455 replies to this topic

[A. J. Raffles]

Juni Ori, on Feb 12 2007, 08:54 AM, said:

Well, you are right there, AJ. Nut allergy can be lethal, so its seriousness shouldn't be underrated. However, those who are allergic to such food usually are very careful what they eat - it's after all their life in hand.

Sure, but that's the whole point, really. Allergics do read labels, and to a certain extent they depend on them. If a nut allergic buys a product which doesn't contain any nuts and which, according to its label, has never been anywhere near nut products, then he has to be able to rely on that information and assume it's safe for him to eat. If, however, that isn't the case, due to some manufacturing mistake, then the company has to make the whole thing as public as possible to inform allergics that certain products actually aren't safe for them to eat, even though they normally should be.

[Juni Ori]

Absolutely true. I guess I didn't follow the discussion accurately enough anymore. My bad - sorry.

[A. J. Raffles]

link
I like this bit:

Quote

The newspaper headlines and reports that when he was a schoolboy at Eton he admitted trying cannabis certainly disrupted David Cameron's plans for a quiet Sunday with his family.

Makes you wonder what he planned to spend that Sunday afternoon doing and how it was disrupted, doesn't it? ("David, WHAT have you got in that pipe?")

[Tulac]

Quote

that people with nut allergies are unlikely to have been purchasing Cadbury's Fruit and Nut easter eggs

This is the part that confused us all.

[BeefontheBone]

That was the bit that I thought was funny - the rest was context, hence the "fair enough" at the beginning.

I'm not sure how that Cameron stuff qualifies as news really - he'd effectively admitted it in trying to dodge the questions for the last year or so. He's far from the only 15-year-old (even at Eton, perhaps especially at Eton - they've got the cash) to smoke a bit of puff, or the only student to do a couple of lines. If he was using them now, then I'd care about its effect on his suitability to run the country, but a bit of experimenting with drugs 20 years ago doesn't bother me one bit. What effect it'll have on his election campaign, I'm not sure though - Tory voters tend to be easily put off by that sort of thing. Weird sexual predilictions (autoerotic asphyxiation, anyone?), bigotry and casual racism are fine, but a few spliffs and a line or two and you're screwed....

[A. J. Raffles]

Yes, I know, I just liked the "now look what you've done! You've ruined my plans for the weekend with your silly questions" bit. The "news" itself is old and uninteresting - who cares whether he smoked a joint during his teens? I wouldn't vote for him either way (assuming I was actually allowed to vote, that is).

About the Cadbury's thing, yes, I realise the fruit and nut egg on the list was a bit of a joke, but after all that talk about ridiculous bureaucracy and people suing companies just for the heck of it which followed, I thought it might be necessary to point out that there actually IS a serious issue at the root of this case. That's why labelling has to be accurate, even for blindingly obvious cases like a product whose name actually contains the word "nut".

Edit: On topic again: Not exactly funny, but you've got to love the headline...

[Juni Ori]

And I thought you had no sense of sick humour, miss Raffles!

[A. J. Raffles]

Found another one: link.

[Juni Ori]

I just had to revive this thread and ask: anyone want to bet that US forces in streets of Baghdad means growing casualties, upset Shias and lead into worse situation? Too much similarities into past - however terrain is far more easier for USAF. Good luck to guys down there...

[Tulac]

Yeah good luck, especially to these guys:

*it's not a shocking/violent video, don't worry*

[greywolf]

@Juni: The point of having US forces there now is to help the Iraqis with their own security forces, and to complement them while they're still being trained. Once the Iraqi forces are fully in place, then the US will pull its forces out. I really don't see peace ever coming to the middle east even if the US *did* pull its soldiers out this second - the conflict between religious ideologies is simply too fierce to just die down. The exception to this being, of course, if the Shiites, Sunnis, and other Islamic factions recognize that killing each other is wrong, and live in peace much like Christian denominations do today.

I guess to actually answer your question, I would have to say that the violence level will probably remain the same (or perhaps grow worse over time) until Iran has fallen apart and is not able to actively support the terrorist groups that are inciting violence in Baghdad and other regions.

But indeed, good luck to the soldiers there.

[BeefontheBone]

Quote

live in peace much like Christian denominations do today.

Ever been to Northern Ireland? It's still pretty uneasy over there, even if nobody's been blown up for a while. Christians (or, more likely, Christian organisations and a few nutters - the same people types whose actions seem to be easy for some to tar all Muslims with) in general seem to be scrapping with atheists and those of other faiths at present.

[PrejudiceSucks]

greywolf, on Mar 10 2007, 09:52 PM, said:

The exception to this being, of course, if the Shiites, Sunnis, and other Islamic factions recognize that killing each other is wrong, and live in peace much like Christian denominations do today.

This is a bit misguided tbh.

The Christian denominations aren't being paid to kill each other. The last time that did happen was The Troubles and both the UDF and the IRA were being financed to kick the crap out of each other, and that's what they did.

The Shi'ites and Sunnis are fighting a proxy war for Iran and Saudi Arabia respectively, and are being paid to do so. This is why it's going on, not because the two intrinsically don't get along - see Lebanon for evidence of this, where Shi'ites and Sunnis largely live together in peace.

[Juni Ori]

Grey, I understand and agree with you. But. If the US government really wants peace to Iraq, ready to sacrifice some of their own benefit, they could possibly get better results. Of course, worst mistakes are already done and they can't be undone - thus many Iraqis are upset and support militants, which I do understand (do not read accept) - but unless going on the line of WW2 (Total War), you rarely reach good results by relying purely to force. Results, yes, but are they good? As Gen David Petraeus said it:

BBC Online said:

Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient

This is - and what the Democrats have been criticizing - where Bush has chosen the wrong way. Following even a little news gives a pretty good view of US governments goals.

What even more is harming Bush, is that as now bodycount will raise - possibly even significantly - his support, plus his subjects, will go down. And go down badly. If everything goes badly wrong, we may be witnessing second Vietnam. However, I don't believe into this, if Gen David Petraeus gets free hands. Now it unfortunately doesn't seem to be true.

[Tulac]

I don't think Bush has much to do with this, it's more about strengthening of the US power that would happen with or withou Bush in pretty much the same manner, you can't really change the imperialistic/necolonialist (yes I know I sound radical but it's true) in one mandate. Ever since the fall down of the USSR, US are the only superpower left, and they can fight for their resources on their own, and can treat rest of the world like trash, and the rest of the world can just shut their trap and do nothing about it (which some did), or join them so they get some leftovers from the party.
Interesting though that their intervention had a contra effect, now Iraq is a land of chaos run by warlords, religious fanatics (which are way worse than saddam) and different war profiters, and has become a heaven for any sort of terrorist/other illegal activity (arms trade, drug trade etc.). However strategic oil reserves for the future are secured and Exxon did have the largest profit in history (over 20bn $).
In the end war did it it's purpose, get US economy back at it's feet, after 9/11  and recession, for a few  tens of thousands of innocent people lives is a good bargain, soldiers, I don't feel sorry for them, I don't feel sorry for someone who gets their paycheck on killing others, especially for such a floscule.
I think that video I posted in my former post shows just how the US government treats the rest of the world.