"Are you suggesting Singapore is past its heydays?"
We can debate on that if the mods don't think that this subject is off-topic.
The export boom that powered Singapore's growth in the 1980's and 90's is long over since other Asian countries have replaced the original 4 Asian tigers. Singapore retained it's status as ASEAN's financial center over the past decade but now that they have turned inward due to backlash from locals about influx of foreigners I will say that yes, Singapore is past its heydays.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Singapore was always a police state. Being a nanny state has worked for them so far, so who is anyone else to raise issues of privacy concerns.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
"name me one 1st world economy that didnt build itself on exports
Wrong. Singapore was a major exporter of electronics, machinery equipments, chemicals and refined petroleum products during its heydays.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
"Is it even logical to suggest the population size has anything to do with the spread of a virus."
A smaller population makes it easier to track, test and isolate. It is easier to quarantine suspected cases. It is easier to enforce lockdowns. It is easier to prosecute people who fail to adhere to lockdown guidelines. So yeah, its quite logical to suggest that she would not have been able to manage a bigger country with the same efficiency that she has shown in NZ.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
All democratic governments need a soft target to blame their failures and the country's problems on. Be it immigrants or minorities or external enemies. South Korea's leaders will similarly keep the boogeyman of Japan's wartime past alive.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
Not to take away anything from her victory, but it is far easier to control the virus in a country with less than 5 million people. The idiot running my country has botched up the virus response but he will probably still win the election if it were to be held today.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
"ASEAN plus Japan plus India can counter China on their own without meddling from the USA."
ASEAN is not a monolith. Laos and Cambodia are totally sold out to China.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Sad that the bear had to be killed. I am not one to support the killing of rogue wild animals since it is us humans who have encroached on their territory.
3 ( +7 / -4 )
Testing the response.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
In a high crime country isolated farm owners living on farms where help is miles away are easy targets for criminals. Does not mean that the attacks were racially motivated. South Africa is not Zimbabwe.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Interesting. Auction theory is a sub branch of game theory which is also quite interesting.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
"Let us hope that SATO (South Asian Treaty Organization) takes off and becomes the Asian version of NATO."
Not much hope of that. NATO is a military alliance with a system of collective defense in case any member came under attack from an external party. Are you sure your country will agree to such an alliance considering that there are commitments under FPDA as well?
At best there will be joint military exercises and not more than that.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
"The United States has over the past decade or two emerged as one of India's top arms suppliers, replacing Russia."
If US wants to replace Russia as India's top military supplier then they better be prepared to grease palms and pay kickbacks.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
"New Delhi, wary of further antagonising China, has been careful to avoid being drawn into U.S.-led alliances."
Inspite of having a big army and powerful military the political leaders of India are scared to take on China, something that China has exploited by usurping disputed border areas inch by inch for so many decades. The current dispensation has been claiming to their domestic audience that they have given China a befitting reply during the recent border clashes but the reality is something different. India has always been a NATO country - No Action Talk Only.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
"Enforced by who? You just said the police are useless."
Alternate gun licensing agency can be setup up nationwide. Trainings can be provided by the army or the paramilitary who are relatively more efficient and less corrupt.
"That sucks. Would legalizing guns reduce the number of them on the streets?"
No but legalizing guns can ensure that the number of firearms can be tracked more easily. It would also mean that the criminals would now know that there are chances that the next guy or his family that is on their hit list is armed.
"I doubt this is true. Where are you from?"
Since you are so keen to know where I am from, do your own research. My country has the second highest number of guns in private hands after the US in absolute terms, inspite of having strict gun laws. Most of these guns are either illegal or procured legally by rich and well connected people who have paid off the police and other parties to bypass procedures.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
"You clearly don't know very much about the history of Japanese Buddhism."
In fact I do know quite a bit about Buddhism in general and Japanese Buddhism in particular. Buddhism as originally taught by the Buddha and as originally intended is broad minded and all encompassing. Narrow interpretations of Buddha's teachings have been made over centuries and some sects have become quite militant, but that was not the Buddha's original intent and decree.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
"What are the circumstances under which you believe civilians, not police, should be able to carry firearms"
Already answered. In your country cops are a 911 call away, but not the case where I live. If the police can not protect the common citizen then citizens who face clear danger should be allowed to own guns. Trainings and qualifications can be arranged, and there should be a criteria (like age, mental health) which should be strictly enforced.
"You also refused to qualify how much of the crime you mention involves guns."
Already mentioned that there is a flourishing industry of illegal firearms manufacturing in my country. Not even the government has specific statistics but the point is that strict firearms laws have failed to keep crime rates down.
"When you’re defending your right to have an opinion, rather than justifying the opinion you have"
Already gave my opinion - firearms should be allowed under certain circumstances to certain civilians since sensible firearm laws can go a long way in giving vulnerable folks a chance to defend themselves.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Buddhism is broad minded and all-encompassing. 'Blasphemy' is too strong a word to use in the context of Buddhism.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
"What are these circumstances?"
Corrupt and useless cops who exist only to protect politicians for one. A skewed cop to population ratio where it is not possible for lowly paid cops with bad quality weapons to come to the aid of each and every person who faces danger from criminals.
"I am also against political graft and illegal firearms. It’s weird that you think this is relevant, but there we are"
It is relevant because if guns were not tightly regulated in my country then common citizens could have a chance to defend themselves. Call it a militia or whatever you want. Given the laws, commoners are at the mercy of criminals who do not pay heed to any laws. My country also has a flourishing industry of manufacturing illegal firearms.
"The second amendment is bad."
That is your point of view. I am sure there are enough people even if in a minority in the US who believe otherwise.
"If you carry a firearm, you are dangerous by definition. This is indisputable."
So how about people who carry guns to protect themselves? In my country rich businessmen used to get extortion calls from criminal gangs so many of them used their connections to acquire firearms legally or illegally. Things are much better these days but no one trusts the cops to protect them.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
"I do not believe that citizens should be allowed to possess guns, since they typically do not have the training or wherewithal to use them properly."
I believe that under certain circumstances responsible law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns. In my country guns are tightly controlled but crime rates are still quite high. Well connected people who can bend the system (such as politicians and rich businessmen) own guns and criminals who can manufacture guns illegally own guns whereas the cops are useless. Also there is a gun culture in certain parts of my country but all those are illegally manufactured guns.
In any case, in the US the first amendment rights protect free speech and second amendment protects the right to bear arms so gun lovers coming together to form a militia is allowed unless and until they do something stupid like these guys did. So I don't believe that all armed folks are dangerous in your country just like all armed folks are not dangerous in my country. Many of the rich folks are armed to protect themselves from criminals since the cops can not be counted upon.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
"Yes. Anyone armed is dangerous."
So you recommend disarming all the cops all over the world since they too are dangerous? Coming specifically to my question, where do you draw the line between certain people coming together based on common beliefs and interests (however repulsive these interests might be to you, say gun rights or white supremacy or conspiracy theories or black power or whatever) and calling for a ban on entire groups because of the actions of a few individuals?
-6 ( +0 / -6 )
"Who has the bigger economy and more to lose?"
I think it also depends on whether Australia can find alternative countries to export to and if China can find alternative countries to import from. Australia's natural resources will not be depleted any time soon but as Desert Tortoise said if a concerted effort is made to shut China out of the markets and the international banking system it will be China's loss more than Australia's.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Are all of these armed militia's really dangerous or are they merely a group of people with common interests and pursuits? The difference lies in believing in something and taking illegal actions based on those beliefs I guess. As long as they believe in gun rights and conspiracy theories they are harmless, but if they plan a government overthrow they should be locked up.
Coming from a country where guns are tightly regulated the US gun culture has always fascinated me. Can anyone tell me what assault rifles are these 3 gentlemen in the picture carrying? Is it AR15?
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
China is pushing countries to align against itself at record pace. Their loans and investment can buy out a few countries but once the coffers run dry it will be a different story. The Inner Mongolia language ban would also have offended ethnic Mongols to a great extent.
13 ( +14 / -1 )
"“They’re not statues. They’re real flesh and blood men who did these unbelievable, unimaginable things. But at their core, they’re just flesh and blood humans,”
Buzz Aldrin's downward spiral and his struggles with mental health issues well after the Apollo missions were over are well chronicled. His story should have been a part of this series as well, unless they are covering only the Mercury astronauts.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Economics, Peace and Literature Nobel prizes have become too politicized. Oh well, in the pandemic year Science has become politicized as well.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
Reminds me of the Breaking Bad episode 'The Fly'. Did nothing to advance the storyline but generated a lot of buzz, now considered one of the best moments in the entire series.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
"America has been in decline for well over 50 years."
Must have been quite a behemoth then if it still is the largest economy in the world today and USD is still the world's reserve currency after all the 50 years of decline.
@Desert Tortoise Agree with you on both counts.https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/world-s-millionaires-flee-homelands-but-india-and-china-beat-the-trend-119043000738_1.html
If the US was in such a big decline then why do the rich folks from China and other places make a beeline to the US.
"The US now greatly regrets that handshake. It is not a mistake anyone alive today wishes to repeat."
To be fair, the motivations for the opening up of China were as much economic as geopolitical.
1 ( +2 / -1 )