AstroProdigy

Or they will simply not follow the unpractical parts of their religion the way Christians do. Is that hard to believe? Why do you expect Hindus to follow their religion to the extreme? Do Christians do this? I never said we would not be a superpower in the future. It's just that if any of the 3 reached even close to their full potential they'd be more powerful economically, militarily, or both than us.

I think if Polix buys me a palace he's cool.

Democratic ideas and Communism are very far apart. Soviet Communism itself is a betrayal of true communism. No one calls for Communism in the US as no one calls for Fascism. However Conservative ideologies are the opposite of progressive. Keeping gays from getting married is not progressive. The Democrats are not communists...If the Democrats are Communists the Republicans are Fascists. I know calling the Democrats as Communists helps your argument, but it's not even true. Democrats are opposed to government controls on society, which means Republicans in a way are Communists more than Democrats. I'm not saying Republicans are Communists. I'm just saying these absolutist inferences are inaccurate and oversimplified. There's actually not just a Left/Right spectrum. There's also an Authoritarian/Libertarian spectrum and combining the 2 creates a system that's more like a grid. In this grid the Republicans today have policies in the Right/Authoritarian area whereas Democrats are in the left/libertarian. Communism is Left/Authoritarian which means neither party is Communist. Again, things aren't so simple. The Republicans aren't trying new ideas unless you mean banning gay marriage and abortion. Since 2001 the Republicans have been keeping the same policy that anyone that they don't like are terrorists and that they can "beat the terrorists" as long as they "stay the course" which has obviously failed since Iraq has fallen into a Civil War with the policy that was obviously letting it get into a civil war, but the Republicans were too static to change anything. The Democrats have yet to have a chance to do anything because the Republicans would block anything they attempted so I'd hardly think they are legislating old failed communist ideas. Wait until they at least take Congress before you make imaginary communist imagery to Democratic policies when it was only the neo conservative Republican policies that were getting through. The Democrats do need moderates because they don't have a large Liberal base like the Republicans have with Conservatives. That's why the Republicans will not even let a moderate candidate run for president. They could even conceivably win with a Conservative candidate. I don't know if the Republicans would win a moderate versus moderate election since the Conservatives who seem to have an extreme or nothing policy might end up having a low voter turnout, whereas the Democrats will probably not have that problem and if they do it will have a much smaller affect. It might be possible for the presidential election that the most likely win for the Republican Party would be a conservative and not a moderate. For the Democrats it's clear it'd be in the best interests of the party to have a moderate Democrat running for President. As for the change in the U.S., communism changed much in the world, but in the U.S. people went on with their lives the same. Sorry, but a totalitarian regime falling doesn't prove universal healthcare is evil. The Soviet Union was extreme and that's why it fell. Extremism in a different way isn't right either. A party that's very obviously controlled by religion can never be progressive. Even if Christianity is true and Republicans are saints it still doesn't make the party progressive.

Just because something in Hinduism says you can't do something doesn't mean they have to follow it. Do you see Christians following everything in the Bible? Muslims are the only ones who seem to be moving further towards extremism. As for SVS; China's economy is growing very rapidly. India's economy is growing slower, but it's still growing much faster than ours. Poverty in India is falling as well. Most people aren't educated, but for it's size, India has a huge population of educated people and it in fact is quite a bit larger than China's educated population. There are only 4 forseeable candidates for superpower right now; the United States, China, India, and the European Union. The U.S. will likely stay a superpower, but whether it's on top depends on the other 3. China is growing rapidly, but if they don't solve their social problems it will eventually bite them in the !@#$%^&*. They're also going to go through a population collapse in the future. India is a fairly long lasting democracy and although they are growing slower than China, they are still growing rapidly and I think they have good prospects to exentually be on top. Don't forget China is going to go through a population collapse because of their one child policy, while India's continues to grow naturally (without immigration) and will be in an economically healthy shape in the future as long as they can match that with economic growth. That's something even the United States can't say since a very large part of our population growth is through immigrants. The European Union combined right now would be the most powerful economy in the world, but they don't have a viable way of uniting all the different countries together right now. If they could do that then they could continue to grow with new membership and stay on top at least for a while economically at least. I honestly think we're screwing ourselves right now with our pro outsourcing and anti education policies. That leaves us with no labor intensive work in the US and not enough people to have a high tech economy.

Uh no the parties might switch one day, but only with some nation changing event like the Civil War or the Civil Rights Movement. Honestly, the chances of either party nominating a non white person for President is low. The Republicans just have a larger group of racists. There are lots of racists in this country and although many people ignore it its still there. Rice would not get past the GOP imho. I agree we would have been better with Powel. Him i respect. Conservatives definetely control the GOP. A moderate Republican would be a great candidate and I might vote for them if they are better than the Democrat, but I don't see it happening. A moderate Democrat fits more with my beliefs though ;-). A moderate Democrat versus a moderate Republican would be an interesting election, however moderates tend to get less respect than the extremists who define the parties and the Republicans have a much larger Conservative base than the Democrats have a Liberal base. That's why the Democrats are forced to be a more moderate party and why many of the new candidates they put up for election in 2006 were moderates. The Republicans, however, have simply lost more moderates since the election and will likely be even more conservative now. Don't forget that the Republicans only lost Congress because of Iraq. People tend to ignore the more important issues for the more publicized ones.

Like I said I've never heard of India having a huge vermon problem. Where'd you get this information? Our universities are great, but the best ones generally support a class system. Also, our high tech workforce is deteriorating as less and less people choose to get educated for those types of jobs. There is a big problem with this and over time we're just gonna fall behind. I think if China can keep its problems under the rug for a few more decades they can become a superpower at this rate. I don't know how stable and likely it can be though. India seems more stable with a relatively longer lasting democratic government and steady growth and a population that continues to grow at a rate where the elderly will not be a major problem. It would take them a while to get a GDP per capita close to ours, but keep in mind even with a fraction of our GDP they could still have a GDP higher than ours and if they focused on military they'd have a giant workforce and with equal funding could be as advanced as our military with more manpower. A lot can happen during a century. The U.S. did rise from relative obscurity in the beginning of the 20th century to be the only superpower and arguably a hyperpower at the end of the 20th century.

Speaking as someone who lived in New York City while Giuliani was mayor, his actions on 9/11 were good, but otherwise he wasn't great and he basically rides on his reputation because of 9/11 and the fact that people outside New York have no idea of anything else about him. He also can't possibly get past the ultra conservative GOP machine to be the Republican candidate in 2008. McCain is a respectable candidate, but I don't think someone as moderate as him can get by the GOP to even run as the Republican Candidate either. The GOP would never let someone black let alone a black woman run for president as the Republican candidate. This is almost fully !@#$%^&*ured. A moderate Republican president along with a Democratic Congress would be fine, but I doubt it can happen. More likely either the ultra conservatives regain control or the Democrats take the White House and probably run as a much more moderate Democratic group than the extremism under Bush.

I've never heard of India's food supply being permanently crippled because of vermin. Also, China's social problems seem to be swept under the rug very well at least for the near future. India's economy is based on cheap labor, but it's also more largely based on skill as there are many well educated Indians and although the proportion of well educated Indians versus the whole population might be lower than the US, India has almost 4 times the population. Developing countries use cheap labor to develop, but also transform their economies in the process to become more than cheap labor economies (or are supposed to). It's simple economics. Also, the US is failing miserably at maintaining an educated, high technology workforce which, along with outsourcing, is an open door for poorer countries to take our place.

Who's going to be on top?

If they showed the video of Rumsfeld making a joint as a campaign advertisement the Republicans could have kept control of Congress .

Death itself is the ultimate punishment. The point of the death penalty is to prevent the person from ever commiting the crime again. If it was simply for revenge then you might as well torture them, but if it's about justice than simply killing them is more than enough and torture serves no positive purpose. Your already ending their lives so why make it a painful end? There's no point.

Whoever owns Halo now do us all a favor and kill it and burn it and nuke the ashes. Halo sucks.

France

Or you could not jump to pointlessly torture him. Does he deverve to be tortured? Yes. Does that make it right? No.

The death penalty sure, but torture is uncalled for.

Truly disgusting. That's the kinds of stuff I'd like to see people avoid, but I guess Americans who have not lost anyone because of Saddam, but have suffered under Bush would call for extremely inhumane measures for Saddam while calling Bush a hero.

I think hating Saddam brought Shiites and Kurds together. I wonder what happens when he's dead. I think the death penalty itself should only be used on the worst crimes. To torture him would be to make him a martyr in the eyes of Sunnis and it doesn't just set a bad legal precedent. It sets a bad moral precedent.

I don't see how a new mod is required for here. Aileron takes care of things.

That wouldn't accomplish anything except for revenge purposes.

It's more like 60% and 40% flip. They misled the public and handled the war wrong in almost every way. The 20% thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and links to terrorism. They also didn't realize that the Bush administration was going to completely mess up with their job. The 40% that still support Bush on Iraq is what scares me because despite all of the many many many failings they will never change their minds as long as Bush keeps gays from getting married.

The US does NOT want Europe to be dragged into a war against Kurds. The only thing that matters, though, is how it affects Europe and maybe the US.

talion: European society is based on tolerance and acceptance of PEOPLE. It's not based on appeasal of larger groups pushing around smaller groups especially when one of those groups is a part of the EU. Istanbul is not a place where cultures meet. It's a place that's been taken over by various different groups and had various religions. It used to be vastly dominated by Eastern Orthodox Christians. Noew the vast majority of people in Istanbul are Muslim Turks. It's not a melting pot any more than most large European cities. It's maybe a semi important region of the world considering it's location being the only way through the Black Sea and it has a high population. Otherwise all the "melting pot" nature of the city was erased when it's minorities were either forced out or massacred the way Anatolian Greeks, Armenians, and !@#$%^&*yrians were. The funny thing is that the government still denies it. They even continue to put pressure on what's left of Armenia. What do they want to finish the job now? There are so many things terribly wrong with Turkey joining the EU and unless they solve these problems allowing them in would be a betrayal to European ideals. The West doesn't want to defeat the Muslim World. They want the Muslim World to stop !@#$%^&*ting out psycho extremists like Osama bin Laden. When Muslims clearly repress Christians, Christians don't revert to terrorism. There seems to be this extreme double standard that when Christians "oppress" Muslims by Muslims being poorer than the group that dominates the country that this is very terrible and justifies m!@#$%^&* killings of civilians, but when Muslims do much worse then we must appease them and stick our heads in the sand. If Turkey want's to be considered European it needs to accept that it's going to have to live up to European standards. Also, a poorer Muslim minority sound similar to a poorer African American minority in the US? You see them bombing trains? Aileron: What matters is what's good for Europe. The European Union was created to protect the interests of the European Union not the interests of the rest of the world. Also how does Turkey's admission to the European Union help the world exactly?

Two days before the midterm elections...

Uh 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 15th (so Bush could win Florida).

Clearly? Did you not look at the list of reasons for not letting Turkey into the EU? If they solved those problems then sure let them into the EU, but otherwise letting Turkey is bad for the stability of the EU. Do you want the EU to turn the Kurds into the newest group of terrorists that hates the West and calls for our destruction and for Cyprus to be betrayed by the EU because it's not as economically powerful? Sounds to me that this would permanently spoil the image of the EU.