Hoch

I never denied that it was a generalisation. On the contrary, I merely stated that it is an operation in pedantry when the com- ment is viewed in context. Although I dislike making comparisons for the sake of argument I will. It is no different than saying Jews when referring to Israeli. Most Israeli are Jews. Yet, some Israeli are Christian and others are Muslim. Though, of course, we tend to refer to Muslim Israeli as Palestinians, which strictly speaking is not correct (but that's a separate matter). I suspect that it was more politically correct to say Pakistani and Arab Americans, rather than Muslims. This might also have been done given the geographical connotations involved by using those words. Nonetheless, the meaning is no less diminished if Muslims is used instead. -Hoch

It must be nice to live in the land of black and white My con- science was well intact. It was a job. Come on! Besides, it helped to pay my way through Cambridge. In Obama's defence, Bill Clinton did not have a lot of experience but many of his foreign policy decisions were successful. Much de- pends on the members of the candidates or presidents foreign pol- icy team. Nonetheless, the US does not need another ideologue. It had plenty of that during the Bush years. Rather, it is time for a man with practical ideas with practical solutions to the problems. Out of the two, McCain fits that bill. A propos, it is an operation of pedantry to keep suggesting that not all Arabs or Pakistani are Muslim. The vast majority are and it is perfectly clear how those comments were to be understood. -Hoch

Why come here and make a post when you already submitted a ticket? A propos, that was a rhetorical question. -Hoch

I must confess to being surprised by some of the responses. This is an election year people! So you should expect the odd twisting of words or rewording. I am sure that if I bothered to take the time that I would find similar messages or comments about John McCain. Although I expect things like this, and it can be quite effective, I still do not agree with it. This is despite the fact that several years ago when I spent some time working at the RNC I helped to draft negative political ads. Unfortunately, it is the nature of the beast that both sides participate in. Unless or until voters say enough is enough it will continue. Ah politics, the bane of sensibility -Hoch

The NPT itself is an intrusive do!@#$%^&*ent. After all, it has to be in order that the objectives of the Treaty are met. To that extent the use of monitoring devices to ensure that fissionable materi- al is not diverted towards purposes other than what they are in- tended for, it is my understanding that this permissible. This arises out of a review of the NPT in 1995, in which a number of decisions were concluded. Chief among them is that nothing shall undermine the IAEA's authority with respect to Article III and the safeguards. It is obviously a matter of interpretation whether this creates a le- gally binding obligation on the part of states parties' to comply with requests such as this. However, it would be contrary to the inten- tion of the Treaty if a state party were to create obstacles with re- spect to nuclear inspections and the disclosure of certain forms of information. This is the present situation with Iran. Whilst I take the point that this is a grey area it must be recalled that there are very few instances of states parties refusing such requests (not necessarily of this type). The last country that I can think of was North Korea, and we all know how that ended. Iran has a vested interest in being transparent. Ultimately, the burden is on Iran to disprove allegations of transference of nu- clear material to weapons because this is at the heart of the NPT. Moreover, both the UN and the IAEA in the past have expressed a desire to maintain the Middle East is a nuclear-free area. It is indeed unfortunate that the current political leadership use this highly volatile issue has political fodder as a cover for domes- tic woes in Iran. But this is a decision of the Iranian political author- ities and not of the West. -Hoch

Moan moan moan. Try living in London At any rate, this so-called deal is riddled with exceptions and/or conditions, or at least as presented in the advertisement. If you were to seriously consider this offer you would have to query the owner about all of the stipulations. My instincts tell me that it is simply not worth it because of all the uncertainties. I certainly would not commit to anything without first having a solicitor (lawyer) review the situation. You also need to make sure that the !@#$%^&*le deed is clean and free from errors. At the very least, you should survey the surrounding area and see what similar properties are going for. -Hoch

Let me simplify the issue, or at least my position. For the avoidance of doubt, the (peaceful) use of nuclear technol- ogy by Iran is not in dispute. To verify the commitments laid down in the NPT and to ensure that nuclear materials are not being di- verted for weapons purposes, Article III tasks the IAEA with the inspection of the nonnuclear weapon states' nuclear facilities. It is this inspection process which is at the crux of the matter. Iran continues to be evasive with certain information, which the IAEA has noted many times in its reports. It is Iran's abstinence and lack of transparency which creates concern for the US, UK and other nations. Were Iran to comply fully with the IAEA then this situation would not exist. Full stop. It is of course pure speculation on the part of Western nations that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. This too has never been in dispute. But given Iran's evasive behaviour and the rhetoric from its elected (and unelected) leaders, it can hardly be surprising that nations are concerned about the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state. It would be wrong and set a very bad precedent if technology capa- ble of enriching uranium to a fissionable state for nuclear weapons, or general nuclear machinery, was not inspected. This is all 'the West' wants, as is prescribed by the NPT. Surely this is not wrong. -Hoch

Phong, contact Ghost Ship. This thread has gone on along enough without the need for further discussion... -Hoch

I'm sure you did, and as have I on the DSB boards. Yet, I keep getting roped into it on this false hope that he will realise that his myopic think- ing is, if not wrong, then flawed After all, it is only based on an obvi- ous disliking of anything the US (or 'the West') supports. Such subjective thought rationalised in this manner will always be flawed. Anywho... As Iran is a signatory to the UN Charter it is bound by the decisions of the UN Security Council. Full stop. Of course it can ignore them, as it does, but were the Security Council to press the matter it is will within its competence to force Iran to comply. And I stand uncorrected. Thank you. The simple fact of the matter is Iran is under obligations arising from the NPT to comply with certain protocols. Rather than doing this, Iran contin- ues to stonewall the IAEA. Evidence of this can be found in the various reports issued by the IAEA where it notes that Iran continues to not pro- vide certain bits of information. With few exceptions, Iran is the only na- tion to adopt such an abstinent position. Even the greatest cynic would concede that if Iran were fully transparent with its nuclear activities that this matter would be resolved. The absence of this creates the current climate. To summarise, Iran's actions, or lack thereof, smacks of noncompliance. Even a less erudite observer would make the conclusion based on Iran's actions, or inactions as the case may be. Fox News redresses the imbal- ance in the American media. And comparatively the BBC is more objec- tive. -Hoch...I'll take my Nobel Peace Prize now. -Hoch

Iran still continues not to comply with the IAEA. So what's the story here again? Fox vs BBC? -Hoch

You have already been told what is going on con- cerning your ban. Therefore, it is unnecessary to start a thread here. -Hoch

Sorted. For crying out loud... -Hoch

Why would they need a warrant when the matter concerns issues of copyright violations? -Hoch

So that's why Virgin is no longer at Piccadilly Circus! I remember turning to my wife a while ago and asking her that there use to be a Virgin store there. She just gave me 'that' look. Oh, you know 'that' look I personally wouldn't use Virgin. As with most things connected to Sir Richard Branson, they have a strong tendency to over exaggerate their network speeds. The Advertising Standards Authority recently admonished Virgin for overstating download speeds and network capacity. What is more, I think it is hilarious that Virgin gives the impression that if you sign up with them that you will magically have access to a fiber optic line. But they do like using the old * a lot -Hoch

I thought I had handled this one a few months ago... Numerous times you were told that your ban will not be lifted. That position remains the same today. Alternatively, wasz zakaz nie być podnoszony. In any event, the ban expires tomorrow evening. I have no doubt that you can wait 24 hours after having waited 364 days. -Hoch

Good lord. I have never seen such selective reading in all my life, and I'm a bloody criminal barrister! State welfare exists irrespective of location... You are dealing with children. Children living in a deprived area of the country. They are not going to make rational decisions, and clearly they have not. The underlining reasons giving rise to these events need to be explored. Only then will people be able to prevent another 'pregnancy outbreak'. These kids need help. -Hoch

Of course it is the worst idea, and I doubt you will find anyone that disagrees. But under the cir!@#$%^&*stances it may look like a good option to make matters better. Especially if a network of mothers is created. Much like a support group, which is the case here. -Hoch

I understand that the area where these kids live is eco- nomically depressed. With too few jobs and people down on their luck, perhaps these kids did think it was a good idea because either their parents or the state could help support them. Although motherhood should not be viewed as a job in the normal sense of the word, when you have nothing else go- ing for you it does not look like the worst idea. Not that this type of behaviour should be condoned. I certainly would dismiss media reports that films such as Juno or Knocked Up inspired these kids. Anyone that has seen either these films can see the error in their logic. -Hoch

See what happens when small-town Americans get bored. Oy vey. -Hoch

Ghost definitely knows for sure because I told him. And more than likely Priit knows as well. Hopefully the BanG site will be back to normal soon -Hoch

You extrapolated a conclusion based on a statistical analysis of unemployment during the Clinton and Bush years. I merely did the same. In politics, it is not what you know but how you use it. -Hoch

He knows -Hoch

During the Clinton years unemployment averaged 5.2%. For the years totaling 2001 to 2007, the Bush years have produced an average unemployment rate of 5.1% Yes, it is cool how statistics can be used both as a shield and a sword http://forums.deathstarbattle.com/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif -Hoch

The live issue here is entering the United States under false pretences. If I gave the impression that it was for war crimes, then my apologies. Nonetheless, the linkage between Mr Demjanjuk's past and his present situation are inextricably linked. Therefore on that basis, the p!@#$%^&*- age of time is inconsequential because he falls foul of immigration laws. His past !@#$%^&*ociation would have barred him from legally entering the United States. Axiomatically his discovery activates the immigration laws. It follows, that to ignore those laws, based solely on the passage of time, is to ignore the rule of law. You have my support that if a person being considered for deportation faces torture in his home country, then he should not be sent back. But to my knowledge, and in the view of the US Supreme Court, no threat of torture exists. More generally, after the Second World War nations came together and decided to create a new class offences, albeit retrospectively. To ignore the call of the international com- munity simply because of the passage of time is to place them above the law. This cannot be right. Perhaps if you ignore the rule of law, which is one of the pillars holding up democratic society, and instead focused on the past would it be wrong to remind people? The Holocaust was not the first instance in history of m!@#$%^&* genocide and crimes against humanity. Yet, it galvanised the world because of the extent of the Nazi's acts and their meticulous way of perpetrating their crimes. In a historical context, so many lives had been lost during the two world wars that, quite simply, enough was enough. A line was drawn in the sand. The resultant laws continue to shape society today. But for all these efforts heinous acts continued. Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, are but just a few examples. Should we ignore the perpetrators of crimes committed in these nations simply because they are old? The answer is no. If any symbolism exists it is not in exacting a punishment but bringing them to justice because the rule of law de- mands it. Aceflyer makes a valid point, what message would we be sending out if we ignored this? I daresay not a very good one. -Hoch