Hello,
in fact similar policy was in place by Ottoman Empire (aka proto Turkey). By law only muslims could bear arms. The result of protracted warfare was depleted numbers of fighting age muslim men in face of growing minorities. And unrest. In fact, it is one of major reasons why Ottomans collapsed at the turn of 20th century. There simply lacked numbers of (loyal) men to keep non-muslim (almost majority) in line.
That is factually incorrect. The Ottomans stole large numbers of young people from the Christian ethnic groups (Slavs, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians.etc). Most of the males were forced to join the Janissary corps (which acted as cannon fodder during the wars) after forced conversion to Islam. The females and some of the males were relegated to the status of sex slaves, and shipped off to the harems in Anatolia. Good point, sir. BUT that is different time period  jannisaries were thing of medieval times, when empire was still growing. In similar way Romans used defeated tribes as auxilliaries to boost and diversify its own (primarily heavy infantry) force. By the time of late 19th century, jannissaries actually turned into sort of corrupt military aristocracy (mirroring earlier develepments in pretorian guard of Rome) and had to be disbanded by force in favour of modern conscript army. Yet, that new conscript army, even though more effective than ancient medieval one, had to rely on patriotic people of the country. Which is next to impossible in multicultural society which is at war with itself. In every engagement there after, bulk of casaulties was taken by sunni muslim Turk/Azeri and Kurdish troops, while people of Greek, Armenian etc. descent were ignored for doubts about their loyalty. Turning demographic tide against majority population piece by piece. You could say, that diverse society is good servant, but bad master. EDIT: Look here at "disbandment". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries |
|
|
|
Nothing to do with blacks it's the weather that made white people more intelligent?.. The need to keep warm makes one really think?.. The jungle take a stroll and walk around naked and hunt food.. Cold hurry up i am freezing my bollocks off need to make clothes heating and so on .. It doesnt work that way, mate. Cold and humid weather will simply kill you or should I say: Cleanse you from gene pool. Only those that thought of keeping warm and storing food before said cold and humid weather came around, stayed to make kids. This would accumulate over the generations. Add in the fact, that Euroasia was for millenia really bad place for crops such as vegetables and fruit, thus orienting survivors towards protein rich, meat based diet (brain development is all about proteins). Over the millenia this would make quite an impact on cognitive abilities of isolated populations. So, yeah. Weather... |
|
|
|
Considering the military and political situation in the region decisions such as this did not surprise me.Every country that relies on the fact that someone else will defend its borders in case of war for me is a stupid country.We all know what is happening in war and how weak and poorly defended countries finish at the end.
Every country should have mandatory military service,but many stop with that practice just to save some money or they live in the hope that there will not be more wars in future.
The world had long been involved in global wars. All governments have relaxed and paid great attention to economic growth. It was saved on the army. For this reason now a lot of countries vulnerable to the aggressor. Russian forced to think about it half of the world. Nice exposition. Now, could you tell me one reason why shouldnt Arab and Somali youth from swedish ghettoes immideately desert or join Chechen muslims (aka Russia) in case of war? One reason. Because you wont find it. This precariat but quite tribal population holds exactly no loyalty to its host country. |
|
|
|
IMHO it should be mandatory in any country. It's a small price to pay for living in said country. It's not like they'll send you to a war zone, you are just being prepared to defend your homeland against threats, be they external or home-grown. I think the best way to make this more palatable to people is to highlight that their forefathers have fought for their country before and you can view this as a tribute to their heroism. Conscription isn't half bad. A lot of youngsters have been born and raised in liberty and some of them seem to have difficulties respecting other raised in the same sphere.
And I guess if you feel threatened by a neighbouring nation, why not?
Russia and Sweden never shared land border in the past hundred years I think it is obvious that this is all ruse to somehow get out tens of thousands of immigrant Africans and Arabs out of their ghettos and force them to socialize and learn discipline. I doubt it will be very effective as modern armed forces are not very effective at stomping out extremism or tribal mentality. They will learn how to use guns properly, though. Then that's more reason to not allow them anywhere near guns.  I believe some countries (Israel for example) make exemptions based on religious beliefs and other things (parenthood, criminal record, etc). There is one notable exemption though - Singapore. They routinely imprison Jehova's Witnesses for refusing the draft. If Sweden ever get a right-wing, anti-immigration gov't, they'll probably love the idea. Hello, in fact similar policy was in place by Ottoman Empire (aka proto Turkey). By law only muslims could bear arms. The result of protracted warfare was depleted numbers of fighting age muslim men in face of growing minorities. And unrest. In fact, it is one of major reasons why Ottomans collapsed at the turn of 20th century. There simply lacked numbers of (loyal) men to keep non-muslim (almost majority) in line. Similar problems plagued old Sparta and later also Roman Empire. So, no, keeping different castes of infighting cannot be archieved by preferential treatment. Now, getting rid of caste XY under your roof altogether might do the deal. |
|
|
|
At every passing day Chineses oligarchs augment their power. The more powerful they get, the more assertive they are in all aspects.
A few examples:
Iran, the next north korea.
Freedom of naviagtions.
Freespeech.
Job stealing in the west by total slavery and with 0 respect for the earth.
Continuous weapon program to reach parity.
The will to regulate and subjugate the market liberty and all aspect of life to the will of the cccp.
I see 0 peaceful initiatives from there. Only gaining time until they reach leathal superiority. If allowed to ger there it will be a war, they will provoke to expand. So or they are stopped now with still western edge and sent back or later in a more symetrical and ugly way.
Advantages: once chinese power is reduced to hashes, it will possible to restore sanity worldwide (iran, nk, authoritarian regimes, attack on freespeech, restore the earth, trade freely and fairly).
Otherwise they will continue to conspire ans weaken by all means the west.
A war with china will be over in a single minute, full quantic: 1billion+ Deaths).
The windows of opportunity is getting smaller everyday...
Please prove me wrong... but you can't, i bet.
Greatest enemy of the west is west itself. You claim that Chinese "stolen" jobs. How exactly? Wasnt it western politicians and corporations, which "outsourced" labour and technologies to Asia? Arent corporations and affiliated NGOs attacking free speech right where you live? Or you believe that China somehow forced political correctness on the west? Poured millions of third worlders into Europe and America? That it created Iran or Russia out of mud and clay? In one thing we agree, though. China is getting stronger and I see that as a good thing, because the only thing that this aura of invincibility brought to west is degeneration. Like ancient Romans we grew weak, used to the fact that our jobs are done by somebody else, our wives plowed by somebody more eager and our borders will somehow take care of themselves. West got weak and perhaps only thing that will help to revitalize it - is external threat. Before it collapses upon itself. |
|
|
|
I doubt this will make any difference, considering how he really can't take criticisms. The only surprising thing is that I haven't seen him going on a "fuck you all!" spree yet. That or I haven't been watching the news. Or maybe they've finally learned. They removed the guy whose name must not be spoken from public appearances. Being confrontational when people are asking clarifications (especially since everyone in the damn palace contradict each other) is not a good approach.
He never listens to anyone. And trust me, he can afford to do that as long as he enjoys widespread popular support. If you remember, he used the same tactics even when he was serving as the Mayor of Davao. If the people trust him, then he believes that this person will fulfill all the promises and everything that he declared before the elections. As they say, we deserve those rulers whom we have chosen. One of his major campaign promises was that he will eliminate the drug menace, at any cost. And he is doing exactly that right now. The collateral damage doesn't matter to him, as long as his supporters remain happy with his work. And who knows satisfied his supporters or not. I understand that they have no one asks. If they are not happy then they will be accused of links with drug trafficking, and the same shot on the street as drug dealers. Which is perfectly fine. What kind of person would prefer good health of a drug dealer before children - often first victims of said criminals. Since rest of the world did not invent some magical method how to deal with drug problem and trafficking, perhaps it should just shut up, so Phillipinos have chance at making their own country safe again. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
|
About a time western society reacted to this form of class war. Rich people trying to divide and conquer everybody else again. Through guilt and shaming.
As it was not done hundred times before. We never learn, do we?
|
|
|
|
Sorry not knowing this kind of stuff, its just i wanted to know who's the strong one of them because some of my friend told me that the government is strong because they can decide to impeach the president and also i thought that president is more stronger than the government for that the president is more likely has a bigger rank of his country.. so i need your opinion on this one and teach me  Your question could possibly be more vague  In coutries such as Russia or Turkey, president is effectively head of the government aswell, in other euro countries (s)he is merely a figurehead for ceremonial occasions. United States and France fall somewhere inbetween those two extremes. To be sure, you would have to actually read constituion of said country, as constitution clearly specifies who holds what powers in executive branch. I disagree with you. The reading of the Constitution will do nothing. In Russia or Ukraine, for example, Parliament is an independent branch of government, but in fact it is not. Especially in Russia. It is a dictatorial country disguised as a democracy. I wonder how do you define "dictatorial" country, that label is awfully popular today. If you mean that either Ukraine or Russia is ruled by one dictator without limits, then that is blatantly false. Russia has quite peculiar power elites, that struggle against each other in the Moscow and Petrograd. Not unlike power elites do the same in Washington. In both countries, president has to expend quite alot of energy on mediating interests of different cliques. Ukraine is even more complicated as politicians blend with oligarchs and western agents, who keep pumping free money in the country. Atleast in the first case however, rule of law is formally followed, when power balance requires it, the law is changed. So, take your time and read it |
|
|
|
|
Afrikoin,
pardon my uninformed question. Does this means correction is slowly unraveling or is this bump on (for now) final ride to local top?
Volume is still relatively low, so it is quite confusing. Thank you for patience.
|
|
|
|
These defense systems have been developed in the USSR. It is the outdated equipment which Russia sells. Such a weapon was armed Iraq and how the Iraqi army was able to resist us? The same thing will happen with Iran.
Umm.. no, Iraq had scuds and to my knowledge no air to air missiles this advanced. The S-300 can still take out most of the aircraft that their neighbors have. Such as Israel's F16, F15 eagles and other fighter/bombers from that generation. It may be useless against the new US F22 Raptor since they are stealth but that is still to be determined. Serial production of the s-300 was launched in 1975. There were of course some modifications, but still this complex is 41 years old! I'm pretty confident that these complexes are not very dangerous to modern aircraft. Also probably during this time we developed weapons of suppression of these systems. Do you know where serial production of F-15,16,18 had started? Its not like airplanes got more explosive proof since then. The fact is that United States never had to oppose enemy force toe-to-toe since Wold War 2. Good for world peace but not a proof of superiority, when you are comparing your best to third world countries. Messages here are quite telling, that Iran indeed does well investing into its air defense capabilities. You might have forgotten the war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq. Everywhere the American army participated in open confrontation. If you don't count Vietnam, everywhere the Americans won with very little loss. I did not. Did you make it to the part of sentence where I mentioned "third world" countries? Or do you count tribal Afghanistan which did not even have airforce as a military powerhouse? Yes, northern Vietnam had used Migs and primitive sams... with suprising success given nominal superiority of western troops. I doubt media would given attention to S-300 and S-400 air defense systems if they were ineffective or indeed that still developing such as Iran would spend so much money on foreign product that doesnt work. The question, atleast for me, is survivability of aircraft carrier in modern warfare. Power projection aside, those boats given modern unmanned drones and high explosives seem quite fragile in open conflict. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is full of hilarity and butthurt.
There well documented cases of differences in cognitive abilities even intra-ethnically. Ie. people from certain social classes performing better even though they come from same genetic stock.
So it shouldnt be so suprising, however politically incorrect, that these same differences manifest among populations that developed separatelly for tens of thousands of years.
Somebody here claimed, that Arabs score very low and yes that has also been observed. Lack of emphasis on education (average Arab in Egypt reads about four pages of A4 a year) and cultural habit of marrying ones cousin might have compound effect here. Nominally, Arabs are caucasoid, even though their cognitive abilities has been lacking in last decades.
|
|
|
|
Sorry not knowing this kind of stuff, its just i wanted to know who's the strong one of them because some of my friend told me that the government is strong because they can decide to impeach the president and also i thought that president is more stronger than the government for that the president is more likely has a bigger rank of his country.. so i need your opinion on this one and teach me Your question could possibly be more vague In coutries such as Russia or Turkey, president is effectively head of the government aswell, in other euro countries (s)he is merely a figurehead for ceremonial occasions. United States and France fall somewhere inbetween those two extremes. To be sure, you would have to actually read constituion of said country, as constitution clearly specifies who holds what powers in executive branch. |
|
|
|
Conscription isn't half bad. A lot of youngsters have been born and raised in liberty and some of them seem to have difficulties respecting other raised in the same sphere.
And I guess if you feel threatened by a neighbouring nation, why not?
Russia and Sweden never shared land border in the past hundred years I think it is obvious that this is all ruse to somehow get out tens of thousands of immigrant Africans and Arabs out of their ghettos and force them to socialize and learn discipline. I doubt it will be very effective as modern armed forces are not very effective at stomping out extremism or tribal mentality. They will learn how to use guns properly, though. |
|
|
|
These defense systems have been developed in the USSR. It is the outdated equipment which Russia sells. Such a weapon was armed Iraq and how the Iraqi army was able to resist us? The same thing will happen with Iran.
Umm.. no, Iraq had scuds and to my knowledge no air to air missiles this advanced. The S-300 can still take out most of the aircraft that their neighbors have. Such as Israel's F16, F15 eagles and other fighter/bombers from that generation. It may be useless against the new US F22 Raptor since they are stealth but that is still to be determined. Serial production of the s-300 was launched in 1975. There were of course some modifications, but still this complex is 41 years old! I'm pretty confident that these complexes are not very dangerous to modern aircraft. Also probably during this time we developed weapons of suppression of these systems. Do you know where serial production of F-15,16,18 had started? Its not like airplanes got more explosive proof since then. The fact is that United States never had to oppose enemy force toe-to-toe since Wold War 2. Good for world peace but not a proof of superiority, when you are comparing your best to third world countries. Messages here are quite telling, that Iran indeed does well investing into its air defense capabilities. |
|
|
|
It seems to me that the West has never supported Saddam. He was supported by Russia. The West supported Iran. This was clearly seen during the war of Iran with Iraq. Saddam fought the Russian weapons, and Iran is the us.
Neither Iraq nor Iran received any sort of support from the United Sates. On the other hand, the Americans shot down an Iranian passenger jet (Iran Air Flight 655) in 1988, killing around 290 civilians. According to official statements of the U.S. government airliner was mistakenly identified by the cruiser "Vincennes" as an attacking Iranian warplane. Flight 655 was flying along the profile resembling the profile of the exit to attack the F-14A "Tomcat", consisting on arms of the air force of Iran. In addition, the aircraft took off from the airport of Bandar Abbas, which served not only commercial airport, but the airfield Iranian F-14. According to the same reports, "Vincennes" 11 times tried to contact flight 655 on the radio but not got any response, With only 3 messages were sent in the civil frequency, the "Vincennes" when it is not used when the unique code of the Iranian plane that was obtained through facial recognition purposes. At 10:24 IRST cruiser fired a missile "SM-2MR" "earth-air" are at this moment at a distance of about 20 kilometers unidentified aerial target. The missile hit the plane, causing it destroyed at least two parts and crashed into the sea. Only after contact with the plane was identified as a command cruiser of an Iranian airliner. This version was presented in the report of Admiral William Fogarty (eng. Willian Fogarty), who led the official investigation into the incident. The report was declassified and published only in part: part one in 1988 and another in 1993. The findings outlined in the report, met a big wave of criticism. The main cause of the incident in the official report named the psychological state of the team, "Vincennes", which operated in a combat situation under a lot of pressure, as well as the similarity of the flight profile of the liner with the alleged attack profile Iranian fighter. In General, the us government considers the incident as a military incident and said that the crew of the cruiser had acted in accordance with the current circumstances. Later, the commander of the cruiser was awarded the order of "Legion of honor" for successful service in the period from 1987 to 1989. Thank you for explanation and yes, this seems perfectly plausible. On the other hand, nobody was punished for mass (if accidental killing) of hundreds of civilians and then governing US administration openly defied common courtesy by refusing to issue apology (cause you know, elections). Thats not how you build relations in civilized matter. It is also worth noting, that military explanation ie. mistaking passenger aircraft for iranian Tomcat plainly gives away, that US supported Iraq in the war against Iran. No Iraqi airplanes were ever shotdown by US in the eighties and no sanctions were in place, despite documented use of chemical weapons in residental areas. In fact, as supply of soviet migs dwindled, Iraqi air force was replenished by F-86 Sabres. |
|
|
|
Wandering through the board today, soaking in all the delicious, xenophobic hate, something occurred to me. Since American outcry at illegal immigration is based in 1)they took our jobs and 2) they are bad hombres, let's examine why illegal aliens are here in the first place.
To work.
Last time I checked, you need a job to work. And in the Good Ole U S of A, it's illegal to hire undocumented workers. So, why aren't we arresting the people that are committing treason by hiring these guys? They wouldn't come here if there were no jobs. So why not punish the transgressors AND those that facilitate the transgressions, equally? Are we gonna let guys go that would rather pay less and not use American workers, rather than pay a decent wage and use Americans? I meant, what would Trump do?
He would get those UnAmerican sons of bitches right out of here. Giving away our jobs, making us build a wall. Doesn't that seem not bigly at all? WEAK!
So if we are making America great again, why don't we start at the top? Harsher penalties on employing illegals would discourage the employment of said illegals, and why would you come here for no jobs?
Or is the reason that most business owners are white, rich and male, and that this would overwhelming only affect them?
Your thoughts. And I want the trolls to come out. I'm getting paid to refute D grade ignorance from bigoted bastards, this is a liberal wet dream, I assure you.
What makes you think that migrants take your jobs? If the place is empty so it is not yours. Why do you think that Trump can tell me who to hire? This is my business and not for him to decide whom to hire. If you like you will say such words, you may encounter a problem when the protest will only accept migrants. If you hire illegal migrants it means, that you are not paying any taxes for him, depriving him of health and social insurance. Like slaver esentially. That is the profitable side of hiring illegal, undocumented labor in the first place. Slavery was outlawed back in 1863 as far as US is concerned, wasnt it? I agree with OP that Trump order is not perfect as it only solves side effect, not the cause of this human trafficking bussiness. |
|
|
|
In any case, it seems to me that Iran would not be able to confront Iraq without the support of America. Once again convinced that the revolution is no good do not lead, but the politicians never know when to leave power and revolution is inevitable.
Let me repeat it then. By the time of Iraq-Iran conflict, Iran was in international isolation, while Iraq was supported by the West, even though Saddamites used chemical weapons in residental areas of Iran. I am no judging this or that policy of leaders and I am definitely not fan of theocracy, but lets not rewrite history here. Iran was not supported by US since 1979. That is starting year of hostage affair too. Iraq invaded Iran year later initialy equipped with russian migs, but later recieving spades of US made F-86s sabers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis |
|
|
|
Forrester,
you are grossly misinformed. Iraq was never armed with such air defense system. The rest of the analogies are wrong too, as Iran doesnt resemble Iraq in any way but the nominal faith of its citizens.
Yet, sadly, it illustrates that many westerners see Iran as "mortal enemy" even though that country never invaded any neighbour in the past two centuries.
Just my two cents.
Now all the Arab countries in the West appear to be enemies. Iran is in this list, the leading place because he's trying to develop nuclear weapons. Adds a positive image of Iran and its bellicose statements towards America. 1) Iran is not arab country or should I say it is about as arabic as United States are chinese. 2) In fact there is deep rooted conflict in middle East, where Saudia Arabia (which is actually Arab) supported by NATO fights for dominance with Iran supported by China and Russia. Now, Saudis support global jihadist network (vast majority of 9/11 attackers were from this country), Iran supports militias in countries with shia populations (Syria, Yemen, Iraq) thus shifting dominance from sunni arab bloc. It is geopolitics, terrorism is merely tool of trade there. 3) Also, I have no idea about nuclear weapons program ongoing in Iran, might be or might be not. What I do know is that governments of countries, which DO HAVE nukes threatened Iran with them. Hillary Clinton just several months ago. Iran has become victim of western supplied chemical WMDs in the past. Back in those times, when Saddam was still friend of the west, so I wouldnt be that suprised if they were working on WMDs of their own as a countermeasure. It seems to me that the West has never supported Saddam. He was supported by Russia. The West supported Iran. This was clearly seen during the war of Iran with Iraq. Saddam fought the Russian weapons, and Iran is the us. Iran was supported by US pre-islamic revolution (1974), when the country was governed by local Shah (Imperator). After Imams took the power, United States turned to support Saddam which was tradionally backed by Russians. In Iraq-Iran war, Iran was essentially unsupported (as its islamist leanings were alien even to Soviets) against western backed Iraqis. Hilariously, air war was dominated by several legendary american F-14 Tomcats, supplied to Iran by US pre-revolution... Iraqi military did not collapse in the war only thanks to generous arms and financial aid by anglo speaking countries. Those debts turned Iraq into mess though and when the fighting ceased, hungry eyes of Saddam turned to another ally of US in the region. "Free" money in form of Kuwait.  |
|
|
|
So how's it been doing so far? Didn't Florida have a problem with fresh water? Maybe he's about to implement something better maybe? I seriously doubt that he will just remove it without replacing it with something new.
You're making no sense. Revoking a CLEAN WATER act makes No sense. You could expand upon it, but why in the world would you remove it? So if you or your family start drinking and/or dying from lead poisoning in your water, you'll be fine with that? Poster before you just countered your emotional tirade with factual questions regarding the context of revoking order in place. Some orders are revoked, because they did not have intended effects. Could you put sources that would clean up how exactly was clean water act saving millions of people? Or are going to spew more hormones in our way with your mangina? Also, clean water act WAS NOT put forth by Obama. It was in 1972 by Nixon administration. It is nearly 50 years old now. |
|
|
|
You know, Prince. Only racist would ask if entire nation (composed of many different ethnic and cultural groups) is racist. People, who are not racist do not put others into blocks based on nationality, culture or religion. You are the blind man pointing at others for having bad sight. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
