Aardvark

Tell me what the moral difference is then, if you can. Or is it just a question of aesthetics? Killing someone by removing her feeding tube is a lot less messy than cutting her throat so therefore it is more acceptable? Seriously. What is the moral difference?

Boo hoo. I did not state that Israels actions are justified by its small size and the prospect of gaining power so your criticisms are invalid. I stated that these actions would be beneficial to Israel because it would make Israel stronger and Palestine weaker. True. I also stated that these actions could be criticised on moral grounds. At no point did i state that Palestinians have no rights to exist or are any less deserving of long term security. Perhaps you should actually read my posts before jumping to a knee jerk reaction.

Not everyone lives in the USA.

We are dealing with the matter of killing someone. Lets cut the crap. I hate the petty euphemisms that people invent to hide from the reality of their actions and situations. If the tube is removed she will die. Do you see any moral difference between removing her tube and cutting her throat?

Can anyone here tell me if they see a moral difference between removing her feeding tube and shooting her? If a doctor was to go up to her and cut her throat rather than pulling her tube would you view it differently?

Detrimental to Israels security? How so? Presumably more land under Israels control means more taxes, more economic activity and most importantly, more Israelis. Israel is a small country. The more land and the higher the population the stronger and deeper rooted it will be. The action of taking that land will also displace and weaken the Palestinians who are the historic enemies of Israel. Therefore it is apparent that increasing settlements is a means of securing Israels long term security. It could be argued that such actions are wrong on moral grounds, but on grounds of securing the long term existence of Israel it has a practical justification.

That kind of attitude won't cause people not to practice discrimination. Quite the opposite, that kind of attitude will fuel racial hatred and resentment.

To discriminate against someone on the grounds of the colour of their skin is a wrongful act. That is not an assumption, but a statement of generally accepted ethics.

What a complete and obvious con. What kind of people are so credulous as to fall for that nonsense? On the question of synthetic vitamins and minerals. As long as they are the right isomer then there is no difference at all between natural and synthetic.

Thanks for that, i respect your opinion even thorough i disagree with it. Sometimes its too easy to get carried away and take these things personally

So everyone in Spain and Japan and the Netherlands and Belgium and Denmark and Sweden and Britain is a slave who doesn't value thinking for themselves? Or are you just an ignorant American brought up on biased fake history about the 'American Revolution' and a lot of rot about how evil and despotic monarchy always is?

Where diseaes is cut through better sanitation, diet and medical treatment people tend to have fewer children. If infant mortality is lower then people are more confident in not needing large families. I suggest you check out the demographic transition model.

Bettina, in all your posts in this forum who has ever condemned or censored you? No one is going to be offended by your simply expressing a strong opinion. I would suggest that you recognise that you are allowing strong emotions to control you. The harder and more dreadful the case the more need to remain calm and rational in considering its implications.

$250 billion? Firstly' date=' A deficit with China is not an asset. Secondly China is economically dependent on the USA, not the other way around. If China wants to start an economic war against the USA then it is China which would lose. Averting a full scale war is like killing a fly with a tank? Try and concieve what an invasion of Taiwan would mean. Then you will understand that it is more than just a minor concern amongst others. And how do you think they will respond if full scale war breaks out in their backyard? For more than 50 years the Western powers stockpiled nuclear weapons to deter attack. Now you state that allowing Taiwan the same measure of defence is 'beyond the pale'. If that is not hyprocrisy then i've no idea what is.

In what way is running a huge trade deficit a good thing worth protecting? It is China which depends on access to Americas markets in order to modernise and industrialise. China is economically dependent on the USA, not the other way around. No thank you. Preventing a bloody war by a clear show of determination and strength looks like a good door to me.

There is already an arms race there. If Taiwan had a serious nuclear deterrent then the arms buid up would become redundant. What is the point in having large conventional forces when both yourself and your rivals have nuclear weapons? In which case i don't see the relavance to this matter, esp as we are talking about nuclear weapons, which the West definetely didn't supply to Iraq.

Nuclear deterrence works. If you are referring to China the answer is no.

Self respect.

It seems to me that the only way to guarentee peace is to immediately supply Taiwan with a large number of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Only then will the Peoples Republic of China be deterred from this increasingly dangerous belligerence.

It is highly unlikely that the soldiers shot at the journalist because of her opinions. Unless you would like to present some evidence no one else has seen? What point are you trying to make here?

I'd like to call you a paranoid whacko. But i think i'm developing symptoms of paranoia as well.

A pleasure ps 6,666 posts. How cool is that?