You might be right, but perhaps countries with something to lose might be better places to live because of opportunity. I understand you give up some rights in exchange for 'freedom' but the opportunities are better. Sometimes you just have to live blissfully aware.
I appreciate you clarifying the incorrect representation of the system. People tend to assume everything in China is communism, it really is not. This is a capitalistic change.
I'm not aware of Israel making it a matter of national policy to annihilate Iran or any other country. However, that is Iran's stated policy, and what they've said they'll do when they get nukes.
Iran is training proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine to attack Israel. And that's what they're doing. They just launched a missile barrage, the largest ever, at Israel.
It seems that Israel is just defending its existence.
Hamas chose Saudi Arabia's and Qatar's side on the Syrian conflict and that lead to Assad breaking relations with them.
Syria took it as a betrayal so I doubt they would do anything to help Hamas.
Israel is not bombing Syria to defend itself. Syria never had and nor will have the capability to do anything to Israel.
The reason Israel have been bombing Syria is the same reason Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, USA, UK, France, Australia and the rest of the coalition are doing it too: regime change.
They want to replace Assad with a puppet, like Hariri in Lebanon, so they can all push their own agendas in the region.
And on the other side Russia, Iran and Hezbollah jumped in Assad's rescue to counter that move.
They are ALL pushing their own interests at the expense of Syrian lives so please drop this outrageous "defending itself" narrative and admit all actors of both sides are war criminals with blood on their hands.
> Israel is not bombing Syria to defend itself. Syria never had and nor will have the capability to do anything to Israel.
You're forgetting about the Six-Day War [1] and the Yom Kippur War [2]. Yes, there are controversies around those too, and Israel came out on top in the end - but let's not pretend that Israel the modern nation-state hasn't been on guard against being obliterated by its neighbors since Day 1.
Nobody denied those conflicts and the need of Israel to defend itself.
But sometime seems that only Israel has the right to defend itself, even when its not on the defense but actively bombing countries with far inferior armies / allies and they have to just accept being bombed because of events 50 years ago.
Can Iraq or Syria use the recent invasions as excuse to do whatever they want for the next 50 years too?
The concept of preemptive war has always been an excuse to actually start wars.
> [to annihilate Israel] However, that is Iran's stated policy
This is not strictly true. Words were twisted and misconstrued and reported falsely in western media of what was actually said (which I think was still reprehensible, but Iranian policy is not the annihilation of Israel)
> and what they've said they'll do when they get nukes.
Absolutely not true. For one, they would never state they are trying to build a nuclear weapon, two they know Iran would cease to exist on the map if they did.
Unless you are perhaps referring to just a random person stating as such, if so, you could can find many more examples of Israeli and US persons saying the same of Iran, but that does not make it policy of Israel and US
What do you expect from a country that Israel has been demonizing for the last 20+ years calling for bombing it and spreading lies about its non-existent nuclear arms programs? A love poem?
>Iran is training proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine to attack Israel.
while Israel helps ISIS in Syria to destroy the country, bombed Lebanon, annexed the Golans and areas in the West Bank... you really shouldn't be digging up that dead high horse.
Asking the world to dethrone and delegitimize a country - even without the context of Iran's posture towards them - is different from genocide, which is Iran's posture, yes.
No, it wouldn't start anything more than a regional conflict à la the Seven Days' War or any of the other several Arab-Israeli conflicts of the past 70 years.
World War I did not start because Austria had a legitimate grievance against Serbia that it was determined to settle with military force. It started because France, Germany, and Russia were all willing, maybe even eager, to go to war and the putative Third Balkan War in as many years was an opportunity to do so. When the leaders of Germany and Russia started getting cold feet and asked about partial mobilization as an alternative option, the military commands were shocked and worked assiduously to convince them that there was no alternative to complete war. In stark contrast stands the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Kennedy and Khrushchev both ignored their military commands' pleas for war and sought to find alternatives to war.
The ingredients for global war are international disputes irreconcilable except for war; a conflict that can serve as a flashpoint to rapidly bring in these wide international disputes; and you need leaders who can continue to escalate the war, knowing all the consequences it might entail. The Middle East simply lacks strategic importance to make two major power blocs go to global war in support of their local allies in a localized conflict.
I think Israel (and, unlike GP, also Iran) are too small-time to start real global war. They're more the potential Bosnias or Serbias - small, belligerent countries that could drag their patrons into conflict.
The nuclear bombing of Iran by a state would almost certainly be enough to precipitate the complete collapse of the NPT, which is already wobbly (the latest Review Conference ended in acrimony).
Subsequent nuclear weapons projects in erstwhile NPT NNWS could easily trigger a few regional wars, and from there the escalation to a global conflict is certainly possible.
Probably because, like myself, the OP isn't informed enough to make a judgement on that case.
There are aggressive factors on all sides of that conflict and there's no clear-cut good or bad guy; only unfortunate things happening to real people who'd all be better off if religion stayed inside the walls of one's dwelling and temple of worship.
Also if in cases of contested buildings listed above, everyone had equal access to the area administered by a neutral outside party.
I like the idea, this is very economically sane since it will allow the news company to deliver news all day without errors from human anchors. Although people would still have to write the script, I know the state will always put their best people to write 24/7.
Do you prefer watching an error-free (in that it doesn’t stumble) news segment delivered by a computer-visualized robot or an imperfect one by a human?
>Thirty Meter astronomers had said if they didn’t get a green light to build on Mauna Kea, they would build it on La Palma in the Canary Islands, off Africa.
La Palma's air quality is also not as good as Mauna Kea's (more dust blowing over from the Sahara), if I recall correctly. It may be the second best site in the northern hemisphere, but it's significantly behind the top choice.
Altitude is not everything, and higher altitude does not automatically translate into better performance of the instrument. There are many, many factors that matter, including light pollution, transparency, cloud cover, air turbulence, jet streams, etc.
A report by the Canadian Astronomical Society (Canada has a ~15% stake) found that with taking all these variables into play, Mauna Kea is still the best site for TMT. See page 35 for the final recomendations: http://casca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CATAC-Report-Fina...
apple should definitely reconsider itself, if true it is very unethical for this company to simply give out code it doesn't have a right to share. It would simply be that apple has to pay the fee and a fine.
I am a male, I work in a hospital. The situation is pretty close to me as well. It's just the culture of having men around vs having mostly 90% up, woman around.
I don't think making your market small and extremely fragmented is call for innovation. Certain features should be available easier for the ease of the user. If you don't like the environment you're using, and you can't change it, you're being abused by the software.
I assume that's it's harder to create a religion for a billion people. Christianity ranks in at #1 and Islam is #2, the new religion if followed by all would be #3. I would love to hear what they could come up with tho.
