You can taje every sentence from both and make it fit for Your own opinion...

That is the problem. If only it was taken with a view other than personal but theological.

I have an online minister friend whom believes strongly that the USA was established by God; for Gods chosen ppl. What is wrong with that picture?

BTW, what is the best/#1 country to live in now that the US dropped to #2

Simple 'Q'....if 'God' created the USA, why did 500 Nations have to die to do it?

At least in Australia we only tried to wipe out the oldest civilization/culture on the planet...

Delicious...I believe Australia made it to '#1'.....at least Melbourne did...

Of course, not at the mo....we're collateral damage target for Iraq aiming at the US....and we have the odd fire at the moment...

According to the ranking that the UN makes every year since 1990, the US is actually 6th, with Norway, Sweden and Canada as the first 3 countries with the best "quality of life". See this article by Reuters: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020724/5/nt9q.html


The first 20 countries are, in order:
1- Norway
2- Sweden
3- Canada
4- Belgium
5- Australia
6- United States
7- Iceland
8- Netherlands
9- Japan
10- Finland
11- Switzerland
12- France
13- Britain
14- Denmark
15- Austria
16- Luxembourg
17- Germany
18- Ireland
19- New Zealand
20- Italy

Dang Canada is ahead of US

Canada is always above the US. Look on the map.

Smart ( V )

In the 'best cities to live in' Melbourne Australia made #2 ..... Jafo, nuclear target #1 in Oz, Freemantle or Perth.
There are several BUFFs moored off shore .....

I never look at statistics like that "rating a country". I don't know how you can rate a country with the population of the US against the population of Norway. The US has a population of about 287,000,000. Norway is about 4,500,000. Even Canada is only about 32,000,000. If you combine the "top 5", you still only have the population of roughly 1/3 of the US (the top 5 add up to a population of 75,500,000). Trust me, there is a massive difference in how the "quality of life" is depending on where in the US you live, too.

A better comparison would be to rank the top 10 largest (by population) countries. From: http://blue.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl
they are:
1 China 1,286,975,468
2 India 1,049,700,118
3 United States 290,342,554
4 Indonesia 234,893,453
5 Brazil 182,032,604
6 Pakistan 150,694,740
7 Russia 144,526,278
8 Bangladesh 138,448,210
9 Nigeria 133,881,703
10 Japan 127,214,499


Heck, if you divided our population evenly between the states, each state could be compared on its own to Norway

and still Norway has a lower crime rate and less poverty than each of them

Than each of what? Not all states in the US are the same. Some have extremely low crime rates. Some have very little poverty. Where are the stats on that comparison?

The point is, is that each *state* in the US could be considered a country. If they were all governed completely with their own laws, I think that they would all be quite different. (Just compare California to Alaska). You just can't compare the entire US to a country that has that small of a population. I think that our government is amazing considering the mass amounts of people and land mass that they have to govern.

They have different factors to determin the quality of life, such as life expectancy, literacy rate, purchasing power, human poverty index, population below income poverty line (%), fertility rate, access to sanitation facilities, water sources, access to essential drugs, ratio physician/population, etc.

Here is the complete list: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indicator.cfm?File=index_indicators.html

Note that the index was developped to measure the progress (or lack of) in third world countries. It was never meant to measure how well rich coutries are doing.

re: the war - Iran. read the whole thread and for once both hawks and doves ( most of 'em) spoke to the issue with facts and good, thoughtful answers. hope for us yet there is.
The issue paxx raised about Kurdish nationalism as a potentially destabilizing influence across several national boundaries is a very real issue that has to be considered ( just look at the Tamils in Sri Lanka and southern India if you doubt).

for the benefit of those number punchers at the UN:
Best country to live in: the sovereign Republic of Texas
Most fun city to live in: Bangkok

*blink-blink**yawn**bump*

*bump* *bump* *ba-da-baump* *do the hustle*

Bumps 'a' daisy

OK, when it comes to the Bible and other highly loved (or hated) spiritual text they all seem to be misused or misunderstood. Keep in mind that America (home of the free) had slaves at one time and there was realigist poeple in goverment and in churchs who used the Bible to say that those who are slaves should remain slaves and it was perfectly OK

I doubt those who say that God says this is a chosen land for chosen people. This is the main reason why so much violence is in the Middle East. Both sides feel they were promised the land (and apparently killing others to get it or keep it is OK too)



And as for Iran, I agree with most who say that Iran probably does not want to get involved.

But this scenerio keeps crossing my mind:

War with Iraq starts. Iran shoots down 6 planes and attacks a troop unit saying America will attack them next North Korea will launch a missle that will overshoot Japan (but the missle has a malfunction and hits the mainland)

What if....? If we are going to have an open mind about this, lets consider all scenarios- even the most probable ones.

What if there is a war in Iraq and the Allies win? A repeat of Desert Storm with victorious UN-sanctioned armed forces sweeping into Baghdad? Complete air superiority prevents the Iraqis from using chemical or biological weapons. Saddam flees or is killed or becomes irrelevant? Based on history, this is the most likely outcome.

Just as in Afganistan a make-shift democratic government is cobbled together. At first it is doubtful that such disparate groups can work together, but surprisingly the regime holds. The Iraqi people get a taste of freedom and democracy. The embargo is lifted and Iraq begins to regain its wealth. It becomes a model citizen of the world.

Sounds overly optimistic? Impossible? To me, it is more likely than a Biblical Armeggedon. IMHO, it is a feasible goal.

Just my opinion.

this moderate democrat supports bush on the war on terrorism. that is as far as i can go with bush. the economy?- well mr. bush- IT SUCKS!!!! people are out of work.

Joe: Although life is far from logical, where is the logic and motivation for the scenario you propose? Especially given the likely consequences for anyone pursuing your imagined course of action?

Iran is where shooting down 6 planes? Are the 6 planes overflying Iran? If so, why are they flying over Iran? (Even the US asks permission for overflights as it did of Iran during the Afghanistan war, although I think Iran said no.) Or is Iran in Iraq shooting down planes and attacking US troops? Does Iran invade Iraq just to mess with more trouble than it can possible afford? Does Iran have the military means (and any motivation) to do any of this and endure the likely consequences? Iran I suspect is in no shape to take on the US military or give the US an excuse for any sort of potential retaliation. And why would they? Rhetoric and politics aside, most regimes are not really suicidal. (Although Saddam makes one wonder...I figure if push comes to shove he won't go down with the ship but perhaps retire to a cosy life under an assumed name in some foreign clime...sort of a tyrant's protection plan.)

Also, in reference to Iran and other "terorist" states (like Syria, for example) do not underestimate the sub rosa dealmaking that has been going on since 911, public rhetoric notwithstanding. One never knows who the US has cut deals with.

As for North Korea, are you suggesting they just for the heck of it fire a missle at Japan and it accidently hits the US mainland?? That's quite a malfunction...good thing they gassed it up before it left home. Besides, why is NK attacking Japan? A missle attack on Japan achieves what? NK wants things from the rest of the world and is using the nuke card to try and get them. Blowing up the people it wants help from is kind of self defeating, although their rhetoric doesn't make much sense to me. As far as your scenario goes, NK seems just as likely as to declare war on Rhode Island.

sig101...I'm not entering into another one of these...but I think you'll find it was meant ...if N Korea fires a missile that is intended to miss Japan but actually hits the Japanese mainland.
That is entirely possible and ramifications would be 'dire' at best....

If North Korea fires up, it will be Seoul (South Korea). But don't try to understand the thinking of a psycho (North Korean president Kim). North Korea already alleged that they could hit Hawaii or Alaska with their missiles, and in a couple of year, they are comfident they could hit California.

Doesn't Norway have the highest suicide rate in the world?

The problem with UN statistics is that they ignore the significant differences in cultures in the United States and Russia. The standard of living between a Moscowite and someone in Siberia is very different. Similarly, the standard of living of whites, hispanics, and african americans are very different.

Larry, sorry, but your hypothesis forgets some important details.

1- All Iraqi hate the US. Even if the hate Saddam, they hate the US even more. I saw shows on TV (they probably don't show those shows in the US). They remember 1991, and nobody in Iraq sees 1991 as a liberation. They see it as somebody attacked them and killed their loved ones. (war is like that, you tend to see only one side, yours)

2- Even if Saddam was replaced. Who would replace him? Just another one like Saddam who hate Americans (see point 1).

3- If Saddam's regine is overthrown, Iraq will suffer civil wars for a few years. As evil as he is, Saddam hold the country together by force. As soon as his governement is gone, the Kurds WILL rebel and declare an independant state, and so will the Shia in the south. This is not the apocalypse, it WILL happen. The Kurds of Iraq will then be followed by the Kurds of other countries in the region.
I am not making this up, just last week, there was a sommit of all the Middle-East countries and the matter was discussed, and basically, what came out is that all the countries in the region are very very nervous about a possibility of War on Iraq, for the reasons I stated above.

4- Iran is Shia, and WILL support the Shia of south Iraq. If not actually control them.
(Note for those who don't know, the Islamic religion is divided in two religious groups: the Shia and the Sunni, and they've been at war for many centuries (a little like the Christian's Catholic/Protestant thing). Iran will NEVER help Iraq, even against the USA.

5- My allusion to North Korea joining Iraq is just hypothetical. Not too probable, but a definate possibility nevertheless. Concerning the bombing of Seoul, I'm not the one saying it. Every journalist on TV say it. You guys don't have the same news as we do apparently.