Just saw a news article lambasting young people for their dropping percentage of those that are married. Apparently 30 years ago, 2/3rds of all people in their 20's were married, now it is 1/4th. But so what. I know children do better in 2 parent households, but if you dont have kids, then why the demand to be married? I'm single and perfectly happy at the moment. Sure, I'd like to find that perfect someone, but if I dont, it's not like my life is suddenly without meaning.

It seems like there is this big push to get married because someone your life is incomplete if you arent. But honestly, I see way too many unhappy marriages or divorces to just jump in. 50% of all marriages end in divorce and I suspect that is because people are getting married for the wrong reasons or to the wrong person. Not all people are designed to be in a long term exclusive relationship. I suspect that a large portion of our population falls into that category.

sonicare

The Onion knows it.

How do you back-up a city? I mean, this would just be yet another city, and they've already got plenty of other sprawling metropolises that would be better suited to taking over in the anime-esque event that Tokyo somehow gets destroyed (Osaka, Yokohama, Kyoto, Hiroshima, etc). And this "back-up city" is a pretty crappy backup considering it can only house 50,000 people whereas Tokyo is home to 8+ million people. And what is it about Japan and wanting to build more Tokyos? I swear half of their anime/manga has a Neo-Tokyo in it. Hell, even the rest of the world seems to expect Tokyo to be destroyed judging by the fact that virtually every piece of cyberpunk fiction seems to take place in Neo-Tokyo.gameguy6700

A handful of countries (such as Brazil, Myanmar, and Nigeria) have their capitals located in planned cities. Not exactly sprawling metropolises or anything, but perhaps more administratively convenient and "safer". This plan seems more akin to that as I understand it.

If they have the money to do so, then by all means they should.

soulless4now

News to me that the Japanese government has any room in an already stretched budget for a provision to build a planned city.

Already dead. I guess I'll just do what I did then, which was nothing much.

a year maybe?? i was trying to delete it but it wont let me :( it wont die!!mems_1224

Sounds like Gamespot.

I believe the topic title would be better phrased as follows: "How long has it been since your last Myspace account login?"

Either way, I've never had an account on Myspace.

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"]nope, best we can hope for is a benign dictatorship.Willy105

Very good. And then what will fill the power vacuum when the dictatorship inevitably ends?

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

Is that a lot?

Darkman2007

How many mercs do you think actually made it to and fought in Libya? I've heard different amounts, but no evidence that it was in any way significant compared to Gaddafi's regime security brigades (i.e. Mutassim's/Khamis'/Saadi's brigades and the associated militas, which nominally had 40,000+ well trained and armed men).

[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"]

Syria has a, relatively, very competent armed forces that put a strong emphasis on AA and AT capabilities (due to it's experience with a nearby enemy western military- Israel), combined with the complete support of the most effective guerrilla organization in the world and Iran.

Supposedly, it also has the largest stockpile of biological WMDs in the middle-east.

Syria also has a powerful getaway- by instigating a war with Israel it can rally the public opinion of the Muslim/Arab world in Assad's favour and portray the rebels as traitors to the cause, or just consolidate the rebels in favour of the authorities. The slogan "Assad send your forces to the [israeli border] and not against us" is already very common.

Tl;dr- I think It would be a very very bad idea.

SamusFreak

I came to say pretty much this, Syria was much smarter in their arms build up than Saddam was, While they DO still have tons of Tanks, IFVs, and other components, they also have tons of AT equipment and launchers, they also have a crazy amount of AA, thousands of towed and mobile units, over 4000 MANPADS, and more.

And not only that, but their 4th Military branch after the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Marines? a National Guard maybe? No, It's the "Air Defense Force" 40,000 strong, dedicated to the sole purpose of Anti-Air Capabilities. They operate around hundreds of Mobile AA missile platforms. They know well that the most significant threat would come from the Air.

And yes, they do have SCUD, and other tactical ballistic missile systems. combine all that with everything else they have, and they have their bases covered, would be a force to be reckoned with if we chose to fight them.

Needless to mention, their Allies in the region, including Iran, would not take too kindly to an invasion of Syria.

That, plus their relations with Russia, and I think China, assures that we won't go there. It wouldn't be the same as Iraq and Libya, nor as simple( if you can call them that)

As such, the most viable course of action would probably just let the Syrian opposition undermine the system from within. It may take years, maybe even decades, and there are no guarantees of success, but if they believe in the cause that strongly, get organized, and progress in other Arab Spring countries is good, then they might just stand a fighting chance (however they choose to fight -whether with weapons, mass protest action, or both). Remember this is a country ruled under the same family for over 50 years. Of course Assad will not go down easily. But even mighty, seemingly impregnable empires and dynasties can be decisively defeated.

Of course. This saga is quickly becoming comparable to a snuff film, and due to contractual restrictions, they had to use a stunt double to take the actual bullet to the head instead of Gaddafi. But it looked so much like him that it even fooled his own family and DNA itself!