< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6551 OF 6551 ·
|Dec-19-14|| ||Shams: <Petrosianic> I'm barring you from answering any more sci-fi trivia.|
|Dec-19-14|| ||Jim Bartle: <It's fake because it's on twitter and no one using the hashtag actually knows a muzzie or rode with one.>|
No proof. If you're right you sure haven't shown any evidence.
|Dec-19-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I think <OAS>, <spode> and <tpstar> could get together and have a great time.|
|Dec-19-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <Smash: Trivia: Shatner did a horror flick in 1966 called "Incubus"; it might be the only film ever made where all the dialogue is in which language?>|
|Dec-19-14|| ||WannaBe: Bwahahahahahahahah!!'|
|Dec-19-14|| ||Abdel Irada: <Shams: I don't think of Krauss as a curmudgeon at all.>|
He isn't particularly, but the impression was.
|Dec-19-14|| ||Abdel Irada: <john barleycorn: <Abdel Irada: I see <al wazir> is giving us his most curmudgeonly Lawrence Krauss impression.|
I see <Abdel.Danger> giving us another of his most failed <Blackadder> impersonations.>
I see <john barleycorn> desperately hoping to get away with breaking the "no inventing pejorative nicknames" rule by adopting internet phishers' tactics.
Do you really think the string "Abdel[dot]Danger" is any harder to search out and delete than the same nickname without the dot?
|Dec-20-14|| ||HeMateMe: North Korea is a strange place. It's a slave labor country, which usually means it is a poor, third world country. Yet the PRNK has nuclear technology and they have sold this to Iran and possibly Pakistan. I can't remember if Pak. did this on their own or purchased it. |
a non-Democratic country (Iran) buying dangerous technology from a totalitarian state should open one's eyes. It certainly has the attention of Israel and the USA. This latest headache from N. Korea is a reminder that they have technological ability out of proportion with their poor system of government and primitive economy. Most unusual, as Mr. Spock might say.
|Dec-20-14|| ||Abdel Irada: <HeMateMe>, the answer is "on their own":|
|Dec-20-14|| ||zanzibar: There are several topics I consider ongoing on this forum, and so I'll periodically revisit them. |
The topic of alcohol and health is one worth returning to now and then.
Since Kuwait is the nation with the lowest consumption of alcohol/person (according to BBC study) - I was curious as to whether there was any medical literature on the subject, especially with regard to coronary disease.
For a world ranking I found this data (Kuwait is 98th in the world):
<According to the latest WHO data published in April 2011 Coronary Heart Disease Deaths in Kuwait reached 1,179 or 27.17% of total deaths. The age adjusted Death Rate is 109.58 per 100,000 of population ranks Kuwait #98 in the world.>
While not directly studying the correlation of coronary disease and alcohol per se, there was a study of heart health:
<Multiple coronary risk factors in healthy older Kuwaiti males>
(Since the data was from workforce records, men were singled out for the study data)
There was nothing indicating to me that the Kuwaiti's had any improvements over a more general population sample. Here's a synopsis and the conclusions:
<Objective: The objective was to examine the percentage and severity of obesity and some common biochemical coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors in a sample of healthy Kuwaiti adult males 45 y of age. We also sought to determine the percentage of males at increased risk due to the presence of multiple CHD risk factors.
Design: The study was a cross-sectional study.
Setting: The study was conducted in all men who underwent a mandatory job related physical examination or who sought to obtain retirement benefits.
Subjects: A total of 740 healthy Kuwaiti males between the ages of 45 to 80 y.
Although cardiovascular deaths appear to be declining in developed countries, this trend has not yet been observed for high-income countries of the Middle East (Miladi, 1998).
Smoking, hypertension, sedentary lifestyle and diabetes mellitus, although not measured in this study, have all previously been shown to be both present and increasing in prevalence in Kuwait, especially among the male population (Moody et al, 1998; Sugathan et al, 1998; Al-Adsani et al, 2000). It is important to remember that this sample was not composed of men who entered the nutrition surveillance system for health reasons or who had medical problems. It consisted of men who were generally healthy and overwhelmingly (89%) still actively a part of the workforce.
<Conclusions:> In societies with relatively uniform income levels, educational level may be a better indicator of chronic disease risk than income per se. These results, showing a high percentage of men with several risk factors and high mean values, suggesting more severe risk, suggest that immediate action should be taken to develop a public health intervention strategy to educate Kuwaiti men to become aware of the causes and correlates of CHD and how to decrease their risk for CHD and heart attack, the leading cause of death in Kuwait.
Here's another article about heart disease in the UAE (~4 pints beer/week on average):
<Heart attacks strike 20 years earlier in the UAE>
<Dr Mohammed Al Raqabani, a cardiologist at Rashid Hospital, and other health experts warn that heart attacks occur earlier in the UAE due to obesity, smoking and lack of exercise.> (2014)
So, there seems to be other factors than alcohol consumption at play for coronary disease.
For instance smoking, yet most major religions of the world have no proscription against it.
With the possible exception of modern day secularism!
Well that's what I thought before looking into the matter:
<Wiki: Religious views on smoking>
The modern-day interpretation seems to follow the same opinion as modern day health recommendations. Although some religions, like the Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons, prohibit the use of tobacco.
|Dec-20-14|| ||Abdel Irada: Whether smoking is haram is a hot topic in Islam right now.|
The last khutbah (sermon, more or less) I heard on this topic, the speaker argued that it is, on the grounds that Allah's intent is to prevent people harming themselves, and smoking is harmful.
The other side of the debate opines (wrongly, in my opinion) that tobacco is not an intoxicant, and is therefore permitted. This is supported by long practice: Smoking remains prevalent, particularly in the Arab world, where hookahs/shisha are enormously popular. Therefore, many Muslims have a vested interest in avoiding the conclusion that it is forbidden.
In effect as pertains to this conversation, I don't think you'll get far in trying to compare national populations and their rates of morbidity as a means of assessing whether or not alcohol is harmful; there are simply too many confounding factors.
I think only a large, long-term study using matched experimental (drinking) and control (non-drinking) groups in which confounding variables can be ruled out to the extent possible, can offer us any real answers.
|Dec-20-14|| ||HeMateMe: what about Iran, Abdel? are you ok with their buying nuclear enrichment technology from North Korea?|
|Dec-20-14|| ||Abdel Irada: What about Apartheid South Africa, <HeMateMe>?|
Are you okay with their providing yellowcake uranium to Israel, prospectively in exchange for completed nuclear weapons?
|Dec-20-14|| ||HeMateMe: The arabs in the Mideast have attacked Israel in 1948, 1955 and 1973. Seeing that they are outnumbered 20-1 in manpower, no I don't have a problem with a nuclear Israel. I rather think their nuclear capability helps keep the peace.|
I do worry about a theological state like Iran having nuclear weapons.
Since you didn't have the balls to answer my question Abdel, I'll ask it again: Are you ok with Iran having the power to enrich uranium and make nukes, or do you feel that such weapons might eventually be used to start a war?
A simple "Yes or No" will be fine, assuming you can do such a thing.
|Dec-20-14|| ||ljfyffe: <Sony>The company distributes movies, but can't do much if movie houses, etc. won't accept them. Go to a propaganda movie like The Interview just to support free speech. Not this little black duck ....no, sireee.|
|Dec-20-14|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Dec-20-14|| ||Abdel Irada: <HMM>: Yes and yes. (Note that you asked me two questions.)|
I grant that Iran is not a genuinely democratic state. But then, neither is the United States, and we have some 50,000 warheads. Either countries should be allowed to have them, or they should not; if you think any country shouldn't, maybe that tells you none of them should.
I also feel that such weapons, in Iran's hands, might be used to start a war. In 1999, similar weapons in the possession of India and Pakistan very nearly *were* used over the Kashmir controversy. So, clearly, any time a state has access to nuclear weapons, they *might* be used to start a war.
Simple arithmetic leads me to say the only correct answer is universal disarmament. However: good luck getting any country that has nukes to rid itself of all of them. So, we are left with the principle of equity: If one country has the right to do a thing, every country has that right.
As for "theological state": It's not clear to me that Iran's leaders are any less secular than our own, or Israel's. And outside the demimonde of delirious delusion spun by our media environment, they are not considered any less responsible or more irrational.
Now I have answered your questions, both the way you demanded and in full.
In return, I ask you to do two things:
1) Reply to the question in my last post.
2) Identify for me the three logical and historical errors in the first paragraph of your most recent post. (Hint: two of the second and one of the first, in that order.)
|Dec-20-14|| ||Abdel Irada: Please note that my question was not about a nuclear-armed Israel.|
It was about the close, hidden relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa, in which the former got yellowcake uranium, and the latter the technology to build weapons using its uranium resources. It was about the narrowly averted consequence: a nuclear-armed state, tenuously controlled by a racial minority which, faced with a popular uprising, might well have become desperate, with enormously destructive consequences.
Now back to you.
|Dec-20-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <HMM: a non-Democratic country (Iran) buying dangerous technology from a totalitarian state should open one's eyes.>|
You'd think so, but the America Haters can't bring themselves to admit such an obvious point.
|Dec-20-14|| ||ljfyffe: As Daffy Duck knows, being anti-violence is not for sissies:"It's duck season!" You could get shot. RIP: Ghandi, MLK, John Lennon.|
|Dec-20-14|| ||HeMateMe: <As for "theological state": It's not clear to me that Iran's leaders are any less secular than our own, or Israel's. And outside the demimonde of delirious delusion spun by our media environment, they are not considered any less responsible or more irrational.>|
Abdel, here's the acic test: In the USA we can remove a politician from office with the vote. We can also impeach them, as was nearly done to Nixon.
In Iran the Mullahs are the real power in the country. They can simply tell the armed forces to remove an elected president. It has already happened. Their democracy is a sham. Such people do dangerous things when their grip on power becomes tenuous, things like starting a war.
I find it hard to believe that you see any nuclear similarities between Iran an the USA. Our elected officials don't make empty headed statements about destroying another ethnic group or country, as has been done by the mullahs who run Iran.
|Dec-20-14|| ||cormier: we should be wipe-out of warhead ... but are we civilised enought ....|
|Dec-20-14|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <HeMateMe> <Our elected officials don't make empty headed statements about destroying another ethnic group or country>|
No they don't make empty threats, they carry them out, with nuclear bombs to boot.
Name me the countries Iran has invaded and destroyed.
And compare and contrast with the hideous record of America and Israel.
|Dec-20-14|| ||zanzibar: <CM> <Name me the countries Iran has invaded and destroyed.>|
Well, some blame Iran for the Iraq-Iran conflict.
But note the tricky phrasing, "invaded and destroyed". What country has Israel destroyed?
But some view the IIW as an extreme conflict.
<The Iran-Iraq War, which ended in August 1988, one month short of its eighth anniversary, was one of the longest, bloodiest and costliest Third World armed conflicts in the twentieth century.>
<The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
Efraim Karsh (2014)>
Some commenter add these (yes, cherry-picked for pro-Iraq viewpoints):
<Good summary. Spoiler alert: Saddam was awful, but it was Khomeini who started this war by calling for Saddam's ouster. You'll rarely get an Iranian to own up to this simple truth, however. But then Iranians live in an alternative universe and suffer severely for it. Let's hope and pray that we can welcome them back to planet earth some day.>
<Karsh knows his subject well, and paints a vivid picture of that bloodbath with Iranian "human wave" assaults ending fruitlessly in the swamps of southern Iraq, Iraq's vicious use of chemical warfare to counter Iran's numerical superiority, the "war of the cities" with both sides freely blasting away at each other's urban centers, and Iraq's near- genocidal Anfal campaign against its luckless Kurds. All in all, a remarkable canvas of horror, stupidity and fanaticism at display here. There were no saints in this war. The title of one of Karsh's chapters "The Delicate Balance of Incompetence" could sum up the entire war. Neither side displayed much virtue while having all the time in the world to demonstrate their various vices.
For those looking for a good introduction to the subject, this book is short, succinct, well -illustrated and presents a very readable narrative of the military operations. Karsh is strong on the military strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and how that impacted on the war's operations.>
<Good writing and only 97 pages long. See Saddam not as a warrior but someone trying to make peace with fundamentalist Iran. You will see kohmenias a flagrant warmonger/>
How many died? According to Wikipedia:
<From 1980 to 2012, 218,867 Iranians died due to war injuries and mean age of combatants was 23 years old. This includes 33,430 civilians, mostly women and children. More than 144,000 Iranian children were orphaned as a consequence of these deaths. Other estimates put Iranian casualties up to 600,000.>
Commonly, it is said that one million died in the conflict. This is major.
It is interesting that Wiki seems to expressly blame Iraq for the war, with a slight measure of moderation:
<The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980. It followed a long history of border disputes, and was motivated by fears that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority as well as Iraq's desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of Iran's revolutionary chaos and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and were quickly repelled; Iran regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.>
But it notes that for six years after regaining its territory, Iran was on the offensive (with the human waves of assault, etc.). Interesting, Wiki also reports that Israel was aligned with Iran, unlike the US, which is well-known for backing Iraq.
|Dec-20-14|| ||zanzibar: Now, as for the "invaded and destroyed", there is one very clear instance. The Iranians invaded and destroyed the US embassy in 1979.|
I believe that technically, the near sovereignty(*) (or rather, special privilege) of an embassy means this siege could be considered an pseudo-invasion of US soil.
It certainly wasn't very nice for the hostages (actually, it was hell):
<he actual treatment of the hostages was far different from that purported in Iranian propaganda: the hostages described beatings, theft, the fear of bodily harm while being paraded blindfold before a large, angry chanting crowd outside the embassy (Bill Belk and Kathryn Koob), having their hands bound "day and night" for days or even weeks, long periods of solitary confinement and months of being forbidden to speak to one another or stand, walk, and leave their space unless they were going to the bathroom. In particular they felt the threat of trial and execution, as all of the hostages "were threatened repeatedly with execution, and took it seriously". The hostage takers played Russian roulette with their victims.>
(*) <Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6551 OF 6551 ·