World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[o.pwuaioc]

It is regrettable to see that both sides in the Syrian conflict are just as bad as each other, both Assad's Government and the Islamic rebels.

Not all rebels fighting Assad are Islamists. I do fear a repeat of Egypt, though.

[Gunstar Green]

It is regrettable to see that both sides in the Syrian conflict are just as bad as each other, both Assad's Government and the Islamic rebels.

Not all rebels fighting Assad are Islamists. I do fear a repeat of Egypt, though.

I think everybody does unfortunately.

[RCBH928]

It is regrettable to see that both sides in the Syrian conflict are just as bad as each other, both Assad's Government and the Islamic rebels. What is the future for Syria? This is too complicated and I hope the West doesn't interfere any further for the time being.

However, if the fundamentalists gained power then we must strike Syria hard. What can stop radical Muslims from firing chemical weapons into Israel from Syria, Lebanon and Palestine?

The worse is yet to come. This could develop into another Arab-Israeli war. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Gaza Strip and the West Bank occupied by the IDF yet again at the cost of thousands more lives.

I hate religion.

What if the people of Syria vote/support the fundamentalists? Can we consider democracy a failure?

This is my problem with democracy. I have seen it fail many times. Germany voted for Hitler. Libya supported Gadafy in his rebel. Egypt's best days were when the King was still around. I heard stories about the streets of Cairo being washed with soap. Today Egyptians are having a hard time finding bread to feed themselves, eating meat is considered a luxury. I know you will say those are dictators not voted by the people, but the truth remains the people did support these guys in their rebels against the previous governments . You might be amazed by this but the better off countries in the middle east are the ones that are not trying to implement democracy.

[dsheinem]

You might be amazed by this but the better off countries in the middle east are the ones that are not trying to implement democracy.

better off for who?

Establishing democracy is a messy process, especially when there was a strongly totalitarian state in place for a long time previously. Even in the US, our version of democracy doesn't always work very well, but at least there's built-in mechanisms to address problems and to permit open criticism and debate of the system.

[o.pwuaioc]

You might be amazed by this but the better off countries in the middle east are the ones that are not trying to implement democracy.

better off for who?

Whom.

Establishing democracy is a messy process, especially when there was a strongly totalitarian state in place for a long time previously. Even in the US, our version of democracy doesn't always work very well, but at least there's built-in mechanisms to address problems and to permit open criticism and debate of the system.

I think we should go back to a limited aristocracy.

[dsheinem]

You might be amazed by this but the better off countries in the middle east are the ones that are not trying to implement democracy.

better off for who?

Whom.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/who-or-whom:

Some people do still follow these rules but there are many more who never use whom at all. The normal practice in current English is to use who in all contexts, i.e.:

Who do you think we should support?
Who do you wish to speak to?

100%

[o.pwuaioc]

I can't help it if most people are stupid, but you can help make sure you don't sound like them.

[dsheinem]

I can't help it if most people are stupid, but you can help make sure you don't sound like them.

We live in an age where at least one major, well-respected dictionary lists a definition for "literally" that makes it more or less synonymous with "figuratively," so I'm not gonna sweat it on the whole who/whom thing.

[o.pwuaioc]

I can't help it if most people are stupid, but you can help make sure you don't sound like them.

We live in an age where at least one major, well-respected dictionary lists a definition for "literally" that makes it more or less synonymous with "figuratively," so I'm not gonna sweat it on the whole who/whom thing.

Bah, why can't literally be meant figuratively? There's no solid basis for that distinction, and semantics never should be equated with grammar.

Back on topic: a great primer for you folks who aren't reading the news every day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ed-to-ask/

[Jmustang1968]

Whom cares?