Even if a crime could have been committed against them, if they were not a victim (like a jew who lived in the states) they cannot claim any reparations. Doesn't matter the cause of the crime, only the victim is wronged. Unless the next time a guy goes in for domestic abuse because of his wife, all wives are victims.
Yes, Libya is a small fish, but insecurity breeds insecurity, and insecurity causes speculation, and the price of oil has nothing to do with scarcity, and everything to do with speculation. I don't mind though, I think the price of petrol is far too low. When I say fatty cuts, I mean fatty cuts as in that's the only option. Combine that with a developing country with a population which is uninformed about healthy eating, and a genetic make-up that makes Fijians prone to diabetes and obesity. I can link you an academic source to prove what I'm saying. Regarding oil, when I say "control of oil", I don't mean your government. I've said this numerous times. Western TNCs hold strategic interests in fossil fuels. Establishing an oil industry is capital-intensive, especially to begin with. Poor countries like Libya lack surplus capital. The West does not. The West supplies capital, for these countries to develop oil industries, and profits through repayment and strategic ownership. The more 'democratic' a country is (although Western-sympathetic dictators seems to hold on to power for absurdly long periods of time, isn'tthatrightMubarak), the greater the ability of the capital-surplus West to use the free market in order to make money off the global economy's dependence on oil. Why else is the oil industry such a huge political campaign donor? It's got nothing to do with fuel efficient cars.
Here's an interesting thing. I was watching the news one day. On Fox News & MSNBC they were talking about gas prices. The more interesting view was that a Democrat Congressman was saying that gas prices are not up because of the Libyan crisis. He said Libya makes up for only 2% which his point would be that it is not enough to substantiate the increase in prices. I find that very interesting. The Fox contributor I believe was saying prices were up because of the Libyan crisis as well as some other stuff. Didn't really remember that part because the Congressman's words were way more intriguing. I like fat on my meat. Then I heard some interesting words from Donald Trump about Iraq and if he were to run & become president. That he would take over their oil fields, denoting that we don't get a special cut, because of all the money we have spent liberating the people of Iraq from a dictator that killed his own people. This would be a move to regain some money from Iraq.
You raise good points, but the US is really in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario. On the one hand, the scope of American-led and -involved wars in the Middle East (and other regions historically) is vast. On the other hand, the scope of scenarios where foreign influence can be justified on some level is also vast -- just look at the Ivory Coast as you have. What I'm interested in is the selection process. I think it's hard to avoid acknowledging, on some level, that the more resource-rich a given country or region there is, the more likely foreign power is going to be involved. The international community doesn't give a stuff about Fiji (military dictatorship) because all it really exports is sugar, and that's state-controlled and continuing unabated, and their people still have to import (cheap, fatty cuts of New Zealand and Australian) meat. Economic consequences provide additional impetus for invasion, for sure.
I looked up the Ivory Coast incident going on. Seems a bit muddy as to whom is doing the killing. The Pro-Ouattara faction has been blamed but they say it is the Pro-Gbago forces are committing atrocities. The U.N deputy human rights director has said both have done some killing. Either way this turmoil has been going on since the November elections where both candidates claimed victory. U.N. and international community recognizes the Ouattara, the newcomer as the rightful president. An U.N. peacekeeping force came under fire and are patrolling Duekoue but what else? This seems like a precursor to the Middle-east/African uprisings against dictators. Gbago isn't ceding power which is causing this civil strife. If the international community wants things done together, in terms of military action, and not done unilaterally then here is an opportunity. Obama isn't going to do anything unilaterally. So it is the U.N's time to step up - which I doubt they will. I'm also interested in how the international community has overlooked Bahrain; Syria and Jordan are looking like they may become hostile. I recall in the news of a massacre in Syria the last time the people tried to revolt - where was the U.N. then? It is interesting the selection process. I say let the world handle these new situations and have the U.S. not contribute one bit so the spotlight is on them and not us.
Heh, I just realised that we've been on the forum a similar amount of time, and our post counts are nearly equal. You need more rep! Though your posts tend to be serious. Nothing wrong with that, but I swear that if I make one funny post, I'll get four instant reps, then go weeks without seeing any because I've been posting in ID. Fewer people read longer posts = fewer rep. It's not really a measure of anything other than one's ability to think of one-liners.
Sweet. Never knew that. Bad thing is... I have only 42. Thanks for that info.
Try repping one of your own posts and see what happens
How did you know you only needed 1 more positive rep? Did you manually keep track of all of your positive rep because I don't see any place that tallies them all up.
Mellon. Elvish :: English to Elvish Dictionary ::
Gandalf, what is friend in elvish?
I can't remember the post anymore. I just recall you writing a well-reasoned post that was appreciative of the characters. Which made me realise that there were some things I like about that game.
And what would that "little bit" of reason be?
I think debating the semantics of an 'upset' is getting us nowhere Though I do think you should consider the reactions of the press in coming to a conclusion, perhaps. For example, this, which states that, "This is indeed a surprising upset for the World Champion Italians. New Zealand’s Mark Paston made this possible by showing impressive defense of his Goal territory." The New Zealand media are also going ecstatic, which is probably expected. For example, The New Zealand Herald, which notes several Italian headlines. With regards to the referee, you don't think it's a little unusual that Rory Fallon is now the most penalised player in the World Cup? Every time he leapt to the ball, an Italian jumped second, collided with his arms (Fallon is 1.9m tall, so what else is there to hit?), and then collapsed to the ground to have a moan, and the referee felt obliged to penalise us. I mean who cares about an unkown Kiwi next to Cannavaro et al., right? May as well penalise him, because no one's going to care.
I'm a big sports person and a 1-1 draw is not a huge upset for me; it takes more than just that. All the other huge upsets in past World Cup play a team lost that should've won, yet this was just a draw. The upset in 1950 where the U.S beat England a lot of the U.S players weren't professionals either, yet they won. A huge upset would be something like the 2004 American League Championship Series (Baseball) where the New York Yankees had a 3-0 series lead over their arch-rivals the Boston Red Sox - the biggest rivalry in Baseball and one of the biggest in the world. No team in baseball has ever come back down three games to none (best of 7) to win the series, yet Boston came back and won their final two games in Yankee Stadium, in the Bronx, in the House that Ruth built. That is a huge upset and a huge comeback, the Yankees should have won the series and were very close to winning in Game 4. I'm mostly of Italian descent and I'm backing the U.S team as well. I didn't watch the video but some plays they did act however New Zealand's players did the same when the clock was nearing the finish; it's one aspect of soccer/futbol I do not like - play the game. The score could've been 0-0 easily since the New Zealand player, as you said and as was, offsides since the ball hit a NZ player before the Italian defenseman. As for the shirt tug, it is a penalty in FIFA, the player shouldn't have held, the ref properly called the penalty, however the Italian did over-act, which does not take away that the shirt tug is a penalty.
