Aardvark

Please elucidate.

Nope, no criteria change. The USA has consistently been biased toward Pakistan and given it preferential treatment. As you would know if you based your opinions on facts rather than conversations with random people. Providing assistance under the 'Atoms for Peace' Programme to India in the 1960's hardly counts as 'leaving Pakistan in the cold'. That programme was deliberately designed to encourage PEACEFUL uses of nuclear technology. When India started to develop a nuclear bomb the USA cut off assistance and then applied sanctions. Again, hardly leaving Pakistan 'in the cold'. The USA also increased military assistance to Pakistan. Again, hardly leaving Pakistan 'in the cold'. The facts clearly show that the USA has consistently been supportive of Pakistan. If you persist in insisting otherwise it is clear that you are the deluded one. You are simply wrong on this matter. Accept it, get over it, move on.

Palestinian terrorism increased when Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip. Therefore that statement is untrue. Xenophobia. combined with Islamic fanaticism.

Do you mind me asking who you voted for at the last election? If it was Labour was it because of or inspite of Mr Blair? He seems to be a major election asset (which i don't understand!) and i think some of those Labour MPs might end up regreting getting rid of him.

Dave made an interesting comment about considering emigrating from Britain. It got me thinking, if SFNers had to leave their home country where would they go and why? I can't quite make up my mind between Australia and New Zealand. Both have great people and both are beautiful but in utterly different ways. On the whole i think i might go for New Zealand because i love the hot springs and the culture seems more British and less American influenced than Australia (just personal preference, no insult meant to Americans;) ) Anyone else got any interesting ideas?

Regardless of ideology, Howard has always struck me as a very shrewd character with a close grasp of public opinion. In contrast i think Mr Blair has let himself become isolated and out of touch.

I've always wondered what his election appeal was. He seems like the kind of person i wouldn't buy a second hand car from. And yet people vote for him. It really is remarkably unedifying. The country has troops at war. The economy is facing a slowdown, the EU is looking to expand to include the Balkans. And all the government can do is tear itself apart arguing over who should inherit the position of Prime Minister. (and i thought this was a democracy!!) People resigning, not on matters of high principle, but on hopes of ingraciating themselves with a new leader. It's seedy. I think the Labour party is going to regret this, esp as Mr Brown isn't that attractive a political figure. Esp when he actually has to proffer an opinion on something, which he deftly avoids doing now. Then he won't be able to hide behind Mr Blair on controversial issues such as war in Iraq.

Wouldn't a sensible reform be to split the electoral college votes from each state acccording to the percentage of th vote rather than awarding all to the winner? It would be fairer and give each state more value to politicians, rather than simply concentrating on marginal states.

Your original post doesn't give any subject for discussion. It's just a random link to an Anti Israeli opinion piece. Perhaps you'd like to give your opinion on the matter and indictate what exactly you do want to discuss in this thread? Or are you just making randon points without context? (bit of a character trait that;) )

Some Australians got a bit embarrassed by Steve Irwin because he seemed to embody some Australian stereotypes. I can understand that, but think that reaction is a bit over sensitive. And some people are just po faced kill joys. Steve Irwin did a lot of good work in nature conservation and public education. He did it with gusto and good humour, that seems to automatically attract the envy and spite of a certain type of person. If Steve Irwins actions caused any creatures discomfort then it was fleeting and much less than found on the average farm every day. In return he helped environmental protection.. A good man and a friend to the natural world.

:-p :-p How much can be said with one word. Droll, dry wit. Thank you.

Yes. Providing a civilian reactor under the 'Atoms for Peace' project, to India hardly counts as being unfriendly to Pakistan. What was that about context you mentioned? Raising random points without any context seems to be your speciality. Still waiting for you to attempt to refute any of my points. Still waiting.

As i had stated myself. So what? Still haven't refuted any of my points regarding the USA bias toward Pakistan, when you have been asserting the opposite. Is that because you can't? Perhaps you should stop skirting around the issue with irrelevant asides and diversions and actually engage in debate. Or perhaps you don't get it?

I doubt he will be able to provide any. He has a habit of making claims, then not providing any evidence to back them up and ignoring all subsequent questions.

And if you do you are wrong. And i note that you haven't attempted to refute any of my statements. I will take that to mean that you can't.

Funnily enough i base my opinions about international affairs on more than conversations with random people i meet. Well done. A completely irrelevant aside than does nothing to refute my point. How about the perspective of FACTS. How about the perspective of the actual actions made by the USA. How about the perspective of history? Or don't those perspectives fit convientently with your opinion formed by talking to one random Pakistani? Enemy? What are you talking about now? What benefactor? India developed the bomb on its own. I'm starting to get the impression that you don't know what you are talking about. Because the USA is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation pact. And also, presumably because the USA doesn't approve of the idea of a nuclear war breaking out on the Indian sub continent. Weird huh? You really think that the USA should encourage all of its allies to develop nuclear weapons? You honestly think that is a good idea? That sentence appears to have no meaning. What 'benefactors'? Who are you talking about. And in what way does decades of economic and military assistance count as treating Pakistan badly? Could you actually put forward some real facts and evidence to support your contentions? Other than the context of history? Or the context of USA-Pakistan relations since 1947? Or perhaps you don't actually understand what the word 'context' means? It dosn't seem like you do. I'm putting forward facts which are in the public domain. If you can contradict a single assertion of mine then please do. So far all you have been able to state is that a Pakistani you meet in college thought the USA was bias against Pakistan. That's pretty pathetic.

Truly, SFN is the ghost in the machine.

You base your opinion on Pakistani-USA relations on the basis of one Pakistani you meet in college?!?! Please tell me you are joking. Check the facts. Ever since the creation of Pakistan the USA has been a supportive ally of Pakistan. In conflicts with India the USA has been sympathetic to Pakistan rather than India. Those are facts. The USA has consistently been biased TOWARD Pakistan and against India. I am the one putting this situation into context. The context of Pakistan-US relations since 1947. Over which time the USA has been consistently supportive of Pakistan. The USA briefly applied minor sanctions against Pakistan when it exploded a nuclear bomb in violation of its agreements and promises. Those minor sanctions were rapidly lifted. When India exploded a nuclear bomb the USA applied harsher sanctions. As you can see if you bother to check the facts, the USA has been consistently biased in favour of Pakistan. If you are going to be making statements to the contary on the basis of what some random Pakistani you meet in college told you then please don't bother. Go and check the actual facts, then you might have something of value to add to this discussion.

Which is exactly what i posted. That is why i mentioned the Taliban as an 'incidental' point. You still haven't answered my original objection to your bizarre claim that it was the actions of the USA that destabilised the region and allowed the Taliban to take over.

Do you have any idea why the ranking has so suddenly dropped? It's almost like a deliberate decisions been made somewhere.

For the entirety of Pakistans existence the USA has ben allied to Pakistan. It has favoured Pakistan in its disputes with India and provided military and economic assistance. The sanctions imposed on Pakistan after it exploded a nuclear bomb were less than the sanctions imposed on India when it did the same. Where is this discrimination against Pakistan? You are simply wrong on this point. No you didn't. You said 'i doubt the Taliban would have been able to gain power without the environment created by the US activities in the region' That is much more than simply stating that the CIA funded foreign fighters. (Incidentially the CIA never funded the Taliban anyway.) That's what the facts prove.

I always used to use Google to get to SFN, now even if i do a search for scienceforums.net nothing relevant comes up. The same goes for Yahoo. Why has SFN been bumped of these search engines and how does anyone else find SFN?

'Everyone' can say what they want. I suggest you look in a copy of the Koran. It is very clear and explict in its instructions. Such instructions as that non believers should be conquered and forced to convert by violence. I won't bore you with a list of quotations, suffice to say the Koran has no ambiguitiy, it orders Muslims to be violent and aggressive to non belivers. Mohammed did preach violent conquest. His very last words were a call to spread Islam by conquest. Has that put the argument to rest for you?

Apparently in the USA the nicotine levels are not printed on cigarette packets. For the information to be freely available it should be on the packet, just like the ingredient list on a packet of food.