www.owohrod.com.

To pull the teeth  and retard the grown of the 'feared' rising Iranian power in the region. While the Europeans appearing to be largely holding their ranks, and arguing that the INA is a good agreement and that it does not need to be changed.  France's Emmanuel Macro could be the weak link, by indicating that he has some sympathy with the Trump/American and Israeli position.  This, of course, is likely to be all part and parcel of Macro's Francophone Imperial vision of Africa and the Middle East. So, what is Iran to do, knowing that the world is looking at what is happening in the Korean Peninsula, and allowing it to skew their vision of a 'free Iran'?  Is President Rouhani and his government to concede to what the American, Israeli and Saudi Arabian governments are asking of it and its people?  To give up, role over and live like a vassal nation? Or to bind their own hands and feet, and secure the chains to their necks? There is a dange

More consideration should be given to the need to 'rehabilitate' offenders.  To stop them from offending. Which means that, when the criminal justice system of any society resorts to incarcerating convicted offenders for  X number of years.  Despite the fact that they are unlikely to offend again.  The primary consideration can only be that of 'punishing and taking revenge' on the offender, for the offences which they have already committed, or have been convicted of committing.  'Retributive justice', is seems, is what much of our criminal justice systems are founded upon. Which are not necessarily one and the same thing. Beyond the argument that, by incarcerating offenders, society relieves itself from having to suffer further wrong-doing at the hands and/or instigation of the convicted persons.  And knowing that they are being deprived of the freedom to walk freely as free people on the earth, and enjoy similar freedoms to those which are open

President Donald Trump and his government have been persistent in their opposition to the Iranian Nuclear Agreement.   Which was reached between Iran, America - of course, under the prudent leadership of former President Barak Obama - Russia, and 5 European countries, including Britain, France and Germany.  The agreement came after a lot of complex and difficult discussion and negotiations.   But it was a truly history agreement, which opened the gate, or, if you prefer, the countries of the world to resume trading with Iran and not having their hands remained tied by the American Congress.  In its overarching and self-appointed role as the worlds, Policeman, Prosecutor, Defender, Judge and incarcerator. All in one. The only two countries, or governments, that were disappointed and upset by the Iran Nuclear Agreement, were Saudi Arabia and Israel. They did not and still do not like the agreement.  Why? Well, because it left the government and people of Iran stil

However, except for the 'sense of justice', the 'revengeful satisfaction' which it conveys onto the victim or the family and friends, on the interested Joe Public. What benefit does incarcerating non-violent and low risk offenders in prison for many years serves? Is it now time for 'civilised' societies, in the 21st Century, to find more efficacious and beneficial methods of punishing and seeking retribution from those who have been caught and punished for contravening criminal laws? The least any civilised society or country could do, regarding the unfortunate people, as well as those who really need to be incarcerated because of  the enormity of their offences. And/or the continuing danger they pose to the safety of others.  Is to declare an annual or 6 monthly amnesty to rid their prisons of all those inmates convicted of non-violent offences. And those who had committed such offences, but are deemed not to constitute any of any serious risk

Of course, their are other things than dying and the manner of ones demise, which occupy the contemplative minds of the old. Such as living. Such as having less time to live and do all the beautiful and wonderful things which make for an enjoyable living.  Whereas the young might complain of having too much time on their hands and too little to do.  As the contemplate then 'next big and exciting event' in their live, which might be going 'clubbing' or on holiday.  The old might be ever so conscious of how little time they might have and how much they want to do with it. For the old, depending on their oldness, time can be counted in days, months, and a matter of years.  The old, even when they speak with what can appear to be the certainty of the young, publicly, is likely to be only too aware of the uncertainty of extending their plans too far into the future.  They might have 'a 5 year plan', but 'a 10 year or even 15 year plan'?

Jihadi.: Lord! I would not say that I love killing per se, but I was prepared to do what was necessary to help to create an 'Islamic Califate.' I was prepared to kill and/or be killed, in your service, Lord! Allah.: Mm, is that so, or, in your case, Jihadi. Was that really so? You were killing and destroying because you wanted to serve me? Tell me, Jihadi! Do you really think that I need an Islamic Caliphate? Of what good would it be to me? Jihadi.: Well, Lord. In an Islamic Caliphate, all the people would be in submission to you. They would all recognise that you are 'great' and worship only you. Allah.: Are you sure of that, Jihadi? Are you sure that in such a state, the people would not be submitting to the will of its leaders. The will of those who set themselves up as Imams in such a state? Jihadi.: Well, Lord. The Imams seek to serve only you. And ... Allah.: Never mind all that, Jihadi. All the priests, the Imams, all the clergy know only too we

To not regress to the state of the disinhibited child, who seems to be oblivious to, or not to care about the social spectacle he/she is making of their tantrum. And so it is, that, probably the best way to prevent or control the red mist enveloping ones emotional state, and escalating into destructive anger, at times, is for us to concentrate on knowing ourselves better.  Is to work diligently at knowing oneself. To be aware of the things, the occasions and situations which are likely to bring us to boil, and to not allow them, the individually, 'small things', to build up.  To diffuse them before they become explosive.  To be more in control of ourselves and not unintentionally lumber others with the challenge of having to control or try to control and protect us from our own destructive actions.  Which they might, at times, have to do. To train ourselves to 'instinctively' to walk away, both physically and psychologically, from fraught or poten

So, what would be the likely effect of many or most countries opening their prisons and freeing their non-violent prisoners, and those who might have committed violent crimes, but no longer pose a serious risk of reoffending? Well, there would be both practical and moral considerations. The practical ones would include the likely adverse implications of not making adequate arrangements for helping the inmates to resettle in and become responsible members of their communities. Arrangements would, for example, have to be made for them to have suitable accommodation and take care of themselves. They would need some support with finding jobs and earning money to look after themselves. Some or many of them might also need effective support with dealing with drug and alcohol misuse and addictions. All of which could easily lead to reoffending behaviours. Finding alternative means of getting non-violent prisoners, and those who are deemed to no longer pose any significa