suggest me a place to live for a month or so!
so i have a 20 month old little girl and my part time employment in new zealand has ended today and now i don't know where to go! i want to travel somewhere and live there for a month or two. i have enough money from this job and i want to see more of the world! i am from belgium but i am irish so i have been to both those countries. i've worked in italy, the us and new zealand and i have been to south korea, luxembourg, the netherlands and spain before. and briefly andorra. so now i want to live somewhere that is unlike anywhere else i have lived! but keep in mind i'm not rolling in money, i have enough for a small apartment and food and i'm a single mom of a 20 month old. we have passports and everything. so where should i go!
Other - Destinations - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
welcome to Asia, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Japan, Philippines and also Fiji or Jerusalem or Australia. All the best. God bless you.
2 :
Come to Sri Lanka with your baby for some weeks. I'll arrange it cheap for you. relax on the beach and travel around the country. friendly people and nice weather. visit my website. http://www.dudleysrilankatours.com for more details please e mail me.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Should Gerrard be made permanent captain now
Should Gerrard be made permanent captain now?
I am not getting carried away over 2 goals against 60 something ranked Hungary. Gerrard has been an amazing captain for Liverpool and he has never dissapointed for England, even when he is played out of position. I don't understand the logic in Ferdinand being captain. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Gerrard is a born leader. Even when Beckham relinquished the captaincy in 2006 it should have been Gerrard and not Terry who got the armband. It is just pure common sense. After saving England once again (remember Andorra?) surely it should be obvious to Capello that Gerrard should be made captain. To be honest though I don't think Capello gives a shit. He is only in charge because he won't earn 6 mill a year anywhere else for doing so little work.
English Football (Soccer) - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Hundred percent agree with ya lad. im not sure if rios even captain at MU :s but yeah stevie shud be captain, capello is also a shit manager as when gerrard scored the winner he just gave a rafa benitez celbration and just sat there, not even with a smile on his face!
2 :
Couldn't agree more.
3 :
Your not getting carried away? he played well tonight. But he also captained the side during the worse world cup campaign i can remember. 2 goals against rank 67th and your not getting carried away? If I am honest i wouldnt make him captain even VICE. Because a few times in the last 2 seasons he said he couldnt play an england game due to injury. fair enough until you come out 4 days later to play for lfc. Players shouldnt pick and choose the england games and it isnt a way a captain should behave either.
4 :
yes, leads by example
I am not getting carried away over 2 goals against 60 something ranked Hungary. Gerrard has been an amazing captain for Liverpool and he has never dissapointed for England, even when he is played out of position. I don't understand the logic in Ferdinand being captain. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Gerrard is a born leader. Even when Beckham relinquished the captaincy in 2006 it should have been Gerrard and not Terry who got the armband. It is just pure common sense. After saving England once again (remember Andorra?) surely it should be obvious to Capello that Gerrard should be made captain. To be honest though I don't think Capello gives a shit. He is only in charge because he won't earn 6 mill a year anywhere else for doing so little work.
English Football (Soccer) - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Hundred percent agree with ya lad. im not sure if rios even captain at MU :s but yeah stevie shud be captain, capello is also a shit manager as when gerrard scored the winner he just gave a rafa benitez celbration and just sat there, not even with a smile on his face!
2 :
Couldn't agree more.
3 :
Your not getting carried away? he played well tonight. But he also captained the side during the worse world cup campaign i can remember. 2 goals against rank 67th and your not getting carried away? If I am honest i wouldnt make him captain even VICE. Because a few times in the last 2 seasons he said he couldnt play an england game due to injury. fair enough until you come out 4 days later to play for lfc. Players shouldnt pick and choose the england games and it isnt a way a captain should behave either.
4 :
yes, leads by example
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Conneticut legalizes same sex marriage tommorrow: So Who's next
Conneticut legalizes same sex marriage tommorrow: So Who's next?
Conneticut legalizes same sex marriage tommorrow by order of the courts. And polls show 53% of CT people support allowing same sex marriage. Norway legalizes Same sex marriage January 1st. So who's next? Within the United States........ It is legal in MA, CT, 16,000 marriages still valid in CA, and they are transferable to NY. Civil Unions are recognized in: (CA, CT, DC, HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA). So What state are most likely to adopt same sex marriage rights next? I think VT is a big one. Maryland too. What do you think about NY? Any chance of that happening in upcoming years? Maybe NY's a long shot but we have a whole group of liberal states to work through. Do you think we tend to have more success legalizing it through the courts than we do through elections? And as for the rest of the world: Gay marriage currently legal in: Belgium Canada Netherlands Norway (2009-1-1) South Africa Spain Who's next? Civil Unions recognized in: Andorra Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Finland France Germany Hungary (2009-1-1) Iceland Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Slovenia Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Uruguay
Politics - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I'm sure NY will legalize it soon.
2 :
minnesota is the only state that didn't go for reagan at any time. it has become more purple in recent years but the large majority of minnesotans are still very liberal when it comes to cultural issues (they are just now more hawkish on foreign policy).
Conneticut legalizes same sex marriage tommorrow by order of the courts. And polls show 53% of CT people support allowing same sex marriage. Norway legalizes Same sex marriage January 1st. So who's next? Within the United States........ It is legal in MA, CT, 16,000 marriages still valid in CA, and they are transferable to NY. Civil Unions are recognized in: (CA, CT, DC, HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA). So What state are most likely to adopt same sex marriage rights next? I think VT is a big one. Maryland too. What do you think about NY? Any chance of that happening in upcoming years? Maybe NY's a long shot but we have a whole group of liberal states to work through. Do you think we tend to have more success legalizing it through the courts than we do through elections? And as for the rest of the world: Gay marriage currently legal in: Belgium Canada Netherlands Norway (2009-1-1) South Africa Spain Who's next? Civil Unions recognized in: Andorra Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Finland France Germany Hungary (2009-1-1) Iceland Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Slovenia Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Uruguay
Politics - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I'm sure NY will legalize it soon.
2 :
minnesota is the only state that didn't go for reagan at any time. it has become more purple in recent years but the large majority of minnesotans are still very liberal when it comes to cultural issues (they are just now more hawkish on foreign policy).
Friday, May 1, 2009
Could countries follow Iceland and Costa Rica's example in army disbandment
Could countries follow Iceland and Costa Rica's example in army disbandment?
Both countries are leaders for peace in the fact that they have disbanded their armies for the primary fact that they have disbanded their standing armies. Costa Rica maintains a police force for policing reasons and internal security and Iceland maintains a Coast Guard and police force. Japan only maintains a peacekeeping force but no official army (though this is due to a treaty from World War 2). Other countries who have disbanded their armies (some more successfully than others) are Dominica and Grenada (Grenada was another by force). Other countries also have no standing army but these are generally from lack of need (Vatican City), never having formed one (Andorra), or other less clear reasons. So do you think that this is a good idea? Costa Rica leads a couple of peacekeeping councils and a University of Peace that is UN funded in their country. Is it the world's countries slowly disbanding their armies that is going to help with bringing peace or is this naivety on these countries' parts? As far as first world superpowers, wouldn't the slow and controlled disbandment of the world's countries' armies make sure no country gets an advantage from it? Similar to how Russia and the US ended the Cold War by destroying nuclear weapons supplies a little bit at a time. Would this work or is it impossible?
Military - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sure, but those who beat their swords into plowshares should expect that eventually they'll find themselves plowing for those who don't.
2 :
With the exception of Iceland all countries listed have a defense pact with other countries so they dont need an Army. Japan hasnt had a military because the U.S. has provided its defense following WW2. Thats why we have military bases there. Also Coasta Rica has a defense pact with the U.S. Vatican doesnt have its own military because it is an enclave of Italy and also the Swiss army protects Vatican city.(ever see the soldiers with colorful uniforms)
3 :
I wish it were possible. Small countries like Iceland or Costa Rica can aafford to disband thier military, because if a threat did arise, other nations WITH a strong military will ensure thier security. Any country that would threaten Iceland would also be a threat to the great powers in western europe and to north america.
4 :
Those countries only did it because the know good ole Uncle Sam will protect them. We tried disarmament in the 20s and 30s, look how well that turned out. It only encouraged Germany and Japan. If the good people disarm, it doesn't mean the bad ones will. To live in peace, one must prepare for war.
5 :
Most European countries (EU) don't have a real standing army. There are a small number of uniformed personnel but not a true army that can fight a full scale war. For instance if Russia attacked Germany or the Czech Republic there would be little or no resistance. They depend on the US to defend them thus they can spend much more of their GDP on social services. So yes I think we should pull out of as much of the world as we can. Defending only what would benefit the US! Think of who get the oil that cones through the Straights of Hormuz or the Suez canal? Japan and Europe would grind to a halt in 3 days. We have enough domestic oil why are we protecting that resource? I know it would effect the world economies but why does the Europeans not contribute, China or Japan?
6 :
First: not sure where this continuing idea that Japan does not have an Army, or military, comes from. Since the early 1950s, when the Japanese upgraded their internal defense force to the Japanese Self Defense Force, and is now an actual Ministry in their government, the Japanese very much have an Army, Navy, and Air Force. Just because they don't use traditional names (which is changing), if you look at a Japanese Armored Brigade in the field, there is no doubt it is an Army unit. Go and google this issue, and you will see that the Japanese very much have a military - and one that has deployed forces to Iraq, Afghanistan, and to fight pirates in the Indian Ocean. Second: the Costa Ricans like to woof up that they don't have an Army; however, go look at the table of organization and equipment, and the order of battle of the Costa Rican national police force - it looks real close to a small, lightly equipped Army. They would not stand a real chance against a traditional Army invading, but they smell an awfully lot like an Army. Third: the Cold War was NOT ended by the US and the Soviet Union lowering their respective nuclear stockpiles. It essentially ended because the West outspent the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, and drove them into the economic graveyard. The Communists basically threw in the proverbial towel after being unable to keep up and their own populations saying enough was enough. It is indeed naivete to think that disbanding militaries would increase the peace. History has shown that if you have something of value, someone else will want to take that away from you. It is the same at the local level, and why we need laws and policing, and it is applicable at the international level, and why we need militaries. Those countries that have done away with their militaries, or have never had one to begin with, are those countries that don't really have anything that anyone else wants.
Both countries are leaders for peace in the fact that they have disbanded their armies for the primary fact that they have disbanded their standing armies. Costa Rica maintains a police force for policing reasons and internal security and Iceland maintains a Coast Guard and police force. Japan only maintains a peacekeeping force but no official army (though this is due to a treaty from World War 2). Other countries who have disbanded their armies (some more successfully than others) are Dominica and Grenada (Grenada was another by force). Other countries also have no standing army but these are generally from lack of need (Vatican City), never having formed one (Andorra), or other less clear reasons. So do you think that this is a good idea? Costa Rica leads a couple of peacekeeping councils and a University of Peace that is UN funded in their country. Is it the world's countries slowly disbanding their armies that is going to help with bringing peace or is this naivety on these countries' parts? As far as first world superpowers, wouldn't the slow and controlled disbandment of the world's countries' armies make sure no country gets an advantage from it? Similar to how Russia and the US ended the Cold War by destroying nuclear weapons supplies a little bit at a time. Would this work or is it impossible?
Military - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sure, but those who beat their swords into plowshares should expect that eventually they'll find themselves plowing for those who don't.
2 :
With the exception of Iceland all countries listed have a defense pact with other countries so they dont need an Army. Japan hasnt had a military because the U.S. has provided its defense following WW2. Thats why we have military bases there. Also Coasta Rica has a defense pact with the U.S. Vatican doesnt have its own military because it is an enclave of Italy and also the Swiss army protects Vatican city.(ever see the soldiers with colorful uniforms)
3 :
I wish it were possible. Small countries like Iceland or Costa Rica can aafford to disband thier military, because if a threat did arise, other nations WITH a strong military will ensure thier security. Any country that would threaten Iceland would also be a threat to the great powers in western europe and to north america.
4 :
Those countries only did it because the know good ole Uncle Sam will protect them. We tried disarmament in the 20s and 30s, look how well that turned out. It only encouraged Germany and Japan. If the good people disarm, it doesn't mean the bad ones will. To live in peace, one must prepare for war.
5 :
Most European countries (EU) don't have a real standing army. There are a small number of uniformed personnel but not a true army that can fight a full scale war. For instance if Russia attacked Germany or the Czech Republic there would be little or no resistance. They depend on the US to defend them thus they can spend much more of their GDP on social services. So yes I think we should pull out of as much of the world as we can. Defending only what would benefit the US! Think of who get the oil that cones through the Straights of Hormuz or the Suez canal? Japan and Europe would grind to a halt in 3 days. We have enough domestic oil why are we protecting that resource? I know it would effect the world economies but why does the Europeans not contribute, China or Japan?
6 :
First: not sure where this continuing idea that Japan does not have an Army, or military, comes from. Since the early 1950s, when the Japanese upgraded their internal defense force to the Japanese Self Defense Force, and is now an actual Ministry in their government, the Japanese very much have an Army, Navy, and Air Force. Just because they don't use traditional names (which is changing), if you look at a Japanese Armored Brigade in the field, there is no doubt it is an Army unit. Go and google this issue, and you will see that the Japanese very much have a military - and one that has deployed forces to Iraq, Afghanistan, and to fight pirates in the Indian Ocean. Second: the Costa Ricans like to woof up that they don't have an Army; however, go look at the table of organization and equipment, and the order of battle of the Costa Rican national police force - it looks real close to a small, lightly equipped Army. They would not stand a real chance against a traditional Army invading, but they smell an awfully lot like an Army. Third: the Cold War was NOT ended by the US and the Soviet Union lowering their respective nuclear stockpiles. It essentially ended because the West outspent the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, and drove them into the economic graveyard. The Communists basically threw in the proverbial towel after being unable to keep up and their own populations saying enough was enough. It is indeed naivete to think that disbanding militaries would increase the peace. History has shown that if you have something of value, someone else will want to take that away from you. It is the same at the local level, and why we need laws and policing, and it is applicable at the international level, and why we need militaries. Those countries that have done away with their militaries, or have never had one to begin with, are those countries that don't really have anything that anyone else wants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)