bombus

Local corruption? I don't understand how nationalisation is equal to corruption? Please explain? Also, it was mostly British oil companies that lost out in Iran.

Look, you can find this stuff out for yourself you know! The Shah was put in place by the CIA after Mossadegh was ousted in Operation Ajax. Mossadegh wanted to modernize the county but was a bit too left wing for the West. What's anti semetism got to do with it? Iran is opposed too the Isreali state, not Jews (the Isreali state being occupied Palestine to many in the middle east). Anyway, Arabs are Semites too. Yeah, and I'm like really sure the Iranians were given a fair deal!! No it's not. Its more like being told that by selling your rights to land you'll be better off, and then realising how much you have been ripped off. I am sure the Iranians had little say in it anyway.

Maybe so, but we were talking about vegetarianism. However, the farming of Soya and crops tends to use high doses of pesticides, fertilizers, and increasingly GM, and involves the felling of rainforests - so you can't escape just by being a veggie! An interesting POV. I should disagree being a conservationist, but alas you are probably right!

Except they never actually kill anyone!

Yes, I'd agree. While Freud's general theories may have been correct in many ways, it's not really that readily applicable to most psychological problems. Also, I would reckon that most psychological problems that people encounter do not stem from such 'deep' psychology, and have occured 'further up' the 'psychological ladder'.

Well, as they are both Her Majesties Armed Forces, I'd rate 'em equally:-)

There are many reasons why people are vegetarian. Some just don't like meat, some don't like farming practices as it is often cruel, some don't like to kill animals, some will only eat meat if they kill it/find it themselves etc. For those that don't like to kill animals the issue is often personal, and is basically "if I don't need to eat animals to survive then I will not eat them". Non-human animals do not have a choice, and furthermore, have no opinions on the rights and wrongs of killing animals to eat. You're hamburger idea is fine, but does not take into account the cruelty and habitat destruction that can often be involved in producing that hamburger. I usually only eat free-range 'ethically farmed' meat for this reason and also don't actually eat meat that often. Many plants have benefited by evolving to cope and even thrive by being eaten. This is why fruits are nice to eat - the seeds are spread by animals that eat them. Grass can cope with being grazed as it grows from the bottom, and in grazed habitats dominates (e.g the North American plains and the Savannahs). An interesting point is that in biomass terms perhaps the most successful organism on the planet is wheat. It's so successful that it even pushes mankind out of huge areas of the planet! Also, in biomass terms there is more cow on the planet than human. By being good to eat a symbiotic relationship with man has developed which has made cows very successful organisms.

OK. The following species have become extinct in Wales primarily due to habitat loss (although once depleted hunting may have had an impact in some cases) Wolf Brown Bear Wild Boar Corncrake lynx I could go on and on about species currently threatened by habitat loss in the UK e.g. lapwing, barn owl, water vole, dormouse, silver studded blue butterflys, sandhill rustic moth, there are hundreds! Now most of these species are still present somewhere on Earth, but if habitat loss occured everywhere they could go globally extinct - and this is now their greatest threat. The Panda is only still around because massive conservation effort saved their habitat and put breeding programmes into action - else it would have gone by now. The same could be said for Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orang-utans, and soooo many more. It is true that hunting can wipe out a species e.g. the passenger pigeon, dodo, beaver from most European countries, certain whale species etc, and more known species have gone extinct from Earth as a result of hunting by man, but nowadays, the biggest threat is habitat loss - which I suppose could also include the effects of non-native introduced species. Once a habitat is lost, how can a species designed to live in that habitat possibly survive?

Well, to me that's a bit like saying that me punching you helped the result of you punching me back. Technically kinda correct, but c'mon!

Well substitute 'West' for United States and you're probably right!!

I don't, but the point I am trying to make is that the West started it! Like I said, I think we (I) was getting wires crossed. Of course Iran as a sovereign nation has responsibility for its own actions, but it's hostile stance to begin with is our fault. That's what I'm trying to point out.

That's not an easy question to answer. Reza's overt support of Hitler, and his (lets face it) fascistic tendencies made him a target, but he was not that well supported by the Iranian people, having siezed control of Shah Soltan Ahmad's guards and arrested the entire Cabinet! Now I don't know how much of a threat he actually was, but certainly with supplies of oil to Nazi Germany halted the war was shortened. So I would say it was probably justified. Had he not overtly supported Hitler, and had like Franco (another Fascist dictator who was in power in Spain until the late seventies!), made an effort to stay well away from Hitler, then I would have said no. I think Iran had every right to nationalize their own oil. It was theirs but the West was making all the money from it. Here lies the beginning of all our trouble! We never forgave Iran for this act. I would say, almost definitely not. Iran would be more like Turkey or Tunisia IMHO Well, fair enough, but we can probably hazard a pretty good guess methinks...

And you might be right, but it worked and one has to ask why was the ground so fertile? The situation with Nazi Germany was different. Anti semitism was already rife throughout Europe (and still is in many parts), whereas until the West interfered with Iran they were trying to become like us, and were not anti-western.

To answer all of you I will give you an example of what I mean. The 'English' have been meddling in the affairs of Ireland since the Middle Ages and on the whole have treated the common Irish people badly. All this plus more recent 20th Century events resulted in the formation of the IRA. Now the cause of the IRA may have been acceptable, but in my opinion their actions were not. The IRA committed terrible acts against more-or-less innocent people. Now, I cannot 'excuse' the IRA for their actions just because they were 'provoked' , but it is still clear that if the British had not been so brutal to the Irish catholics and repulicans the IRA would never have formed. The brutal acts of the IRA caused the British government to behave brutally, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Loyalist Paramilitaries, but still, if the British had not behaved like they did in the first place the IRA would not have existed. Peace has only arisen in Ulster since the two sides have started talking in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Now to say that Iran has been provoked into their position does not excuse them of their actions (although much of those are probably propaganda), but to deny that the west provoked Iran seems absurd.

I agree with you about mystical mumbojumbo, there is too much pseudoscience around, but WHY do both consciousness and quantum theory involve those terms so intrinsically? I can ..er..feel (?) a connection between the two. It kinda makes sense that they are linked. In fact I can imagine the next great step in Physics coming out of the study of consciousness, because, of course, it's where 'we' actually interface with reality, which is what Physics attempts to explain. I think linkage of the two subjects is actually inevitable.

Maybe we are getting our wires crossed. I think it is indisputable that the West meddled with the internal affairs of Iran throughout the 20th Century and to deny this would mean ignorance of the facts. I also think it hard to dispute that our meddlings have resulted in the stance Iran now have against the West. That is not to say the Iranian leadership is 'correct'. I am merely saying that our interference backfired and has resulted in the Iran we have today, and all the problems we now face. I'd be genuinely interested in knowing which bits you disagree with.

Quantum wierdness is more than that though isn't it. You can't measure the exact velocity and position of a moving elephant at the same time, but quantum wierdness DOES border on the 'mystical' hence Schrodingers cat, double slit, parallel universes, many minds etc...

Isn't that the fundamental problem with quantum theory though? That the experimental evidence shows that these assumptions are not reliable.

I must say, I doubt you have much knowledge of Iran in the 20th Century. It's not my opinion, it's got nothing to do with opinions, it's just the truth. Its a fact, and I would suggest that if you knew your stuff you'd know you can't really disagree. Unless you choose to ignore the facts that is. I've never said you or anyone else has a closed mind. With all due respect, you seem to be the only one saying it. I was talking about MY mind being 'opened'. Also, may I add that, if anyone is, you seem to be the only extremist around here. The very fact that you think I am one, and even use the term, speaks volumes. No need to apologize. I'm in no quagmire, but thanks for your concern:-)

I'd have to say the SAS. They trained Delta Force. Maybe Ray Mears, he trains the SAS:-)

That's quite an interesting attitude, and he is probably correct about Neo-Cons not being true Republicans. Neo-Cons are gung ho, whereas I suppose true Republicans are far more conservative. It would be nice to say that a true capitalist SHOULD hate war as it interferes with trade, but as I said above, war can be very profitable so maybe that's not true. Also capitalism often results in war in the end (long story why really). I'd welcome a non-interventionist approach, but it does depend what is meant by that. There are leaders in the world who are awful but supported by the West. We should stop supporting them and let the people of those countries decide what they want. Similarly, there may be times when intervention is a good thing (Sierra Leone as a recent example). I'm also a bit suspicious of people who like low taxes. Taxes are essentially the people buying services in bulk to get them at the lowest price, and, depending how they're spent (a whole subject on it's own) they can be a very good thing and save individuals money in the long term. Compare US Health Service spending per person to UK spending via taxes on our National Health Service for example. Anyway, having said all that, compared to Bush Jr. he'll be perfect!

Most cats don't over eat, but I'm not sure why. Maybe evolution has made cats careful about their weight so that it doesn't affect their ability to hunt. Dogs, being pack animals can perhaps rely more on other pack members to bring home the bacon so aren't so bothered (evolutionarily speaking) about getting fat. Also, most cats kill for 'fun' regardless of how much they are fed. They tend not to eat what they catch if well fed though (apart from my cat of course who leaves mouse bums and tails around the place!).

How do you know that without observation by a conscious mind?

I actually think the basics of Fruedian theory are correct. From an evolutionary point of view it's hard to believe that sexual desire ISN'T the prime mover behind everything else. I think he went a bit far, and some of his conclusions were just plain wrong, but in general I think he was on the button.

I'm open to that idea. Where's the evidence though?