MonteZuma

I guess I would argue that they weren't lying. Just mistaken. Or maybe there was something else at stake. Like power or glory? I don't think the conversion of Rome to christianity can be seen as a miracle any more can the conversion of hundreds of millions of Asians to Islam.

People do dumb stuff for dumb reasons all the time. Many people have been tortured or commited suicide in the name of their religion or some other crackpot cause (DONT DRINK THE KOOL-AID!). Lots of people die in the name of Islam. Doesn't mean we all need to convert. There were many economic factors in the fall of the Roman Empire. English historian Edward Gibbon wrote a historical masterpiece in the late 1700’s, !@#$%^&*led "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", which describes many of these (Nardo 11). One of the reasons he listed is excessive indulgence and decadence by the upper class, at the expense of the state and the rest of the common people. (Nardo 11). Other historians and scholars have come up with many other reasons, including changes in climate which caused a decline in agricultural production, driving up prices (Nardo 11). In addition, "class wars" between the rich and the poor caused much tension within the empire. Also, waves of plague and disease spread through the densely populated cities, killing huge amounts of people and disrupting economic production and social stability (Nardo 11). Slavery was another economic problem, with slaves doing much of the work, benefiting the upper class, while the common people were out of luck (Dorrington). Since there were few jobs for commoners, most lived in poverty. In order to take care of this problem, the government established the Dole, which was a form of welfare for the impoverished citizens. Huge amounts of money were spent in order to feed the hungry population, as well as to provide entertainment to placate them, such as circuses (Gill). The Roman Emperor Nero is said to have started the fire which burned Rome in 64 A.D., which caused much devastation, destroying huge swaths of the city (Tacitus). In addition, the conquest of new territories stopped about two centuries after the birth of Christ, halting the influx of slaves and war loot (Dorrington). To top it off, the patricians in Rome imported huge amounts of luxury items from distant lands, and Rome was importing far more than it was exporting. This huge amount of money pouring out of Rome caused a large trade deficit (Rempel). Finally, huge amounts of corruption in the government bureaucracy caused much discontent among the people, as well as economic losses (Gill). The second group of factors was sociopolitical decay. One of the major problems of the imperial period was that there was no specific way for a new emperor to be chosen after the reign of an old one had ended. This often caused wasteful and divisive civil wars when an emperor died (Dorrington). Between 180 and 285 A.D., all but two of the 27 emperors who ruled met violent deaths (Rempel). Since Rome was a dictatorial system, much damage could be done if a bad emperor took power. For example, the insane emperor Nero is said to have caused the fire which destroyed much of Rome (Tacitus). Since lead was used in Roman plumbing and cooking vessels, some historians have cited lead poisoning as a factor in the fall, claiming that it caused brain damage and may have caused some Roman leaders to act illogically (Grout). In the third century A.D., the Roman Emperor Diocletian split the empire into two halves: eastern and western. He ruled over the Eastern Empire and moved the capital to Turkey, and appointed an emperor to rule the Western Empire. He did this because he felt that the empire had become too large and complex to govern under a single authority. While this did make the empire easier to manage, it also weakened it as a whole, and much feuding occurred between the two par!@#$%^&*ions during the next several centuries (Hooker). In addition, many historians cite the coming of Christianity as an occurrence which weakened the empire, since not only did it change traditional Roman beliefs and value, it also created much conflict and tension between the Christians and the followers of the old pagan ways (Nardo 11). Finally, during these times of economic, social and political upheaval, the Roman military was weakening, and suffered a series of stinging defeats at the hands of the Germans and the Huns, as well as various minor barbarian tribes. One of the reasons for these defeats was that the Empire’s borders were huge and ever-expanding, and defended by only approximately 500,000 troops, when 3 million or more were required to effectively secure the border (Dorrington). In addition, many barbarians were able to wreak havoc if they got through the border defenses, since there was then nothing between them and the Roman cities. The emperor Diocletian realized this, and adopted a change in military strategy: instead of putting troops on the border to defend it, he concentrated mobile divisions of troops away from the border, ready to respond if an incursion occurred (Nardo 41). This strengthened the empire’s defenses, but as more and more troops went to Italy to fight civil wars, the military was weakened further (Dorrington). In addition, when the empire split into east and west par!@#$%^&*ions, it’s military strength was halved (Heitman). As the empire slowly grew more and more corrupt, the people’s sense of patriotism diminished. Soldiers were not longer fighting for "The Glory that was Rome" (Heitman). Due to this, fewer Romans were enlisting the military, new forms of conscription had to be enforced, such as mandating military service for the sons of veterans. This was extremely unpopular, and desertions were widespread. To combat this, the military went so far as to brand new recruits with hot branding irons so they could be identified if they deserted. Such cruel treatment further weakened the morale of the Roman army (Nardo 43-44). Finally, barbarian tribes were able to repeatedly crush the weakened legions, and march to Rome (Rempel). http://home.rochester.rr.com/kjmpage/fallofrome.htm There is no law stopping people of other faiths having monuments with their own icons in any of those places. But the main difference between all of your examples and the case of the Judge is that a court house is not a religious shrine (or memorial to the dead for that matter) and should never be. For the sake of impartiality, the Law and Religion must be seperate. Monte

I haven't read the whole story, but lets face it....this judge was trying to make a religious statement. He should give up on that and stick to being a judge.

In that case, you aren't much different to the Arabs. Australia made the third biggest military contribution to the invasion of Iraq. So you don't understand as much as you think you do. Bold: Probably. Misguided: Definitely. The world is a more dangerous place for you too. You may blindly believe that Uncle Sam is looking out for you, but most of the rest of the world knows that your country's foreign policy sucks. Iraq was a mistake. Monte.

feef, for the most part I agree.... But you can't fight hate with hate and you can't win the hearts and minds of angry people by force. That is why this war was badly conceived. Obviously these middle easterners think differently to germans and japanese. Religion is probably the biggest difference. Something about islam seems to breed violence. I don't think we will ever (foreseeable future) see Iraq develop in the western image. In large part, it will always be something of a backwater of civilisation - the religion factor ensures that. But....the fact is, there was no reason to rush to war. The troubles in the middle east need to be managed differently. Obviously the way the trouble is being managed in Israel/Palestine and Iraq is not conducive to a peaceful settlement. If the inspectors were still in Iraq - thousands of lives and billions of dollars would have been saved. And the Iraq problem would still be contained. The threat to the western way of life comes from radicals in Saudi Arabia and Egypt as much as it does from anywhere else - What are the Americans going to do next - Take Cairo? Of course not. It was easier to smash the Iraqi egg with a sledge hammer and feel good about it whilst ignoring the real source of hatred and conflict. Gah - its late and I gotta go. Monte.

Comments like that will leave everybody in no doubt that your society is failing. It might make no difference to you if a few hundred of your countrymen get killed fighting for something that nobody understands, but what about their kids, parents, siblings, partners? Guess it doesn't matter so long as it isn't you in the way of the grenades, and it isn't you who has to explain to GI Joe jr that his daddy isn't coming home. thats the whole reason im posting here smart guy. the original topic was about terror/fear. and i simply told you i was unafraid. and do you know why im unafraid? cuss those Americans have given there lives so i dont have to be. understand?. Your complacency is based on a false premise. The forces in Iraq aren't making you safer. They are making the whole world a more dangerous place. You can't fight terrorism with a regular army. You think every soldier in Iraq wants to be there? Think again. Yes. Some people think that warfare is very entertaining. Some people can only afford to go to college if they join the military. More signs that society is corrupt. The fact that American buildings were targeted explains the irrational actions of your government and the irrational loyalty of some of your people. It doesn't mean that you are automatically right about everything.

Do a google phrase search. I think mine was a plagiarism/school essay site. Not an authoritative souce by any means. Monte. PS. Are the -*BAD WORD*--posting rules posted anywhere?

Errrrrm This forum is called "Political Discussion". The forum with the !@#$%^&*in recipes is --------> THAT WAY.

Oh I understand alright. You guys aren't that much different - just more uptight and more religious. Monte.

Comments like that will leave everybody in no doubt that your society is failing. It might make no difference to you if a few hundred of your countrymen get killed fighting for something that nobody understands, but what about their kids, parents, siblings, partners? Guess it doesn't matter so long as it isn't you in the way of the grenades, and it isn't you who has to explain to GI Joe jr that his daddy isn't coming home.

I bet there are thousands of Americans who have changed their daily lives. I used to think that no-one in Australia would've change their behaviour because of the terror threat - until I met someone who was afraid to go to shopping malls and other crowded places because they were terror targets. Ridiculous, but thats how some people think. Monte.

I agree. However you ignore one important fact: In 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical surgeons, and therefore led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death (“abortion”). Now there is a new proposal to close abortion clinics. This proposal takes away the privacy rights of American women that are guaranteed by our Cons!@#$%^&*ution. By closing abortion clinics the government is not only taking away women’s rights, but is also punishing those whom want to exercise their right of a pro-choice woman. Abortion clinics allow thousands of women every year to have abortions. Having the abortion should be woman’s personal choice. By closing these clinics, there will be no providers to perform the operation, so the choice has already been made for them. Closing the clinics will increase the barriers of having an abortion. When there are too many obstacles, the right to make their own choice is taken away from them. In 1973 the American Supreme Court ruled that Americans’ right to privacy included: “the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference” (“abortion”). The Cons!@#$%^&*ution says we have a right to privacy, so taking away a woman’s chance to make decisions about her own body violates that right. The American Civil Liberties Union defends the Cons!@#$%^&*ution and peoples’ rights. ACLU has protected the rights of abortion for women, and in recent years has argued mayor cases opposing restrictions that deny woman access to reproductive health care (“ACLU”). Policy 263 states: “The ACLU holds that every woman, as a matter of her right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and privacy, should be free to determine whether and when to bear children.”(The American Civil Liberties Union) The closure of abortion clinics will be done with the purpose to reduce the number of abortions. This raises the question whether this will be an effective method or not. Before 1973 abortions were illegal yet the number of women who sought abortions did not decrease (“abortion”). Before 1973 many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to perform their own abortions, or going to untrained doctors who performed cheap abortions with uncivilized methods or in unsanitary conditions (The Abortion Law Homepage.). If clinics are closed, women will still continue to attempt, and succeed, in ending unwanted pregnancies just like before 1973. Women will risk their health and possibly even their lives. By keeping these abortions clinics open it ensures a higher probability that the women who do have abortions will be in a safe, sanitary environment, and therefore injuries will be fewer in number. If clinics are shut, the waiting lists of abortion clinics in other countries will be much longer. Women will have to wait longer to get an abortion, and will be treated later in their pregnancy which is much more dangerous for the pregnant women. Pro-life activists claim that the unborn baby is alive and has feelings when the heart begins beating. But, the heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day (“Fetus”). They also say that women who have abortions are “murderers”. This problem could be solved by keeping abortion clinics open, because then the woman can be treated before the twenty fifth day when the fetus is not yet a living baby. She will not have to wait because of long waiting lists, but instead will have the abortion as soon as possible with as less psychological pain. If a woman has to travel to another country to have a legal abortion, she will have to pay more money. She will now not only have to pay for the abortion itself, but also the traveling costs and that does not include the psychological costs as well. Not all people can afford these costs. So by keeping clinics open more women will have the chance to exercise their right and have their desired abortion. If a working woman or student suddenly has to leave the country, this means she will have to think of excuses and lies for an explanation. This is not fair to the woman, she should not have to explain herself to anyone, it is her body and therefore she can do what she wants, she does not need other people’s consult. Abortion clinics are not a “butcher’s place” where young babies are murdered. They provide a choice for women whether or not to bring a child into this world. What is worse: taking away the life of an unborn child that is not even aware of life itself yet, or a mother bringing an unwanted child into this world, knowing that she will not be able to take care of it, and that her child will have to suffer from the poor cir-*BAD WORD*-stances in which she lives. As of now the woman has the ability to make that choice and save the child from poor, possibly abusive or hate filled environment. Personally I feel that living in a cir-*BAD WORD*-stance such as abuse is worse than the abortion of the fetus. Rape victims should also be able to have an abortion because they know that if they were to keep the child, they would cringe when she thought about whom contributed to the other half of the child. The offspring will be a painful reminder to the rape victim. She did not choose to take the responsibility of a child and therefore should not have to pay the consequences. A woman who cannot love her child has no right to have a baby in the first place. One option for women who are not able to take care of their baby is adoption. Yet she will have to carry the baby for nine months and then give it up. Not all women are able to do this physically or psychologically. After the pregnancy she will have to hope that their baby will find a good and loving home. And this is not always the case. The child will possibly have to suffer from living in orphanages waiting to get adopted. Adoption can not always be seen as a good solution to unwanted pregnancies. The advantage of closing abortion clinics could be that woman will be forced to take the responsibility over their baby, and give their unborn child the right to life. But it can not be seen as something entirely positive. The mother will always regard the child as a “mistake” and will never love it the way she would have if she had wanted to keep the child. Getting an abortion does not always mean that the woman is only thinking of herself, she also thinks on behalf of her baby. Abortion clinics do not make the choice easier, nor do they force the woman into the surgery. People who are against abortion having the choice not to have one. It is not fair to take away the choice of people who do want one.

Not really. There is occasional talk in Australia (last time was prolly >5yrs ago) about changing the flag to get rid of the Union Jack, but in the end nobody cares enough and it doesn't happen. As for becoming a republic, well, yeah, same story there....most people don't want change. Our system works well so why change it? I think the Australian public is clever enough to know that the flag and the system of government are 2 separate issues. The national anthem is yet another story...... Monte.

Do you have a better suggestion on how to deal with this issue? Frankly the only way that we can find out what is right in this issue is the scientific way. Doing what "feels right" not only is subjective but can lead to terrible probelms. nah. There is no scientific solution to this problem. This one is gonna have to be thrashed out the hard way. I personally would not have a problem with that. errrr j/k "p Monte

Huh? No way. You cannot justify not going to war because it affects your country's balance of payments. If a war is needed than you just go ahead and do the job. The question is, was the war justified? Well I don't think Germany's reasons were anti-US. They may have been economic, but I doubt it. I just think that they didn't want to go to war without UN approval - mainly because that is what the German people wanted. The French on the other hand? Perhaps they were thinking along the same lines as Germany, but you can't tell with them. I think the dangerous thing is going to war without UN approval. The US has been doing that for a long time. Long before 9/11 IMHO the biggest fault with the UN is the Security Council. There needs to be a fairer way making group decisions. Not everyone in every nation sees things this way. The US is an economic, cultural, political and military threat to every nation, especially poorer non-western nations with an uptight populations and a unstable government. Referring to nations as being part of an axis of evil highlights that threat. Much of what the US is doing is having a destabilising effect and making the world more dangerous place. Monte.

Yeah...That kind of thing sucks....but my view on this is that it is better for the govt to help raise the kids than any alternate option. Compulsory sterilisation or abortion or adoption? Forcing the children to live in absolute poverty? I don't see any reasonable way out of it? And yeah, I know that one of the reasons people probably have kids is to become a career welfare recipient....but what can ya do? The child's needs come first. I know that you aren't talking about legitimate needy people, but its prolly also worth mentioning that many people on welfare need help and shouldnt be denied the opportunity to have kids just because they are on welfare. Monte

Cool. You know... if Australia had a Labor Government (main opposition party here), then Australia and Canada would probably have the exact same stance in relation to Iraq. We aren't that different. Peacekeeping is Australia's military specialty too.... But you probably already know this.... Monte.

Ah yes i see where your comming from now. I had forgotten about that. You know I see that as you guys trying to get the world to give you attention. Thats probably really offensive to you, i'm sorry and maybe not accurate at all. And besides our countries values are different. I will look forward to your re-evaluation, although by then you might have to email me cus i might not still be on this. I think Australia's involvement in Iraq was based on Australia's alliegance(sp?) with the US. The US did a lot for Australia in WW2 and our defense is still tied to the US. We have 235 million muslims living in an unstable country right next door. Sure...they may not have an air force or navy, but one day they might. Australia on the other hand is a country of 19 million peeps who like to surf and have bbqs and stuff like that. So I think the Australian governments policy is to scratch Uncle Sam's back coz we might ask him to scratch ours some day. The main way that this was achieved was by Australia providing a small but substantial contribution that would have hopefully convinced uncommitted nations that there really was a 'coalition of the willing'. Its like saying 'hey...look...we are willing to put our bbq tongs down and fight for freedom....How about you cheese eating surrender monkeys pull your finger out too?' Canada on the other hand has the benefit of living next door. Who'd mess with Canada when your next door neighbour has more nukes than everyone else combined? So Canada can afford to sit back and take it easy and just be a moral crusader - which is fine by me. The world needs more of 'em. By the way. In what way do you see the values of Canada and Australia as different? Monte

Well yeah, the Australian military is cool, better than the US and probably most other countries. But because Australia was involved in the invasion of Iraq, I think that tips the balance to Canada. In a few years I will re-evaluate. Stay posted. Monte.

The whole thing is, teenagers don't live in a perfect world. Especially teenagers in dysfunctional families or social groups. They are gonna stuff up. But anybody can make a mistake. Anybody who has sex that is.... Monte.

Do you giggle during PD class as well? Heh.

Akai: Have you ever used a condom? Monte

A military is a necessary evil. The world is a mess and the good guys need to keep the bad guys in check. It sucks, but hey...what can ya do? Oh yeah...and btw...yea...Canada does have the best military in the world. Peace keeping rocks and war mongering sucks. Its just a shame that Canada does have really bad beaches. Otherwise I'd think about visiting some day. Monte.

find me the statistics of girls that get pregnant while on the pill and using a condom and then I'll laugh in your face Christ. You read the PD text book at school and you think you are an expert on sexual health. Get out in the real world. Condoms have a 14% failure rate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...3&dopt=Abstract In case you don't know what that means: "During a year of typical condom use, 14 out of 100 women will become pregnant. During a year of perfect condom use, that number drops to 3 out of 100 women becoming pregnant." http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html The pill has an 8% failure rate. I'd suspect that a lot of smart kids using the pill or condoms for the first time would get things pretty messed up. You do live in a perfect and unforgiving dreamworld Akai. Sad. Monte.

The rythm method isn't foolproof. Anyone who thinks a girl/woman must be stupid because of an unplanned pregnancy is a hypocrit. Well, either that or they don't believe in conventional recreational sex.