What do you think this quote means, "I would rather kill my friends in error, than allow my enemies to live."?
According to the movie "Fair Game" supposedly this is a quote from Saddam Hussein..."I would rather kill my friends in error, than allow my enemies to live." I can't quite interpret it into any meaningful conclusion. It's just pretty confusing, he would rather have his friends die than his enemies die, or is it that he would be willing to let his friends die in error as long as his enemies are all dead. Any thoughts on this?
Who said There are no permanent friends or enemies, but permanent interests in international relations.?
Lord Palmerston (Henry John Temple). According to wikipedia, he actually said: "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Would you rather be a friendless loser or have lots of friends who secretly hate you?
Friendless loser. Easy. There's nothing worse than being surrounded by fake people. I'd much rather be openly hated. :)
Can capitalism fix itself, can government fix it, or can it not be fixed at all?
Most of the debates I see here on Y/A are based on the opposition of two positions: laissez faire economics (espoused by the right) and liberal reformism (espoused by liberals). The right says that the actions of the liberals are making matters much, much worse. The liberals say that only by state intervention can the problem be fixed and that laissez faire caused the problem in the first place. (Incidentally, the right incorrectly ascribes Obama's policies to socialism, which provides cover for Obama as he hands trillions to private banks and brokers. He's not a socialist by any means, although he is conducting a major program of state-interventionist and propped-up capitalism. He's overseen the largest transfer of public funds into private hands than any president in US history... I'm not saying that's good--indeed--but it's not socialism. It's an attempt at liberal reformist interventionism.) Can either laissez faire or reformism adequately address the enormity of our contemporary financial crisis? Is it true that reformism is doing more damage than good? Can reformism possibly do what it did in the past, under FDR for example, or is the system simply too compromised and unable to afford such programs? If neither laissez faire or reformism is capable of ending the crisis, then what is? Is capitalism going to self-heal, or will it require reformism, or are neither possible at this point? I have my own idea, of course, but I want to hear what others say.
Why do people hate Universal health care?
Obama supports universal health care and I am loving that.It would be awesome if the government payed for your health care.why is everyone hating this.you make it seem like its pure communism. The fallowing countries are not communism and have universal health care England France Spain Germany Ireland Finland India Italy Australia Sweden Iceland Poland Greece Hungary Romania Bulgaria Latvia Saudia Arabia Isreal Japan Taiwan These are just the ones I felt like Writing.so why do people keep saying that universal healthcare would not work.It is a fact that we are the only super power country that does not have it.
Would you rather control the world or control a single country?
Thanks for A2A.Would you rather control the world or control a single country?Neither. There are times when I step in and take control of the situation until it’s resolved, but I rarely act out of self-desire.When it comes to running something large like a country or the entire world, I admit that there are some existing rules that are so stupid and contrary to the welfare of the community that I would like to abolish, but I have absolutely no feeling of need to occupy a position of power on a long-term basis.The problem is that those who actively seek positions of power purely for the power are the least suited to occupy those positions. Their efforts are always toward retaining the power rather than using it for its stated purpose.I never want to be in that group of people.