Aardvark

Simply, that if you are going to criticism him try to do so honestly.

That's a fascinating find and i'm looking forward to finding out about them. That has alsorts of potential implications historically, culturally and biologically.

Presidents don't lose jobs? The unemployment rate rose under Presidents Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon and Ford. http://www.forbes.com/home/commerce/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html And as a percentage of GDP the deficit is 3.6%. It's been higher than that before.

The latest estimates are of humans and chimpanzees sharing at 98.5% of DNA, a 1.5% difference. I've no idea what the percentage shared with squirrels is but am prepared to hazard that it is a fair bit less.

Having read the link you posted i note that Unacol did not ask for the overthrow of the Taliban. Unacol stated it had no preferences to any of the groups in Afghanistan. "Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings for all of them." Unacol also stated only that it wanted support for the UNITED NATIONS peace keeping plans. "We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan." Also where on Earth do you get the estimate of $12 Trillion? Not even Michael Moore at his wildest is quoting quite such an outlandish figure. It looks like you are allowing bias to blind you here.

I don't know the exact figures but i'd guess a lot more jobs have been lost under other Presidents. Herbert Hoover and the start of the depression would have seen more job losses surely?

I want to meet the kind of people who buy those statues.

Al-Qaeda have publicaly stated that they are at war with those powers occuping Iraq, they have announced an 'alliance' with the insurgents in Iraq. You could correctly say that Al Qaeda HAD no links with Iraq, that has been changed by events. The cause and effect in Madrid is pretty straightforward.

The Guardian newspaper represents a whopping majority of the British population? Strange that it has a circulation of around 400,000 whilst the pro Bush, pro war Daily Telegraph has a circulation of more than 1 million.

But if you move to far to the centre you risk your more conservative or liberal supporters losing enthusium and not bothering to turn out to vote. For instance G Bush knows that if he seems too centralist then the evangelical vote will be less bothered to turn out, and Kerry knows that if he is too centralist he risks losing more liberal voters to either apathy or Nader.

Unlike the Americans.

The British have not lost any cities.

that sounds like Lamarkism. Why would a drug affecting a spinal cord be herditary?

It may seem imbalanced, but it could also denote a certain confidence in the US. People don't invest in countries they think have bad prospects. If US policy adapts to deal with these deficits it probably isn't too late to recitify the situation, but it would take some difficult political decisions.

We can take it as read that no country has ever achieved 'true' communism, but countries like the USSR did make major efforts to try and achieve it. In contrast China has completely abandoned any effort whatsoever to build communism. A pretty big distinction.

Since there was no 'strawmanning' in post 30 i missed that reference.

And yet his theories were widely accepted and are still highly influential. Not a good commentary on the human pysche in general either.

Sayonara, that post is in agreement with you. Eventually the oil age will end and not because there is no oil left in the ground. I doubt we will ever run out of oil completely. Canada has more oil than Saudi Arabia in its Tar sands. But technology develops, other more relaible and cleaner sources of fuel will be developed.

Wow, you can't even count. It goes One, two, three, not Two, three, four. 1) You state that you think their culture traits are of conformity and compliance. ( which shows an interesting ignorance of Chinese history with its long record of countless rebellions, revolts, changes of governments. Maybe you shold go and actually find something out about a topic before spouting ill informed opionions.) 2) You say you are not sure that the average Chinese actually cares. If that is so why does the Chinese government need censorship, secret police and slave labour camps? Why did it need to machine gun thousands of its own people in Beijing? 3) I repeat the question in point 2) a vailid question and not strawmanning. 300 million content middle classes? A figure you've just invented? According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences the figure of middle classes is less than 200 million. But who cares about 100 million ficticious pretty darn contented people. If you are done here i hope it's to actually check your facts and then make postings on things you actually have some knowledge about.

It's a fair matter of disagreement, but as awful as the Somme was, i think it's clear that it would have been better to be French rather than Russian in either WW1 or WW2. I don't understand what you mean by it lasting 7 years. WW1 was from 1914-1918 and the battle of the Somme was took place in 1916 and was fought by British and Commonwealth troops not French troops. However we are in agreement that WW1 was a bloody nightmare. But in disagreement about the French record in WW2. I would be interested to know your reasons for thinking how the French helped defeat the 3rd Reich in WW2.