Thats such a stretch. People can never admit that they were wrong. They just windbag it more.

I don't agree with ozzie btw.

Ngarmada,
In the animal Kingdom the construct for procreation is overwhelmingly paternal. The males of many species challenge each other for mating rights.

Wasn't that similiar to what happened in Bosnia. The Serbs killed all the men and boys(who presented a territorial challenge to them)and raped the women who did not present a territorial challenge to them but actually provided them with the advantage of being able to produce more of their own bloodline and thus bring the women and any children back under their territorial control. (don't you ever wonder why they didn't kill the women as well?)

LUCY MONTGOMERY,
<When Germany ruled Poland and Austria that was WW2 not WW1.>

I thought I stated that Germany invaded Poland in WW2 and that's when Britain declared we were at war with Germany. A report I read on this area in Wikepedia a while ago said that the Germans once ruled the whole area before the coming of the Romans who enslaved everybody. I couldn't find this article again last night, but I did find something about the Habsburg Dynasty. That the Archduke who was murdered by the Serbs was a member of the Habsburg Royal Lineage. The Habsburgs ruled over Austria and other tribal areas like Serbia.

The Habsburgs were very friendly with the Germans especially the German Aristocracy and often let them rule in some areas.

However these details make no difference to the point I was making that WW1 was started by the same old tribal territorial warfare,because the Serbian Nationalist Group called the Black Hand wouldn't live under the control of the Habsburg Royal family and wanted control of their own territory so they assasinated the ArchDuke according to Wikipedia anyway. I don't know if it's right but I did hear somewhere that the Germans were related to the Saxons.
Maye I should read their history but I don't feel like it.
It's like a stuffed tomato recipe. Life's too short to stuff a tomato.

Cherful,
I understand your point, however as I attempted to indicate, the interrelationships within contemporary economics realise the fundamental you are identifying, comparative of a time leap to current observation.

Yes all wealth may be observed derived from a source of natural resources, but to suggest that fundamental explains the dynamics and paradigm of current economics is simplistic to the point of its observation as misrepresentative and misleading.

For economic diversity, evolved from the time cavemen traded tools, is unrecognisable to current practice, value quantification, and identification of asset bases. In further example, difference is observed of even those prime natural resources your observation refers to, where some are renewable [they replenish], others are linear [their formation may be realised over such vast periods, effectively for our civilisation, they are not replaced before they are expended.

Therefore, owing to observation of the development of the multitude of economic interrelationships developed, and their progression to current practice, you may appreciate how a simplistic explanation of current economic practice and phenomena is neither accurate, constructive, nor useful, and is in fact misleading.

It’s a disingenuous, misleading, and distorted, redneck and feudal construct, to attempt to imply, contemporarily, the landholders, alike the legend of Atlas, are upholding the wealth, prosperity, and destiny of the world. For starters, the asset bases and economic application of mining companies acknowledged as market leaders, are so diverse they are comprehensively unrecognisable to the model of which you ascribe. Their prime purpose and focused pursuit is the enrichment of their shareholders, to the exclusion of all else if necessary.

- The killing in the Balkans is identified accurately as genocide. We are differentiated from the rest of the animal kingdom by our ability to comprehend our actions and intent.

ozzie,
once again you misunderstand me completely, for I could not possibly suggest your intellect, along with the other cohort grubs you identify, could possibly be compared to those of middle eastern terrorists. It would be ludicrous to suggest your intellects are remotely of similar capacity.

Go and have a cold shower, and come to think of it, use hot water as well, and soap, you might feel better.

For stalking women on the net is an act of depravity, consistent with the profile of a parasite of which I accurately defined you, and the irrational dysfunction, fear and cowardice, of a racist bigot you demonstrate in your posts. Such behaviour is clear of your intent, as you wouldn’t try stalking me, for even with such dysfunction you are at least able to comprehend the outcome, and its consequences.

What you are too crazed to understand however, is the ability of a civilised, developed society to protect those of its members predators may consider vulnerable, alike women.

Ngaramda. I was just wondering. Do you work in the Government design office where they design Forms?

And, the over use of "big" word doesn't make you look intelligent. It makes you look Dum. I have a big crake up when I read your posts. I show them to everyone then we roll around the floor laughing. Thanks for that. I'm a great fan of good humour.

I suspect that you are a closet reverse racist. You hate whitie don't you. It definately shows in your posts.

"I thought I stated that Germany invaded Poland in WW2 and that's when Britain declared we were at war with Germany."

No you didn't. In fact you went on about WW1.

"A report I read on this area in Wikepedia a while ago said that the Germans once ruled the whole area before the coming of the Romans who enslaved everybody."

A bit of an exaggeration. Again, it's Wikipedia. Germany did not exist as a nation until 1871. So there were no 'Germans' to speak of in Roman times. There were the Goths and the Huns though. Only the Southern part of Germany was part of the Roman Empire.

"I couldn't find this article again last night, but I did find something about the Habsburg Dynasty."

Probably a good thing.

"That the Archduke who was murdered by the Serbs was a member of the Habsburg Royal Lineage."

Yes. Correct.

"The Habsburgs ruled over Austria and other tribal areas like Serbia."

Perhaps we're being a bit loose in the use of the word 'tribal'. The Serbs lived in villages and had an organised society. They weren't hunter-gatherers.

"The Habsburgs were very friendly with the Germans especially the German Aristocracy and often let them rule in some areas."

Yes they were 'friendly' but only after the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Remember, modern Germany was a Prussian dominated state from 1871-1945. But, no, the Austro-Hungarian Empire didn't let the Germans 'rule' in some areas of their empire. Its not like taking your neighbours car out for a spin.

"I don't know if it's right but I did hear somewhere that the Germans were related to the Saxons."

Saxony is a state in Germany.

"Maye I should read their history but I don't feel like it."
'Maybe' you should read some history. It is interesting and helps explain the world that we currently live in.