HappyHerring

The purpose of arranged marriage has always been about the relationships between families and branches of families rather than the individuals being married. There are numerous studies reflecting on the practice, we see it reflected as far back as classical Greece. The need to trade wealth and status and favours between branches of family ensure that the cultural practices have a big stake for the participants. The costs apart from what is in many cases a life of misery for all involved can mean generation after generation of close cousins marrying each other and producing levels of inbreeding and deformity above and beyond any found in European royalty. A case in point in the U.K. where Pakistanis following such cultural traits are reported to have five times the level of birth deformities above other elements of the population! :facepalm:

I'm desperately concerned, I envision the tedium of bits of fluff reporting on news channels and I have even more reason than ever to avoid the channel filling gunk which qualifies for magazine tv. Also, I'm debating whether to have any sympathy for anyone who decides to dispose of worldly goods, end relationships or give people a bit of their mind due to the fact that the apocalypse means there will be no comeback... actually thinking about it .........:whistling:

Other Greeks viewed the Spartiates as cool, the Samurai viewed themselves as cool. Most cool people I've seen wouldn't lift a finger to save a life as it would look as if they cared about a thing other than they're image. To View yourself as being above others and cultivating a sense of detatchment from people, objects or ideas which do not actively promote your vanity does not seem a tempting approach to life to me. If being uncool is caring then I'm happy to separate myself from the sociopaths and egoists.

The fact is, I don't support autocrat regimes, I support iron law, that is just one of the many segments in one regime. I wouldn't kill my political opponents if I were a ruler, nor I would put them in prison or have them expelled from the country. If people aren't satisfied with my rule, I would step down, without waiting for elections to take care of me. But if a mass gathers and wants your head for no reason, calling their meeting a peaceful revolution, then I would act seriously. No killing innocents or killing at all if it is not needed, such rigorous ways are the last option in dealing with those kind of situations. Why would anyone kill people if not provoked and pushed over the limit with a situation which is life threatening? I'd sent some serious police force and impose some discipline, until we sit down and to resolve the situation peacefully. And yes, Serbs were massacred in Vojvodina. By a foreign <<<<< force, not internal one. They were killed on direct order of Hitler and the rest of Axis gang. They were killed in ways beyond a nightmare. Gaddafi didn't threw his people in a frozen river, nor he made them to swallow rusty nails, neither called on a mass rape or killing little kids with hammers, for no reason. He didn't kill 70 000 people for his own amusement. He is fighting a war over there, and in war, people die. On both sides. They die from bullets , shells, mines, etc. They don't have to torture each other just to be dead, they shoot on each other , simple as that. He did a fair game tonight. Offered the rebels to leave the country in peace. And I do believe that many of them will leave their strongholds without worrying about their lives. He could have call upon a total extermination, but he didn't. That makes him different then the dictators you think he is connected with. Describing like you do, I imagine someone like Pol Pot, not Gaddafi. And there is a huuuuge difference between the two. Libyan war is over tomorrow, hopefully, and I do hope that people will walk Libya freely again and to work their jobs and spend time with families. It is a long road to recover, but it can be done with a good will and dedication . Moranda He's fighting a war against his own people, he's killing them so he can cling on to power. The term "Despot" fits him prefectly. I feel sorry for those who stood up to him, no doubt they will soon be disappeared. Actually, rebels fired a first shot and police responded with force, then rebels started to rob the stores and to steal weaponry from the police stations and army bases, with many of them being armed already. 'Despot' is not a term, it is a title of a ruler in Byzantine Empire and Serbian Empire from medieval times. It defines someone who is a huge land owner, not a dictator or an autocrat. I must admit that I have always found the Russian sponsored idea of pan slavic solidarity odd when I look at how historically they have suppressed the desires of other slavic peoples. How would you decide that you were past the point where your rule was effective or just if you not only refused to listen to the point of views of your opponents but were prepared to put them into prison purely due to the fact that they opposed you. I would so much love to think that you were joking with us, but having seen some views expressed by contributors from the balkans and Turkey contributors in different forums, I have to say that I think that at best the Libyans and Serbs are misinformed or the west in general is wrongly informed . Considering the amount of venom I have seen I from the denizens of the balkans and anatolia in different forums I have to say I have my opinion and it has not been modified by your contributions to this topic.

This argument is applicable to any nation which has significant economic and or political influence throughout the world. If they stop to think for a few moments most people in the west would agree that the Chinese sytem of governance and the conditions of the Chinese workers are appalling, so why aren't we intervening there? Apart from war and a complete collapse of the current economic system in the world what do we have to loose? Throughout the world there are many states whom we find objectionable, should we act on our consciences and destroy our economic sytem for those consciences? In the seventies we had vast increases in the costs of petroleum derived products in part due to American 'interference' in the middle east, we still live with the results even now. To those who argue that maybe the quick ending of our dependence of oil would be worth the dislocation I would ask how in the time between such chaos and viable non internal combution transport and electrical production would we transport our food and heat and light our hospitals? Just as the oil hikes of the seventies promoted a temporary and token attempt to move toward other energy sources so would our pious attempts at regulating the affairs of other nations produce platitudes and small budget increases for R&D departments. We would still be dependent on the unsavoury successors to the unsavoury people we removed and would have also caused catastrophic reduction in our own nations' economic viability and political standing in the world communtity, that is unless we were to do away with the equal rights of poorer and third world nations in world discourse. So would could end up a few decades down the line with the very neocolonialist system so many argue exists today :sad: The problem of having to appeal to dictators could be solved by making efforts to use alternative fuel sources. I believe with current technology, it is more than feasible to develop cars that run off very, very cheap sources of energy, but we are at the mercy of the people with the money, and the people with the money would rather us be slaves to an energy supply that they control and profit from. This is what is hindering technological innovation, not the lack of smart people to develop the technology. If all the sudden cars could run on lets say, water, it would create a vacuum in the market where a once multi-billion dollar industry used to be, that hired 10s of thousands of people. As long as there is a supply of oil to sell, it will be used as a fuel source for cars, and we will be at the whim of the people who control the supply and those who speculate the market. It is feasible to use water as a fuel source, if an efficient process was created to turn water into hydrogen, which is highly combustible: http://www.ehow.com/...r-hydrogen.html This technology applied to automobiles would put the dictators out of business, but it would also put service stations out of business, and also a multi-billion dollar industry out of business, and millions of people around the world out of work. If we find a cheap way to crack water to liberate the hydrogen (where would the electricity come from?) and develop the vehicles and generators to run on it then who would be in the best place to profit from the process? Yes the massive companies which control so many production and distribution processes are very conservative but I think that if someone else came up with a means and they could rely on government tax incentives then they would jump for it. By the way cheap is relative, how long before the differential on taxes for hydrogen matched and surpassed petroleum, not long is my guess. Multi nationals and governments both want our cash and each would benefit from the investment to embrace the new technology. Unfortunately I suspect that by the time such technology were widespread the oil producing countries would be well past the production available today and so the net result for them would be increasing, relative, poverty and impotence which would feed into the continuance of the misery of today.

The Persians stole from the Lydians, the Greeks stole from the Persians, the Romans stole from the Greeks, the Germanic and asian barbarians stole from the Romans. Wherever we look there are cultural artifacts which could only exist through those thefts. Should modern Greeks feel guilty for the desecration of the Achamaenid empire and the wholesale looting of incredible amounts of gold, silver etc? Where does guilt end, should the modern Greek state or the modern British state feel obliged to expiate the sins of people who are either long dead or in old age. People should be responsible for their own actions and take blame for what they do. If I had voted tory this time or New Labour last time then I would have some real responsibility for my government's actions. History is as broad a subject as there are historians and and we should each look into history as we wish, from what I can see setting an agenda for one group or race's history is just another way for somewhat untalented bureaucrats and historians to ensure that they have a consistent source of expenses and kudos. Oh Ginnyfizz I don't know if you recall but during the nineties the NME equated Welsh pride with fascism, ironic isn't it that the most neglected people of the UK get clobbered as soon as they get uppity and raise their heads above the parapet :biggrin:

Personally I'm a touch dubious about the country music but this site is a broad church. Good fortune in life and enjoy yourself here. :thumbsup:

Hiya, have fun and stay legal & you are bound to enjoy yourself here. I look forward to meeting you in the forums and if you post any pics or mods.:biggrin: