.
There is no world war yet. Just wait. You haven't seen anything yet!!!!!!!
Is it true that the sun rises in the east, and sets on the west?
is it true...
my dad told me that the sun rises in the east, and sets on the west...Is it true that the sun rises in the east, and sets on the west?
Yes. That's why any eastern country will always be ahead in time, some by a couple of hours some by almost a day. Anything east of you will be ahead of time.Is it true that the sun rises in the east, and sets on the west?
Yes I live in the Philippines and the Sun rises here before my folks who livew in Buffalo , New York ...
Yes every day.
That's true for any planet in the solar system except Venus, which spins the other way.
yes
Yes it's true.
yes
Sort of. Sometimes. Because of the rotation of the Earth the Sun has an apparent motion in our sky.
At the equinoxes the Sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west. At other times of the year the Sun will appear to rise somewhat north or south of due east and set somewhat north or south of due west.
The amount of variation depends on the time of year (Being greatest at the solstices) and on latitude (Being greater the further one travels from the Equator.)
At the extremes the Sun can rise and set due directly to the south (north of the Arctic circle) or directly to the north (south of the Antarctic circle)
Yes!!!!!
my dad told me that the sun rises in the east, and sets on the west...Is it true that the sun rises in the east, and sets on the west?
Yes. That's why any eastern country will always be ahead in time, some by a couple of hours some by almost a day. Anything east of you will be ahead of time.Is it true that the sun rises in the east, and sets on the west?
Yes I live in the Philippines and the Sun rises here before my folks who livew in Buffalo , New York ...
Report Abuse
Yes every day.
That's true for any planet in the solar system except Venus, which spins the other way.
yes
Yes it's true.
yes
Sort of. Sometimes. Because of the rotation of the Earth the Sun has an apparent motion in our sky.
At the equinoxes the Sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west. At other times of the year the Sun will appear to rise somewhat north or south of due east and set somewhat north or south of due west.
The amount of variation depends on the time of year (Being greatest at the solstices) and on latitude (Being greater the further one travels from the Equator.)
At the extremes the Sun can rise and set due directly to the south (north of the Arctic circle) or directly to the north (south of the Antarctic circle)
Yes!!!!!
Is the John Steinbeck novel, East of Eden, a true story?
No, but some of the Hamiltons were characters based on his grandfather's maternal relatives.Is the John Steinbeck novel, East of Eden, a true story?
According to Wikipedia, it was based on reality, but not a completely true story. He based one character on himself early in the novel and the Hamiltons were based on his maternal grandfather's family.
That doesn't mean that everything in the novel happened or that it's an actual account of events. He just chose to use things he was familiar with as a platform for a story he created.
According to Wikipedia, it was based on reality, but not a completely true story. He based one character on himself early in the novel and the Hamiltons were based on his maternal grandfather's family.
That doesn't mean that everything in the novel happened or that it's an actual account of events. He just chose to use things he was familiar with as a platform for a story he created.
Is it true that the Alaska oil reserves hold more oil than the middle east and the world?
No, it is not trueIs it true that the Alaska oil reserves hold more oil than the middle east and the world?
Nope. And what's important is that it's getting harder to find new reserves. That means we ARE running out, although it'll be awhile before it's gone. That second half will also be harder to get to. This is why it is so important to replace oil within the next few decades. And it's NOT impossible. Search the Internet for alternatives. They ARE out there, whether they're electric, hydrogen, air pressure, zero point power, or other exotic means. Don't wait for the technology to show up at Wal Mart. That will never happen. Get the information, and build something yourself, or find someone locally who has. It's the only way mankind can free themselves from the yoke we all wear.Is it true that the Alaska oil reserves hold more oil than the middle east and the world?
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4
12. China 18.3
13. Qatar 15.2
14. Mexico 12.9
15. Algeria 11.4
16. Brazil 11.2
17. Kazakhstan 9.0
18. Norway 7.7
19. Azerbaijan 7.0
20. India 5.8
Top 20 countries 90.2
Rest of world 68.1
World total 1,292.5
No.. that is not true.. It does hold a lot but the Liberals in the U.%26gt;S. Goverment will not allow us to mine it
i would doubt it because otherwise we would be drilling there instead of the middle east.
While there is an abundance there, the democrats don't want us to drill there because of the habitat, you know ,the animals..
So we just keep paying the huge prices that the arabs want.........Seriously ask a democrat his opinion on oil in Alaska..That will be your answer...go figure....They just don't care because a republican had the idea first...........
The estimates of the oil there put the value of the entire oilfield at 10% of the US' annual consumption.
Mind you it isn't the annual production of the field I'm talking about I mean if you could get it all out of the ground and refined at once it would only cover one tenth of the annual usage.
Trying to open up the ANWAR reserve to drilling isn't about fostering American energy independence, it's a republican gift to their friends in the oil industry. You and I won't be helped in the least by it.myspace codes
Nope. And what's important is that it's getting harder to find new reserves. That means we ARE running out, although it'll be awhile before it's gone. That second half will also be harder to get to. This is why it is so important to replace oil within the next few decades. And it's NOT impossible. Search the Internet for alternatives. They ARE out there, whether they're electric, hydrogen, air pressure, zero point power, or other exotic means. Don't wait for the technology to show up at Wal Mart. That will never happen. Get the information, and build something yourself, or find someone locally who has. It's the only way mankind can free themselves from the yoke we all wear.Is it true that the Alaska oil reserves hold more oil than the middle east and the world?
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4
12. China 18.3
13. Qatar 15.2
14. Mexico 12.9
15. Algeria 11.4
16. Brazil 11.2
17. Kazakhstan 9.0
18. Norway 7.7
19. Azerbaijan 7.0
20. India 5.8
Top 20 countries 90.2
Rest of world 68.1
World total 1,292.5
No.. that is not true.. It does hold a lot but the Liberals in the U.%26gt;S. Goverment will not allow us to mine it
i would doubt it because otherwise we would be drilling there instead of the middle east.
While there is an abundance there, the democrats don't want us to drill there because of the habitat, you know ,the animals..
So we just keep paying the huge prices that the arabs want.........Seriously ask a democrat his opinion on oil in Alaska..That will be your answer...go figure....They just don't care because a republican had the idea first...........
The estimates of the oil there put the value of the entire oilfield at 10% of the US' annual consumption.
Mind you it isn't the annual production of the field I'm talking about I mean if you could get it all out of the ground and refined at once it would only cover one tenth of the annual usage.
Trying to open up the ANWAR reserve to drilling isn't about fostering American energy independence, it's a republican gift to their friends in the oil industry. You and I won't be helped in the least by it.
Is it true that American workers who go to the Middle East for work get paid well?
Americans or Westerners in general receive a higher pay than their counterparts of the Indian Subcontinent, Asia or Africa. That's just due to the fact that education in the West is still considered better and living standards/costs are higher in the West than in other countries.
But - this applies for employees or specialists and not to a regular worker (like construction worker, workers in the hospitality etc.) These low paid jobs are taking by Indians, Asians etc.
This answer is not meant to discriminate any nationality, it's just a fact.
Take care.
@Lucky Star: the USD rate got nothing to do with it at all. The USD is pegged to the AED and doesn't change.Is it true that American workers who go to the Middle East for work get paid well?
Yes its ture
Because the Dollar rate is high compare to Dubai Dirhams that the main reason
1 American Dollar = 3.69 Dubai UAE Dhs
Good luckIs it true that American workers who go to the Middle East for work get paid well?
sure thy get more than any one and has especial treatment,as thy has great support from thir empassy thir
uhh not really
Yes, just google some websites and the money is said to be tax free !!!
But - this applies for employees or specialists and not to a regular worker (like construction worker, workers in the hospitality etc.) These low paid jobs are taking by Indians, Asians etc.
This answer is not meant to discriminate any nationality, it's just a fact.
Take care.
@Lucky Star: the USD rate got nothing to do with it at all. The USD is pegged to the AED and doesn't change.Is it true that American workers who go to the Middle East for work get paid well?
Yes its ture
Because the Dollar rate is high compare to Dubai Dirhams that the main reason
1 American Dollar = 3.69 Dubai UAE Dhs
Good luckIs it true that American workers who go to the Middle East for work get paid well?
sure thy get more than any one and has especial treatment,as thy has great support from thir empassy thir
uhh not really
Yes, just google some websites and the money is said to be tax free !!!
Is it true that some of the East coast native Americans had grey and blue eyes?
When the Europeans arrived on the Mayflower.
I've also seen the odd reference to fair haired Eskimos and native South Americans. Can anyone provide me with info and non-wiki links?
I also had an afrocentrist claim that you get red haired sub Saharan Africans. Is it true?
I'm not a white supremacist nut, I'm into anthropolgy.Is it true that some of the East coast native Americans had grey and blue eyes?
i've seen redheaded african people on tv before. i don't remember exactly where in africa they were from, but i remember seeing it and thinking it was odd. i found out later that particular feature isn't so uncommon among certain ethnic groups in africa. as far as the eskimos go, i also watched a documentary on the ancient ''amazons'' of greek legend. bare with me... they talked about how some of the russian (?) tribes had mixed in with mongolians, so even though it's rare, some mongolians have blue eyes because of that mixed ancestry. eskimos migrated to the great white north from asia, and where they are now really isn't far at all from siberia, so it's not unlikely that some of them would have light hair. the east coast indians... we know now that the vikings were in newfoundland LONG before the mayflower arrived, and even then, people had been steadily coming here from europe for more than a hundred years before the pilgrims got here, so i wouldn't say the possibility of an algonquin here and there having blue eyes is completely out of the picture. i also remember hearing something about archaeologists finding a greek sword in south america once, which would lead one to believe that maybe a greek ship was somehow blown off course, and ended up a looooooong way from home. so i suppose that could account for your fair haired south american indians. if i remember right, the show about the amazons and the mongolians said that although it's rare, caucasian features could still be seen 15 or 20 generations after being mixed in with another race. seeing the blue eyed, blonde mongolian girl in that documentary was something i won't soon forget.Is it true that some of the East coast native Americans had grey and blue eyes?
yes I think it would be possible - especially since supposedly vikings from norway came over way before columbus
I've never heard about or seen any Native American from any part of the continent that had fair skin, hair or eyes. I have no idea where did you take it from.
All people are unique and everything works in a unique manner for different peoples. In Europe it is rather rare for some one to have very dark eyes while among black Africans blue eyes are an expression of partial albinism/ocular albinism.
About fifty years before the mayflower arrived, the colony at Roanoke was established, and then abandoned. Perhaps the blue eyed Indians are their decedents.
I don't know about that but I have heard that the Vikings actually got to America before Columbus
Also I remember seeing something on the News about the Chinese
Apparently a map was found in the English National Library in London which is one of the oldest in the world and it has both America and Australia on it
So was made before our European ones showing America and Australia
In other words did the Chinese find America and Australia before we did!!
I've also seen the odd reference to fair haired Eskimos and native South Americans. Can anyone provide me with info and non-wiki links?
I also had an afrocentrist claim that you get red haired sub Saharan Africans. Is it true?
I'm not a white supremacist nut, I'm into anthropolgy.Is it true that some of the East coast native Americans had grey and blue eyes?
i've seen redheaded african people on tv before. i don't remember exactly where in africa they were from, but i remember seeing it and thinking it was odd. i found out later that particular feature isn't so uncommon among certain ethnic groups in africa. as far as the eskimos go, i also watched a documentary on the ancient ''amazons'' of greek legend. bare with me... they talked about how some of the russian (?) tribes had mixed in with mongolians, so even though it's rare, some mongolians have blue eyes because of that mixed ancestry. eskimos migrated to the great white north from asia, and where they are now really isn't far at all from siberia, so it's not unlikely that some of them would have light hair. the east coast indians... we know now that the vikings were in newfoundland LONG before the mayflower arrived, and even then, people had been steadily coming here from europe for more than a hundred years before the pilgrims got here, so i wouldn't say the possibility of an algonquin here and there having blue eyes is completely out of the picture. i also remember hearing something about archaeologists finding a greek sword in south america once, which would lead one to believe that maybe a greek ship was somehow blown off course, and ended up a looooooong way from home. so i suppose that could account for your fair haired south american indians. if i remember right, the show about the amazons and the mongolians said that although it's rare, caucasian features could still be seen 15 or 20 generations after being mixed in with another race. seeing the blue eyed, blonde mongolian girl in that documentary was something i won't soon forget.Is it true that some of the East coast native Americans had grey and blue eyes?
yes I think it would be possible - especially since supposedly vikings from norway came over way before columbus
I've never heard about or seen any Native American from any part of the continent that had fair skin, hair or eyes. I have no idea where did you take it from.
All people are unique and everything works in a unique manner for different peoples. In Europe it is rather rare for some one to have very dark eyes while among black Africans blue eyes are an expression of partial albinism/ocular albinism.
About fifty years before the mayflower arrived, the colony at Roanoke was established, and then abandoned. Perhaps the blue eyed Indians are their decedents.
I don't know about that but I have heard that the Vikings actually got to America before Columbus
Also I remember seeing something on the News about the Chinese
Apparently a map was found in the English National Library in London which is one of the oldest in the world and it has both America and Australia on it
So was made before our European ones showing America and Australia
In other words did the Chinese find America and Australia before we did!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)